Sitting of 16 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Electoral Pilots
    Mr. Colin Challen: If he will make a statement about local electoral pilots. [125859]
    The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): For the 2003 local elections we approved a wide range of pilots, 33 involving all-postal ballots and 17 involving e-voting pilots, which covered in total some 6.4 million electors. The initial headline results are encouraging; the average turnout for all-postal pilots was close to 50 per cent., and where there was e-voting about a fifth of voters opted to use electronic methods. We are now awaiting the Electoral Commission's detailed evaluation, which we will want to consider carefully and to which we will respond in the autumn.
    Mr. Challen: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply because it shows that the pilots are finding new ways to get people involved in our democratic processes. I urge him, however, to read early-day motion 174, in my name, which refers to the potential for fraud in electronic voting methods. There is evidence from the United States, where some of those systems have been used extensively, that there are no proper controls or means of verifying whether fraud or other deficiencies have occurred. The Government need to read that early-day motion very carefully.
    Mr. Raynsford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits of pilots that appear to be turning around the decline in participation in elections. All Members of the House should welcome the evidence that a number of the pilots have been very successful in increasing turnout.
    I agree also that it is vital to have safeguards against the risk of fraud, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the electronic voting systems used in the pilots all include measures to provide the audit trail required to verify that any ballot paper has not been altered or lost. We are absolutely clear about that. Looking at his early-day motion, I have to say that we are not convinced of
    264
    the merits of a paper audit trail, which could undermine the security and secrecy of the ballot and prove unnecessarily bureaucratic. However, we are committed to proper audit and control systems, and we will be looking carefully at the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: We all want to see an increase in turnout, but we do not want it to be achieved on the basis of "vote early, vote often". Many returning officers, and professionals from all parties, have expressed worries about vote rigging in all-postal ballots. Detective Chief Inspector David Churchill of West Midlands fraud squad said that
    "the current electoral system is based on trust and that trust is being eroded … The new postal voting system provides an opportunity for malpractice."
    Now that the pilots have been in place for some time, what lessons about fraud has the right hon. Gentleman learned, and what measures does he intend to introduce to tighten the procedures to ensure that we preserve the sanctity of the ballot box?
    Mr. Raynsford: We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the ballot remains as secure against fraud as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know that any electoral system is potentially open to fraud, and it is essential that there are safeguards. That is why, for all the pilots that we have run, we have ensured that there is proper evaluation, and particular attention has been paid to any allegations of fraud, which have all been investigated. The Electoral Commission is considering that in its report, which we expect to receive on 31 July, and we will obviously give a full response when we have received its recommendations.
    Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend look not only at the issue of declining participation, but at that of declining electorates? He will be aware of a parliamentary question that I tabled recently about a massive drop in the size of the electorate in more than 100 seats in the United Kingdom. Some of those decreases are unaccounted for. Will my right hon. Friend look into the reasons for them? Seventy-five of the decreases are in Labour seats.
    Mr. Raynsford: We are in regular discussion with the Electoral Commission about measures to ensure that the registration system for elections is as thorough and accurate as possible. We certainly share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that there is no unjustified decline in the number of people registered to vote, as those who are not registered are consequently denied their entitlement to vote. We shall certainly continue to do all that we can to ensure that there are effective electoral registration measures.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I endorse the notes of caution sounded by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)? Does the Minister accept that the vote is indeed a precious possession and people should regard it as such? We should think of the people of South Africa and how they responded when they first had the vote.

    265
    Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we do not devalue the importance of the vote by making the process too easy and therefore open to abuse?
    Mr. Raynsford: I do not believe that making it easier for people to exercise their democratic right devalues the process. It is important to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to uphold the integrity of the ballot. However, in an age when people are much more used to responding quickly to a variety of other transactions, using electronic or postal means rather than going in person to an office, it seems logical that the same principle should apply to voting. It is right to give people a greater opportunity to vote by post and electronic means where appropriate safeguards are in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares our satisfaction with the evidence that we are beginning to turn the corner in terms of participation, because declining participation in elections should deeply concern us all.

    Fire Service (Wales)
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the implications of fire service reform for fire services in Wales. [125860]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The fire and rescue service White Paper published on 30 June makes clear our commitment to devolve responsibility for the fire and rescue service in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales. We will ensure that devolution is consistent with broader emergency and civil contingency arrangements, and that the capacity for a UK-wide response to any terrorist threat, or other threat, is maintained. In the meantime, we will discuss with the National Assembly for Wales and the Local Government Association how best to deliver the robust regional management arrangements that we consider essential to deliver the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.
    Mr. David: I thank the Minister for his reply and for his commitment to sorting out the present shambles of the fire service. Will he reinforce that commitment by confirming that we will have nothing less than a fire and rescue service that saves more lives and reduces the number of injuries?
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is concerned that we have the best organised fire and rescue service. Implementation of integrated risk management plans will mean deployment of resources based on risk to life rather than building density. The need to refocus the fire service from intervention to prevention to help save more lives is at the heart of our White Paper.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I very much welcome what the Minister says about devolving the fire service to the National Assembly. That is right and proper as part of the process of devolution, as it has been called. Will he say a little more about two matters? First, will the pay and conditions of firefighters be devolved, and how will that work in a devolved structure?
    266
    Secondly, will the financing of the fire and rescue service in Wales be done through the Barnett formula or alternative arrangements?
    Phil Hope: Pay is a matter for local government employers. The Welsh fire and rescue authorities receive revenue funding for the service they provide from the principal councils within each brigade area. In turn, those councils receive revenue support from the National Assembly. However, the financial implications of devolution will be considered as part of wider discussions on the transfer of functions. My officials are in discussions with their counterparts in the Welsh Assembly to take the matter forward.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that in most rural areas of Wales, including Monmouthshire, the fire service is provided by the retained fire service? Many of those firefighters work full-time as well as working for the fire service. What improvement in the pay and conditions of the retained fire service will come about as a result of the recent modernisation?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important role that retained firefighters play in the fire service not just in Wales and rural areas, but across the country. The fire and rescue service White Paper spells out our commitment to ensure that retained firefighters and full-time firefighters get better pay and conditions. We have agreed a modernisation agenda, linked to pay, that will greatly improve the pay and conditions of those firefighters over the next two years.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Following on from that answer, there is difficulty in getting 24-hour cover in rural areas in Wales because of the problem of attracting retained firemen. Part of the solution is to encourage more women to participate in the service. Do the Government have plans to encourage more women to fulfil that vital public service?
    Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We want a fire and rescue service that more closely reflects the communities that it serves. We want more women recruited, trained and deployed as firefighters in all ranks and to carry out all roles that firefighters are asked to play. The new role of firefighters—the focus on prevention—will, I think, attract more women to the fire service, where they will be involved fully in all the roles that every firefighter will be expected to perform under the modernisation procedures.

    House-building Programme
    Michael Fabricant: What plans he has to increase the national house-building programme; and if he will make a statement. [125862]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The national house-building programme is for 2.2 million houses, of which 930,000 houses are planned in the London, south-east and midlands areas by 2016. The step change that I announced to the House in the recent sustainable communities plan identified the fact that a

    267
    further 200,000 new homes in London, the south-east and the midlands were needed to meet the high demand, and that represents a 20 per cent. increase.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. On 9 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making a statement about the euro, spoke about the need for extra housing over and above both the current supply and the Department's plans. How will the Deputy Prime Minister respond?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor initiated the Barker review to look at the mismatch in housing supply and demand. Indeed, there was a breakfast meeting this morning with all the stakeholders. We are clearly concerned to see what we can do, not only about house numbers within sustainable communities, but about the relevance of that matter to the debate on the entry into Europe to which the Chancellor referred.
    Ms Oona King: Under the previous Administration, there was chronic under-investment in housing, but we have doubled investment. However, will my right hon. Friend consider the problem of overcrowding? I took one of his predecessors to see a family of 16 people who are living in two bedrooms. Will he review the overcrowding standard that dates from the 1930s and further increase investment in housing?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point out the problem, particularly in her constituency, of high demand and low levels of social housing, which was made much more difficult by the right-to-buy facility introduced at a cost of £40 billion in subsidies. We are changing those priorities, and more resources are being provided, as the step change demonstrates. However, I will not kid my hon. Friend—a considerable number of extra houses, both rented and new housing, need to be provided, and we are doing as much as we can to meet that demand.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that his ambitious plans for house building will fail miserably unless there is a huge increase in the number of trained construction workers? Does he acknowledge that the Construction Industry Training Board estimates that in the next three years we need an extra 76,000 trained workers to enter the industry in each year? Why, therefore, has the Government's flagship scheme "Ambition: Construction" trained only 171 people in its first year?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a real point about the problem of training in the industry, which has existed for decades. It is a real problem, and we have to find a solution, but I am not sure that the solution is to abolish the Department, which is the Liberals' policy. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—construction is the one industry that still has a levy for training and still fails to provide enough trained people, whether builders, plumbers, electricians or other kinds of workers. The 175 people to whom he referred are taking part in
    268
    training that is a return to the old kind of apprenticeship system, and we want that to continue. However, it will not meet the demand for housing or provide all the skilled labour that is required, which is why I am putting a great deal of emphasis on off-site manufacturing of houses—£250 million has been provided this year solely for houses built in that way. That relieves some of the pressure on the demand for skilled labour.
    Colin Burgon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any effective house-building programme should have at its heart the effective use of our brownfield sites? Bearing in mind his recent visit to the millennium village at Allerton Bywater, does he agree that that is a classic example of building on brownfield sites better to protect our green fields?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I enjoyed my visit to Allerton Bywater, which is on an old pit site and is one of the millennium villages that we planned. The site is difficult, but they are making great progress there, and I was very encouraged when I saw it. I noticed also that it has increased the green belt in that area. Using brownfield sites and increasing the green belt is in line with our policy.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why, in the seventh year of this new Labour Government, house building is now at such a level that it led the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee to come up with a shocking statement in a recent report? It says:
    "The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever."
    How can that be under this Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Select Committee. I do not always agree with every analysis by every Select Committee and we have exchanges about that, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a fair point about the increase in homelessness. We inherited a difficult problem, as he recognises. Under the previous Government's housing policy, half a million homes were repossessed, 1.2 million households suffered from negative equity, there was a £19 billion backlog in local authority housing, and the Government's priority was £40 billion to subsidise the right-to-buy scheme. We had to change that. We are increasing the housing supply; we have reduced bed-and-breakfast accommodation and homelessness—
    Mr. James Gray: It has got worse.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, in a number of areas there has been an increase, but I can show that in the period since 1997 the position has improved. Under both Governments, not enough has been done. We have not provided enough houses. That is why we have embarked on a step change in the policy.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: We are now in the seventh year of the new Labour Government, and the situation has got substantially worse. The same departmental Select

    269
    Committee report states that we need to deliver an additional 35,000 affordable houses. How will the Government do that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The step change seems to be a change in the Leader of the Opposition. We have had to reverse the situation. We have increased the number of houses being built and an ambitious programme is under way. We have dealt with the backlog of unfit housing—800,000 houses have been improved. We have a target to improve 1 million houses in a 10-year period, and we are on course to achieve that. We are improving rented accommodation, refurbishing council house estates and building new houses, but, as I have told the House time and again, it would be better if we could get a consensus on improvement, rather than the party-politicking that the hon. Gentleman obviously wants to pursue.

    Social Inclusion
    Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on the role of his Department in promoting social inclusion. [125863]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works with other Departments and local agencies to address the problems faced by deprived areas, in particular to tackle problems highlighted by the social exclusion unit. There has been important progress, including, for example, a 10 per cent. drop in teenage pregnancies over the past three years.
    Linda Perham: What message can my hon. Friend give to local authorities such as the London borough of Redbridge, run by the self-styled party for the vulnerable, which has abolished cabinet responsibility for social inclusion and torpedoed the project for promoting social inclusion?
    Yvette Cooper: I am sorry to hear that the council has not taken social exclusion seriously. There are unjust inequalities in this country. It is not fair that people's chances in life should depend on where they live and what jobs their parents do. There are a series of investment programmes to tackle social exclusion, including sure start. Wise local government works with those programmes, not just because they are good for those on low incomes, but because they are good for the whole community.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to promote social inclusion is to incorporate affordable housing in high-income housing developments? Is she aware that significant numbers of developers are evading their planning obligations by building small, exclusive developments under the 14-house threshold? Will she address that anomaly urgently?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, of which the Government are aware. There are discretionary powers for local government in that regard. It is an important matter that needs to be
    270
    addressed. That is why the Government have a wide programme to promote affordable housing and housing for key workers in particular areas.

    Decent Homes Target
    Mr. Andrew Love: What progress his Department is making in meeting its decent homes target. [125864]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I am pleased to inform the House that the 2001 English house conditions survey report, published yesterday, shows that we have reduced the number of non-decent homes in the social sector by more than 700,000. When we came to power in 1997, we inherited a situation where there were about 2,300,000 non-decent social sector homes. Forward plans from local authorities show that we expect to meet our target of a one-third reduction by next year, and we are on track for all dwellings owned by local authorities and registered social landlords to meet the decent homes standard by 2010.
    Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the decent housing standard depends very much on the large-scale voluntary transfer programme, which has now slipped well below the target of 200,000 houses a year? What action are the Government taking to ensure that the programme continues, so that we can be assured in this Parliament that we will complete the improvement within the 10-year time scale?
    Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, in order to meet the decent homes target, a good measure of property transfer will be required. It is worth bearing it in mind that we have a spending programme for housing of £22 billion over the next few years. A number of local authorities believe that they will be able to deliver the decent homes target by using existing funding streams. Elsewhere, the programme of private finance initiative stock transfers and arm's length management organisations will be required. We are working very closely with local authorities and registered social landlords to, secure that objective, which we believe we will attain.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that a number of developments in my constituency that originally received a lot of local support have now become highly controversial on account of the relevant planning policy guidelines? In one case, density has been increased from roughly 60 to 150 houses. Surely, he should be trusting local planners and local people and not relying on blunt PPGs as an instrument.
    Keith Hill: We expect to co-operate with local planners, but the fact is that, under the previous Government, substantial bites were made into the green belt. This Government are committed to preserving the green belt. Indeed, no fewer than 30,000 hectares of green belt have been restored over the past six years. We believe that the future is to build as extensively as possible on brownfield sites, which will require high-density building. However, what we say above all is that

    271
    we have to get away from the very poor quality of design that was so often implemented in the past under the previous Administration. We place the central requirement on decent design in high-density building.

    Sustainable Communities
    Siobhain McDonagh: What steps he is taking to implement the Liveability agenda in the development of sustainable communities. [125865]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Liveability, which is about the quality of our local environment—the streets, parks and open spaces—is at the heart of the sustainable communities plan that announced to the House a short while ago. We have increased the budget from which local authorities fund improvements to the local environment by more than £1 billion for the next three years. In addition, we have set aside an extra £201 million specifically to help transform our parks and green spaces and to improve urban design and skills—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he ensure that local authorities have the right powers to tackle the problems of graffiti, which blight the lives of people in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House is well aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend conducted for removing cars abandoned on the streets. We introduced powers to assist with the purposes of that campaign, which has helped every constituency. I am well aware of the survey that she recently conducted on tackling antisocial behaviour, which showed that crime had fallen by 27 per cent. in her constituency. We are looking closely at the other matters on which she is campaigning. If she is as successful as she was in getting the Government to introduce powers in respect of abandoned cars, her efforts will help to make improvements and to tackle graffiti and other problems of antisocial behaviour in her constituency.
    Mr. Graham Brady: In Altrincham and Sale, we do not have sufficient secondary school places for the number of families seeking places—yet flat building and infill development are progressing apace. The local authority says that planning guidance does not let it stop that building, as it cannot take into account the absence of school places. When will the Government take that into account and revise planning guidance accordingly?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great deal of discussion about the planning changes that are necessary to deal with some of the current deficiencies. Indeed, some of those changes feature in legislation that is currently before the House. As for investment in education, we are putting a considerable amount into education—[Interruption.] Well, I think that we have 25,000 more teachers, plus
    272
    80,000 helpers. Criticism from an Opposition who, when they were in government, slashed teacher numbers and the quality of education, is a bit too much to accept.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of administration of (a) council tax and (b) council tax benefit in 2002–03. [125866]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): In 2002–03, council tax benefit administration costs in England totalled £205 million. Council tax collection costs totalled £318 million and have been decreasing in both absolute and real terms since council tax was introduced.
    Mr. Burstow: I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the huge increase in council tax in the current year and the costs of collection and administration that he describes, will the Department's balance of funding review consider not only the balance of funding, but the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fairer form of taxation such as local income tax?
    Phil Hope: As I said, council tax collection costs have gone down. We have all seen in the press the latest uncosted, ill-thought-through, back-of-a-fag-packet proposals of the Liberal Democrats, with a local income tax of 3p in the pound and a huge bureaucracy dumped on local government. We have devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, London and the English regions, and we have given a fairer deal to the council tax payer.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Chope: Does the Prime Minister share my concern that two thirds of the British people do not trust the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that what people do recognise is that a Government who have delivered the lowest inflation, lowest mortgage rates and lowest unemployment for decades, the best ever school results, and now record investment in the national health service, are a Government whom this country will be pleased to return at the next general election.
    Jim Knight: My constituents support the tougher sentences for murderers and sex offenders in the Criminal Justice Bill. Given what has been going on in the other place, can the Prime Minister assure me that, unlike Conservative Members, he is committed to seeing that Bill through?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to seeing it through. The behaviour of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition in opposing measures that will protect people in circumstances where there is an attempt to intimidate juries and where, as senior police officers are telling us, it is absolutely essential to deal with organised crime, is absolutely shameful.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said that it is "most unlikely" that Dr. Kelly was the prime source for the story about the Government's manipulation of intelligence, and that he has been "poorly treated by the Government". Will the Prime Minister now apologise?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Affairs Committee has given its opinion as to the source. We have said to the Ministry of Defence that we do not know who the source is. The BBC, however, is a position to know who the source is, and can surely say whether this man is that source.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is rapidly becoming a stranger to the truth. On 10 July, The Times carried a quote from No. 10 saying that it was "99 per cent. convinced" that the Gilligan source was David Kelly. So No. 10 did believe that it was David Kelly. A Labour member of the Committee says that the civil servant has been used as a fall guy by the Government. This has all the fingerprints of Alastair Campbell, who is using the machinery of Government to pursue a personal vendetta. How long is the Prime Minister going to let this continue; or was Alastair Campbell correct when he said, "Tony couldn't cope without me"?
    The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that of course it does not know who the source is—only one body does, and that is the BBC. If there is some doubt about it, it is very simple for the BBC to clear it up. I should have thought that it is perfectly obvious that all the BBC needs to do is simply to say yes or no. It can do that, so why does it not?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: We have had Formula 1, Mittal, Hinduja, Robinson, Mandelson and now the dodgy dossiers. Alastair Campbell and the Prime Minister have created a culture of deceit and spin at the heart of Government. When will the Prime Minister realise that until he sacks Campbell, no one will believe a word that he says any more?
    Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that no one can believe us about Iraq, yet last year, he told us that he believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capability and that he fully supported action against Iraq—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are now apparently calling for a full-scale judicial inquiry into intelligence. Are they saying that they were duped
    274
    and misled? The right hon. Gentleman supported action against Iraq. The Conservatives' current position is to claim that they were somehow misled over Iraq. The worst insult that I can level at them is that they are displaying opportunism worthy of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: Since 2,000 skilled manufacturing jobs in east Yorkshire depend on a Government decision to award a contract to British Aerospace for Hawk jets, will my right hon. Friend make an early announcement to secure those jobs and provide a first-class British product for our military?
    The Prime Minister: We are in the course of making a decision on the matter. Of course, we want to do our best for the British defence industry, but that must be done on a cost-competitive basis. We are balancing those two factors and when we reach a decision, we shall announce it in the normal way.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Prime Minister previously told me that he stands by the accuracy of the assertions in the original September dossier on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, how does he square the warning about the 45-minute imminence of an attack with Dr. Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday? Dr. Kelly has worked for the United Nations Special Commission as well as the Ministry of Defence. He said that such a scenario was very unlikely. Which is the correct version?
    The Prime Minister: It is also worth pointing out that Dr. Kelly made it clear that he believed that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capability. In the September dossier, we said that we had received such intelligence. That was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The allegation that the claim had been inserted into the dossier against the wishes of the security services by No. 10 Downing street was completely untrue. Since the right hon. Gentleman and Liberal Democrat Members have made that allegation, perhaps he will now say that he agrees that it is false.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given the evidence that was offered to the Committee yesterday, was the 45-minute warning based in substance and fact or not? The Prime Minister makes one claim, the expert before the Committee makes another. Does not the continuing contradiction underline the need for the Prime Minister to announce before the summer recess the establishment of a time-limited independent inquiry, under a judge, to get to the bottom of the matter in order to restore public confidence once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the basis of the call for a public inquiry is that an issue arose in relation to 45 minutes because we had inserted false information into the dossier. [Interruption.] Now Liberal Democrat Members claim that they had no intention of making such a claim. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that the intelligence in the September dossier was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The basis of the claim—that the information was inserted into the dossier against the

    275
    advice of the security services—is untrue. The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is not making that claim; he could have fooled me.
    Chris McCafferty: Following Monday's publication of the second and third reports into the Harold Shipman inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree with Dame Janet that the death certification process and the coroner system require urgent and radical change? When will the Government publish their response to her inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: We shall of course look very carefully at the recommendations that have been made. It is also extremely important that we recognise that the Shipman case, although absolutely horrific, does not in any shape or form reflect on the work that GPs do in this country, because the vast majority of them do a wonderful job for our national health service. I agree entirely, however, that we must scrutinise the recommendations very carefully, particularly those relating to coroners' courts.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: As the Prime Minister's country home is in Buckinghamshire, he will no doubt be familiar with the pride that we take in our selective school system, and with the great results that all our children get in all our schools. With the Education Secretary renewing his threats against our grammar schools, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will stand by his word and will neither change the existing ballot system nor introduce legislation to abolish our grammar schools?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly stand by what has been said, and I would also like to point out to the hon. Lady that no grammar school has been closed under this Government. I hope she realises that the most important thing is surely to look at the school results not just of the small number of schools that are selective but of the vast majority that are not. I hope that she will also acknowledge that, under this Government, results in the non-selective schools in her constituency have gone up hugely for primary school students, at GCSE and at A-level.
    Jeff Ennis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the document entitled "A Hard Day's Work Never Killed Anyone: Negligent Bosses Did", which was launched recently by the Transport and General Workers Union and which deals with the issue of corporate killing? What does the Prime Minister think about this document, and will he consider introducing a Bill in the next Parliament to deal with the issue of corporate killing?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have pledged to introduce legislation on this issue, although it is important to recognise that this is to do with corporate responsibility and that we do not believe that charges should be levelled against individual directors. This is an important issue, however, and we
    276
    have made our position clear on it. I am not aware of the precise details of the TGWU document, but I shall read it now that my hon. Friend has drawn it to my attention.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What should patients do if their local hospital has no stars under the Government's rating system?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that they will carry on supporting the work being done in those hospitals to improve them and to make their care better, and that they will realise that it is only as a result of what this Government have done that they even know what the proper estimate of their hospital is.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Would it not be better for patients simply to ignore the ratings gimmick? As the new chairman of the British Medical Association says of the ratings,
    "they measure little more than hospitals' ability to meet political targets."
    Will the Prime Minister now confirm that, of the 20 hospitals with the worst rate of hospital-acquired infection, 13 of them today get the top rating for cleanliness?
    The Prime Minister: The range of indicators that the Commission for Health Improvement takes into account covers all sorts of things, including hospital infections. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has now pledged that the Conservative party will abolish targets. There are targets relating to cleanliness, to waiting, to the treatment of breast cancer, and to in-patient and out-patient treatment, and I think that they are fully justified. On the right hon. Gentleman's particular point, the whole range of indicators is taken into account in these circumstances. That is why it is sensible that we provide the CHI with that information. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he would deny it to the commission.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The statistic that I have just mentioned shows categorically that this whole set-up is a gimmick. It tells us all that we need to know about this Government and the way in which they run the health service. As the audit commissioner said, we now have "quick fixes" to meet Government targets, rather than long-term reforms to serve patients better. With an NHS that puts bureaucrats and targets ahead of patients and doctors, is it any wonder than no one believes a word that this Prime Minister says any more?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman says that these things do not matter, let us just have a look at his own constituency to see what the national health service has been doing as a result of the extra investment there. There has been a 38 per cent. reduction in waiting lists for in-patients and a 73 per cent. reduction in outpatient waiters over 13 weeks. [Interruption.] He says that he does not believe that. Perhaps he will tell us whether he thinks it is true that, on 21 June this year, a

    277
    £2.5 million emergency medicine centre was opened at Whipps Cross hospital with 24 new medical assessment beds.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Nonsense.
    The Prime Minister: Well, it is either there or it is not. I think that Conservative Members should go and have a look.
    As for believing what I say, we can believe one thing said by the right hon. Gentleman's health spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). This is what he is on the record as saying:
    "The first [phase] is to persuade the public the NHS is not working"—
    [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying.
    The Prime Minister: I am about to explain why we are not going to follow this policy. Okay? This is the policy that the Government are not going to follow. We are not going to follow a policy that states
    "We've got a problem in this country where the NHS and health care have been synonymous. We're here to break that"
    We are not going to follow that policy. The hon. Member for Woodspring went on
    "That means we get money. raise money from people through tax, certainly by health insurance, and even more so it means from self-pay."
    We are not going to follow that policy either. We are going to carry on following the policies that we are following.
    Ian Lucas: Community support officers are welcomed up and down the country because they make a large and visible contribution to local policing. In Wrexham, following the disturbances that we experienced last month, there is now a need for such policing. The local police and local people want community support officers immediately. Will the Prime Minister please have a quiet word with the Home Office, and ask it to implement this Labour policy as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said. As he probably knows, there are many community support officers working throughout the country. I consider their link to antisocial behaviour orders very important. With the Anti-social Behaviour Bill coming into effect, and given our ability to take more effective action against antisocial behaviour, I think that the cause of community support officers, and increasing them—
    Michael Fabricant: How about more police?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I almost forgot to mention this, but he has reminded me. Yes, as well as more community support officers there are now record numbers of police officers.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Does the Prime Minister recall Harold Macmillan's famous dictum that no Prime Minister should be in conflict with the Brigade of Guards, the Church or the National Union of Mineworkers? This Prime Minister is now in conflict with the United Nations arms inspectors, the BBC and the Central Intelligence Agency. Is it any wonder that people are now beginning to ask whether the real problem is a dodgy dossier or a dodgy Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman prepared that one pretty carefully.
    The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to have been against the war from the very beginning. There are Members who, for perfectly honourable reasons, take that position. Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman, however. When we reflect on Security Council resolution 1441, which expressed the unanimous UN view that weapons of mass destruction were a threat to the world, when we see Iraq getting a governing council on a broadly representative basis for the first time in decades, and when we know that—according to the UN, not the British Government—there are some 300,000 missing people and 80 mass graves, I happen to believe, still, that we did the right thing.
    Lynne Jones: On 3 July, the Government finally admitted that they had not passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency the evidence on which the Prime Minister based his statement to the House that we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the failure of the source of that intelligence to pass it on to the IAEA for scrutiny constitutes a breach of article 10 of Security Council resolution 1441, and would he still use such words of absolute certainty today?
    The Prime Minister: I stand by entirely the claim that was made last September. Let me make two points to my hon. Friend. First, as she knows, the intelligence on which we based that was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA. The IAEA has accepted that it received no such forged documents from British intelligence: we had independent intelligence to that effect. Secondly, it may be worth pointing out to the House and to the public that it is not as if the link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know that in the 1980s Iraq purchased more than 270 tonnes of uranium from Niger. Therefore, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—let us at least put it like that—that Iraq went back to Niger again. That is why I stand by entirely the statement that was made in the September dossier.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Prime Minister will renege on his commitment to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster?
    The Prime Minister: No, we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Some 3,000 pensioners—among the least well-off in the constituency—are £30 a week better off as a result of the minimum income guarantee, over and above what they would have received under the old income support from the Tories. Some 5,000 more will know that thrift pays when the pension credit comes in later this year. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that people do claim those benefits?
    The Prime Minister: There are already more than 1 million pensioner households on the new system, and of course we must ensure that the information gets to pensioners. In addition to all the other help that we are giving to the poorest pensioners—additional help with television licences for the over-75s, for example, the winter fuel allowance and so on—hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country will benefit from the new pension credit. That is why we remain committed to introducing it and will not do what the Conservatives would do—withdraw it and abolish it.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Prime Minister now rests his case for war on Iraq on the successful removal of Saddam Hussein's evil regime. I supported the war and I applaud that success. Before the war, the Prime Minister explicitly ruled out regime change as a reason for war. Indeed, it was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that were the casus belli. Can he now reassure the House that we and the people of this country were not duped, and that British soldiers were not sent to their deaths on a false premise?
    The Prime Minister: I really am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members now say that, because at the time—let us recall—they and their Front Benchers were urging me to take action on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, wholly outside the dossier and the evidence. I do not accept that people were misled at all. I stand entirely by what was in the dossier and, in case anyone should doubt that weapons of mass destruction were an issue that did not just preoccupy the British or American Governments, in resolution 1441 the whole of the UN Security Council—not just Britain and America—agreed that they were an issue. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like others, should wait for the Iraq survey group to complete its work and then we can judge this on the basis of evidence, not speculation.
    Andy King: My right hon. Friend is right to point out the significant progress that has been made in addressing poverty in the United Kingdom, including the winter fuel payment, the pension credit and the child tax credit, among others. Colleagues in this House and in the other place have asked for a meeting with my right hon. Friend to consider the matter of research into the income level necessary for healthy living. Will he agree to meet with us in the very near future to discuss that matter?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues. It is worth pointing out that it is not only the working families tax credit and other benefits and tax credits that are
    280
    assisting people. We have had a record increase in child benefit—up 25 per cent.—and for those on
    the disability income guarantee, we are helping some 133,000 of the poorest severely disabled people through the enhanced disability premium. This is all part of our attempt to make sure that we lift more people out of poverty. Already, since 1997, about half a million fewer children are in low-income households.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: In 1998— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard.
    Mr. Marsden: The Prime Minister and I have had a few differences over the years, but he was right to say, in 1998, that the level of homelessness was a source of shame. However, since 1997, the number of homeless families in priority need has risen from 102,000 to 125,000. Has he not failed some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct to say that homelessness remains a serious problem, but I would point out that the other side of the story is that we also gave commitments to cut the numbers of rough sleepers. We have achieved those commitments successfully.
    Paul Farrelly: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me and, I hope, all Staffordshire Members on both sides of the House, in congratulating our local police on securing the biggest reduction in crime of any force in England and Wales over the past year? However, does he accept that people in our constituencies and communities want to see more police on the beat so that they can feel safe? Therefore, will he say what steps are the Government taking to cut crime and antisocial behaviour even more than they have cut them already?
    The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate the Staffordshire police on their achievement in reducing crime in my hon. Friend's constituency. Whereas crime doubled when the Conservatives were in office, the British crime survey estimates show that crime has fallen by about 25 per cent. under this Government. However, the most important thing that we can do is not just to increase the number of police officers—which we are doing—but to introduce measures on criminal justice and antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats oppose the antisocial behaviour measures. The Conservative party, as I said earlier, is resisting measures that will help to convict some of the worst organised criminals in this country. We cannot deal with crime unless we deal with organised crime as well.
    Angela Watkinson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his chief inspector of schools that the exam system should undergo major reform? Or does he agree with the head teachers in my constituency, who want stability for their students and not more disruption and uncertainty?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly understand why the hon. Lady's head teachers, and others, say that they want stability. The Tomlinson report is a long-term look at what is happening in our exam system. Most people would like us to investigate that, to make sure that our exam system for 14 to 19-year-olds is up to the standard of other countries. Therefore, I do not think that it is wrong to have the report, and we will study its impact very carefully. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that one of the things that her head teachers will welcome, despite the recent difficulties, is the record investment in our school system.
    John McDonnell: Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed the House that the review of the transport arrangements for Royal Mail would increase the volume of mail delivered by rail. However, this month Royal Mail announced that it is to withdraw its rail operation in its entirety. That flies in the face of the Government's integrated transport policy and environmental policy. The basis of the decision has become increasingly open to scrutiny. The Government are the only shareholder in Royal Mail, so will my right hon. Friend undertake a swift review of the decision? Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs interested in the matter? The delegation will include representatives of the work force that is affected, which is facing a potential loss of 500 jobs.
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I should be very happy to meet him and a delegation who will express those concerns in detail to me. The only thing that I hope that my hon. Friend realises is that the Government have to be very careful about interfering, and compelling a company—even one in which we are the shareholder—to do things that the company believes are not in its commercial interest. A careful balance has to be maintained in that respect.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Why is the Prime Minister so poorly briefed? When he told the House this morning about the effect of his colleagues in the Lords—many of them Labour—taking out clauses in the
    282
    Criminal Justice Bill he said that that would lead to a problem with jury nobbling, and that defendants would not be able to have a trial by judge alone where jury nobbling had taken place. In fact, it was made clear in yesterday's Lords debate that that was one area about which there was complete unanimity that there should be legislation. In those circumstances, who writes the Prime Minister's dossier? Is it Mr. Campbell? Is that why the right hon. Gentleman spouts this rubbish?
    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman says that. As I understand it, the House of Lords is opposed to two elements. One relates to complex fraud trials, and is something that has been recommended over many, many years; otherwise, some of the worst criminals in the country get out of criminal charges. The second relates to intimidation. It is precisely in circumstances where the prosecution applies to the judge, saying that it believes that there is a risk of intimidation, that the judge has the power. That is the measure being opposed by the Conservative party and others, and they should cease their opposition to it.
    Tony Cunningham: I recently met a constituent, Mrs. Yvonne Weir, whose son Mark was tragically killed by a drunken driver who fled the scene. The driver was well over the limit and had previous convictions for drink-driving. He was jailed, but he could be out and free within two years. Mrs. Weir feels that the justice system has very much let her down. What will the Government do to mak sure that people who drink and drive and kill are properly punished?
    The Prime Minister: First, I offer my condolences and, I am sure, those of the whole House to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. This is a huge issue for many, many people and we are looking at whether stronger penalties, involving further use of re-testing, should be applied. Although it is true that deaths attributed to drink-driving have fallen by nearly 50 per cent. in the last decade, alcohol is still a factor in about one in eight of all fatal crashes in this country, so I think that there is a case for looking at the issue again. Along with the other measures to strengthen penalties in the criminal justice system, this is one of the issues that we will look at.

BILL PRESENTED
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  Mr. Edward O'Hara, supported by Tom Cox, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Andy Burnham, Mr. Richard Allan and Mr. Kevin McNamara presented a Bill to provide for the trustees or board of certain museums and galleries and the Secretary of State to reach agreements relating to the return of objects or human remains, to the exchange of cultural objects or to international cultural cooperation; to enable the Secretary of State to make proposals for agreements and to issue directions in respect of agreements reached by him; to make provision arising from cases in which parties to an agreement in a country other than the United Kingdom are held not to have complied with the terms of an agreement; to provide for relevant museums and galleries to dispose of objects or human remains in their collections in pursuance of agreements or directions; to exempt exports of objects in pursuance of an agreement from cultural export controls; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 151].

UK Elections (Observers)
12.32 pm
Jane Griffiths: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the appointment of observers at statutory elections and referendums in the United Kingdom; to make provision in respect of the observers; and for connected purposes.
Every year, a number of hon. Members and many civil servants travel to different countries to observe elections in those countries. They travel around visiting polling stations and they sit in on the count to make sure that everything is done as it should be and to make a report on that. However, that travel is all one way; there are no observers at UK elections. Our law currently lists who can attend a polling station and a count, and observers are not included in that list—yet.
In 1990, the UK agreed to the document published after the second conference on the human dimension of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Copenhagen in that year. Paragraph 8 stated:
"The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings."
The European Commission for Democracy through Law, known as the Venice Commission, a body of the Council of Europe, adopted an election evaluation guide at its meeting on 5 June 2003, which made the following statement about election observance or monitoring:
"The monitoring bodies play an essential role in the conduct of the poll, particularly in safeguarding the poll's pluralism, equality and legality."
So, we send people to observe elections in other countries, international bodies to which we have signed up support the observation of elections—in fact, they positively encourage election observation—but United Kingdom law does not allow someone into polling stations or the count to observe those elections. My Bill would change that. Why? The answer is in the statement from the Venice Commission, which says that election observation is a safeguard of an election's pluralism, equality and legality.
Traditionally, it has been thought that election monitoring is something that has to be carried out in countries that are newer to elections to ensure that they "do it right". Yes, we have been having elections for some time in this country. Yes, we have experience, but that does not mean that we cannot learn from having separate eyes look upon what we do.
When we vote, we are not asked for any identification. We can just present to the staff at the polling station and receive a ballot paper. It is not even necessary to have a pollingcard—someone can say a name and address and, as long as that name is registered on the electoral register at that address, the person can vote. In many countries, that would not happen. For example, no one in Armenia, which has recently had presidential and parliamentary elections, can vote without presenting their passport as proof of identity.

285
I am not saying that we have a problem in this area. Only one constituent has ever contacted me because they turned up to vote and someone had already voted as them. However, it was only when I had the opportunity to observe the election in Armenia, where proof of identity is required before one can be issued with a ballot paper, that I thought about security and how that has an impact on the issuing of ballot papers.
Another reason to introduce the measures in this Bill is that if we observe other people's elections why should they not be able to see ours? When I was in Armenia visiting a polling station, someone asked me why I should be allowed to enter when he would not be allowed to enter a polling station in the UK. He had a point. I know that that is something that may well have been embarrassing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the past.
The Electoral Commission reported on the 2001 general election. It said that the commission was contacted by a number of foreign delegations during the election campaign asking to observe the UK general election. Many more requests went direct to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others involved in the administration of elections. In all cases, it was necessary to explain that there are strict legal regulations governing who can attend a polling station. So, if any right hon. or hon. Members were minded to be against this proposal because they perceived a lack of demand, I hope that I have shown that there is a demand for people to observe our elections.
As part of its report, the Electoral Commission decided that there should be an investigation into the observation of UK elections. That has been carried out and the report was produced in April. It recommended that UK law should be changed to allow UK elections to be observed. It also recommended that staff of the Electoral Commission should be added to the list of people allowed access to a polling station, and that persons under 18 accompanying a registered elector should be allowed into a polling station.
That is what this Bill sets out to do. Put simply, I wish to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to add observers, staff of the Electoral Commission and
286
persons under 18 accompanying a registered elector to the list of people allowed into polling stations. The Bill would also add observers and staff of the Electoral Commission to the list of people allowed to attend the counting of votes. In both cases, the permission of the returning officer would be necessary.
In compiling the report to which I referred, the Electoral Commission discussed the proposed changes that led to the second part of the Bill, which calls on the Secretary of State to issue regulations to establish a code that will govern the behaviour of election observers in polling stations and at the count. The Bill sets out that that should include who may apply to be an observer, how to apply to be an observer, a form of permission, extent of access, secrecy requirements, impartiality requirements, maintenance of order requirements, prohibition of interference in the electoral process, and finance.
The Bill does not limit the content of the code to those items alone, as I realise that more may be necessary. I have listed those items because I believe that that is the minimum necessary to make the observation of elections work. That goes back again to the report of the Electoral Commission, which identified those as issues that need to be addressed to make it workable for people to observe our elections in the UK.
Finally, an Italian philosopher, once quoted by Robert Kennedy, said:
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Jane Griffiths, Mr. Terry Davis, Kali Mountford, Tony Lloyd, Chris McCafferty, Keith Vaz, Geraldine Smith, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Ann Cryer.

UK Elections (Observers)
  UK ELECTIONS (OBSERVERS)
  Jane Griffiths accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of observers at statutory elections and referendums in the United Kingdom; to make provision in respect of the observers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 152].
Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Iraq
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I also inform the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  12.41 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the Ninth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Decision to go to war in Iraq, Session 2002–03, HC 813; but notes some reservations by Committee members that it not only had insufficient time but insufficient access to crucial documents to come to comprehensive and definitive conclusions on some of the issues; further notes the recent concerns raised over intelligence material; and calls on the Government to set up a judicial inquiry finally to establish the facts of the matter.
  I start by congratulating the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), on its report. The Committee certainly had to work fast in the full glare of publicity, without the necessary access to intelligence papers and personnel, and it concluded, at paragraph 170 of its report, that the refusal by Ministers to allow such access hampered it in its work. Nevertheless, it has produced a useful report, while recognising that important questions remain unanswered. Indeed, it continues to ask some of those questions in the hope—I sometimes think that it is perhaps a vain hope—that it may still get answers to them. The Committee has not shied away from criticism. Indeed, the minutes of the proceedings show that the criticism would have been even sharper if certain amendments had been passed. It has done the House a service, for which I am sure that we are all grateful.
  On weapons of mass destruction, the Committee effectively concludes that, while the survey group carries out its work, the jury is still out, and we all need to have regard to that position. It calls for further information on the so-called 45-minutes claim and on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger, and it famously concludes that, by referring to the dodgy dossier as "further intelligence", the Prime Minister misrepresented its status. I am pleased to see that the Committee also criticised Alastair Campbell's chairing of a meeting on an intelligence matter.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: A month ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister because of the answer that he gave me when I questioned him about the provenance of the dodgy document on the Floor of the House in February. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that, although the Foreign Secretary has apologised for the document, those of us who have questioned the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House have yet to see his own ministerial code implemented and to receive an appropriate apology, correcting the record?
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is not for want of our asking for an apology that the
  288
  Prime Minister has failed to give one. It is yet another indication of the Prime Minister's arrogance and his contempt not only for the House, but for his own rules in relation to his Ministers that he has not seen fit to come to the House to apologise. The Committee did not and could not, however, give the Government, the Prime Minister or Mr. Alastair Campbell a totally clean bill of health, hence our motion today.
  We stand by our support for the action that was taken in Iraq. Like the Committee, we have no doubt, to quote paragraph 41 of the report, that
  "the threat posed to UK forces was perceived as a real and present danger".
  We believe that the development of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his refusal to comply with 18 UN Security Council resolutions justified action. That is why we supported the Government in the vote in the House on 18 March. Let me make it clear: we did not sustain the Government in office that night for fun or out of a sense of friendship. We did so because we believed that the threat to our national interest was real and that the Prime Minister was acting in the national interest.
  That, however, is not the main issue of today's debate, which is about the way that the Government handled information in the run-up to that vote. The existence of weapons of mass destruction was not the sole justification for action, but they were certainly a part of it. The Prime Minister conceded that before the Liaison Committee on 8 July when he said:
  "I accept entirely the legal basis for action was through weapons of mass destruction."
  That brings me to the central purpose of today's debate. The Foreign Secretary rightly stated yesterday that the ability of the House to vote for or against war was a constitutional change. Not only was it a change but it carries grave responsibilities, which none of us on the night of the vote took lightly. Decisions of life and death can and must be taken only on the best information available. In the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, much of that information was bound to be intelligence-based and intelligence-provided. The House has no direct access to such intelligence but only what it is told by Ministers. The House must therefore be able to have total confidence not only in the intelligence information vouchsafed to it by the Prime Minister and his colleagues but in knowing what is intelligence-sourced and what is not. If that confidence is lacking or has been breached, the House cannot be responsibly asked to take on such grave matters.
  The Prime Minister and the Government have an overriding duty to be scrupulous and consistent in the way that they provide intelligence material to Parliament. Over these last months, that has clearly not been the case. Two key areas exist, which are inevitably linked but nevertheless distinct: first, the status of the evidence on weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, the way in which the Government have handled and made public intelligence material. At the moment, the theme that links those more than anything else is that of confusion and inconsistency. In this area in which clarity is essential and consistency is vital, we have all found ourselves enmeshed in an increasingly tangled web that has been totally of the Government's weaving.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend consider this proposition:

  289
  the Government's difficulty really stems from the fact that they decided to go to war to support the American alliance? They knew that that explanation would never be acceptable to Labour Members, and consequently they had to place on weapons of mass destruction a weight that it would not bear, as that was the only kind of argument that they could put to their hon. Friends.
  Mr. Ancram: I know that that is my right hon. and learned Friend's view, and as I said on an earlier occasion, I respect him for it. I cannot say that I agree. What I can say is that the Opposition supported the Government because we believed that it was in the national interest to do so and that the situation provided a threat, and a current threat, to our national interests.
  Let me start with the matter of weapons of mass destruction. I accepted, and I believe that I was justified in accepting, the Prime Minister's assertions that such weapons existed, not just before the war but since. On 28 April, he said in his monthly press conference that he remained confident that weapons of mass destruction "will be found". I also listened when, in St. Petersburg on 31 May, he reiterated his belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction and told us that he was waiting to publish a complete picture, including material that was "not yet public" and evidence that he was going to assemble and "present properly". If I may say so, we are still waiting for that evidence.
  I took seriously the Secretary of State for Defence when, on 7 April, he told the House:
  "we will find weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 7 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 29.]
  On 13 April, on Radio 4, he said:
  "I'm absolutely convinced that they are there."
  The tune then began to change—subtly at first. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that he had no doubt that
  "those weapons of mass destruction programmes existed".
  He said that he had
  "absolutely no doubt that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes, no doubt at all."
  There was no doubt either about the introduction of the word "programmes". The Prime Minister's official spokesman qualified the use of the word when he said:
  "we will find evidence not only of weapons of mass destruction programmes but concrete evidence of the product of those programmes as well".
  So, we have talk of programmes and their products, the result of which is increasing confusion.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I questioned the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee and raised the subtle change of language. My right hon. Friend is on to an absolutely vital point. Surely the reason why we went to war was that Saddam Hussein posed a direct military threat to the region and the west. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House is fully aware of that point and respond to a further specific point? Why did the Government simply stop talking about the 45-minute threat after September? They did not talk about it in March, so they must have known then that the information was no longer reliable.
  Mr. Ancram: If I may, I shall come on to the 45-minute claim a little later in my remarks. We must be
  290
  cautious not to get caught up on that point because I think that that was the intention of Mr. Alastair Campbell. He raised it before the Foreign Affairs Committee because he hoped to divert attention from more serious matters.
  On my hon. Friend's first point, I say again that we need clarity on the Government's position on weapons of mass destruction because it has varied over the past few weeks. We need to know their clear position today. For example, on 9 July, the BBC political editor, Andrew Marr, said that senior sources
  "at the top of Whitehall"
  had told him that the Government now accepted that they would not find the weapons. I do not know who those senior sources were, but I would be interested to hear from the Foreign Secretary, who met Mr. Andrew Marr that afternoon, whether, by any chance, he agreed with those senior sources. I offer him the opportunity to respond now, although he might be keeping his head down.
  Immediately after that, the story began to change again. Downing street disowned the senior source only to be outdone by a senior Foreign Office adviser who was reported in The Herald on 11 July as saying:
  "We remain confident that weapons of mass destruction and products will be found and nobody at the Foreign Office takes the view that we no longer believe we will find them".
  The situation is completely circular. There are those who say that the weapons will not be found and those who say that they will be found. Some people make attributable comments and some make non-attributable comments. Once again, we have confusion. The only thing that remains clear about the Government's position on weapons of mass destruction is that it is totally confused. We need today an unambiguous statement from the Foreign Secretary on where the Government stand on weapons of mass destruction.
  That is only part of the tangled web in which the Government are foundering. The other part is how they have handled intelligence material. For example, the re was a claim about uranium from Niger going to Iraq. The claim was stated as a fact in the September dossier but was subsequently shown to have been partially based on forged documents. There was no explanation of who forged them and why. There is no mention of CIA concerns in the Government's response. We now have a belated explanation that there were other sources of intelligence that apparently cannot be disclosed. Even more unusually, we are told that such sources cannot be shared with the United States. There are again more unanswered questions, and further confusion and suspicion.
  I have never thought that the 45-minutes claim was key. I believe that Alastair Campbell decided to make that the smokescreen behind which to conceal the Government's other shortcomings. He believed that war with the BBC was preferable to war with Labour Back Benchers. The smoke has blown back in his face. In the farcical charade of who non-attributably told whom what and when on the provenance of the 45-minute claim, the Government last week suddenly offered up their official, Dr. David Kelly. Yesterday, Dr. Kelly made it clear, contrary to what the Government had suggested, that he was not Mr. Andrew Gilligan's

  291
  unnamed source, and I understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee has supported him. There has been more inaccurate spin and confusion.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to why, when Mr. Andrew Gilligan first made his accusations on the media, which was some weeks before the Foreign Affairs Committee investigated the matter, 10 Downing street and Mr. Alastair Campbell did not complain immediately? Instead, Mr. Campbell seemed to wait until he appeared before the Committee. Surely that is another example of the way in which the Government set up smokescreens.
  Mr. Ancram: That is precisely why I thought that there was a smokescreen. There had been no earlier complaint about the report on the "Today" programme and no complaint was made about a report on "Newsnight", which was produced independently of the investigation that gave rise to the story on the "Today" programme. The Government have never complained about the "Newsnight" report although it made precisely the same allegations as Mr. Gilligan.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Downing street and Alastair Campbell refuted the story on the morning of 29 May? Downing street issued a denial within an hour of the broadcast of the report on the radio.
  Mr. Ancram: I am still puzzled about why Downing street did not issue a denial after the "Newsnight" report. The report contained exactly the same allegations, although they were made by a different journalist. I have been in politics for a long time and when I see a cloud of smoke going up, I reckon that I can tell whether it is a smokescreen or an explosion.
  The most damaging element of the whole affair relates to the so-called dodgy dossier that was published on 3 February 2003. As we know, it was largely composed of a relatively old PhD thesis that had been published on the internet and, to use the jargon, cut and pasted. That made it dodgy but not necessarily wrong. What was wrong was that the Prime Minister told Parliament that it was "further intelligence" when it was not. What was wrong was that the dossier was not a product of the intelligence services but of a committee chaired by Alastair Campbell. What was wrong was that it was taken for what it was not. The Foreign Affairs Committee rightly reported:
  "By producing such a document the Government undermined the credibility of their case for war".
  David Cairns: The right hon. Gentleman cited the Prime Minister's statement about "further intelligence". However, does he accept, as the Foreign Affairs Committee makes clear, that the Prime Minister did not set out to mislead Parliament and that he acted inadvertently? The right hon. Gentleman goes on about how awful smokescreens are,
  292
  but he slips in facts and tries to move away from them, thus creating smokescreens of his own. Will he accept that the Prime Minister's actions were not deliberate?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall address that point directly in a few moments because it is important.
  The Government's production of the document was not the only thing that undermined the credibility of their case for war. We now know that the Prime Minister, albeit inadvertently, misled Parliament, for which he has neither apologised nor explained himself. When challenged, he said that he did not know the document's full provenance. He said that he did not know that it was not an intelligence document when he spoke about it in the House. Apparently, the Foreign Secretary did not know that either because he said the other day that he did not know that the document was not an intelligence document for more than three days, although his Department is the sponsoring Ministry for MI6. So it is all right as long as one does not know.
  It is all right, perhaps, for those of us who have no reason to know, but the people who did not know are not ordinary people or Back Benchers—they are the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Are we really to believe that they did not know? It beggars belief. They run the Government. They are supposed to be running the country. Why did they not know? Why were they not told by Alastair Campbell? In any event, what on earth was he doing chairing an intelligence assessment committee? The arch-manipulator of the truth was in charge of assessing the truth of intelligence. There is an irony in that. We can only assume that Mr. Campbell was operating on a need-to-know basis and that, in his view, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did not need to know.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not even more mysterious that in Prime Minister's questions last week, when the Prime Minister knew that the overwhelming part of the dossier was not intelligence based, he still asserted:
  "I am afraid that I do not accept that Parliament was misled in any way at all."—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 1151.]?
  He tried to embroil the Leader of the Opposition in his argument by asking him if any of the intelligence in that dossier was untrue. But that was not the misleading; the misleading lay in the presentation of a dossier to Parliament as if it were primarily intelligence-based when it was primarily not intelligence-based. So the Prime Minister, in denying that Parliament was misled previously, was actually misleading Parliament deliberately on that later occasion.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must withdraw that remark. "Deliberately" and "misleading" are not what I expect to hear from him.
  Dr. Lewis: At your request, Mr. Speaker, I, of course, withdraw the remark. I only wish I could think of another way of making the same point that would be acceptable to you.
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have listened to the Prime Minister and I think that he believes that an inadvertent misrepresentation of status to the House of Commons is not misleading. I am not accusing him of deliberately misleading, but if one says something that is wrong and people believe it, one has misled. I am prepared to accept, as I said, that he did not know that he was misleading. My charge against him is why on earth did he not know? If he were doing his job properly, he would have known. If this were fiction, our review of the book would be that it was unbelievable.
  Some will ask whether the dodgy dossier really matters. The fact that the Prime Minister misrepresented its provenance goes to the heart of the trust that Parliament can put in what he tells it is, or is not, intelligence. His failure to acknowledge that leaves an enormous question mark hanging over anything that he in future tells the House is, or is not, intelligence. He has squandered his trustworthiness and is doing little to retrieve it.
  The erosion of public confidence is gathering pace and beginning to damage the national interest. Opposition Members do not believe that the issue should be allowed to drift on into the autumn. If Labour Members think that the coming recess is a beach to a drowning man, they will find when they get there that the beach is a mirage.
  There is an urgent unanswerable case for the Government to set up an independent judicial inquiry into what is now a matter of urgent public importance. It could be asked to report within six months, require the attendance of witnesses who could be examined on oath and compel the production of documents. It could get to the bottom of this murky pool, establish the truth and re-establish public confidence.
  Donald Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman says that the matter should not be allowed to drag on into the autumn. I remind him that the Scott inquiry took 18 months. I can imagine the shouts of horror if an artificial timetable of six months were imposed on a judge, who would say that he could not complete it within that time.
  Mr. Ancram: If the Government acknowledge the public concern and set up a judicial inquiry to reassure them, they could bring the discussion to an end. It may be against my party political interests to do that, but at least it would be in the national interest.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that any such inquiry would seriously undermine what the Prime Minister told the House on 18 March?
  Mr. Ancram: I hope that it would not. We backed the Prime Minister on 18 March because we believed that he was acting in the national interest. We need to get to the truth of the matter, rather than the half-statements and half-truths that we have heard so often in response to recent allegations. By doing that, we will restore confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to talk about
  294
  intelligence matters to the House of Commons and restore confidence in intelligence itself. Both of those have been damaged by what has gone on.
  Mr. McLoughlin: If the Government complain about six months for an inquiry, may I remind my right hon. Friend of what Mr. Michael Foot said about setting up an inquiry? He stated:
  "If there is any difference in emphasis between me and the right hon. Lady about the way in which"
  the matter should be presented to the House
  "it is on timing. I do not believe that the inquiry need take six months. I believe that"
  it could complete its work
  "considerably more speedily".—[Official Report, 8 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 477.]
  That inquiry also had two former Labour Cabinet Ministers on it.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I was not aware of it and he makes a useful point.
  The real problem is that the matter is a mess. It is a mess of the Government's own making. Through incomplete information, unattributable briefings, half-truths and pathetic smokescreens, they have brought about a failure of confidence, a collapse of trust in the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government, and a serious undermining of public confidence in British intelligence.
  I will not lose sleep over the loss of trust in the Prime Minister and his Government. In my book, that was never high, but failure of confidence in intelligence is serious. Lack of trust when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary bring intelligence material to the House is serious, too. The situation cannot be allowed to drift. An independent judicial inquiry should be set up now. That would be the right thing for the Government to do. It is the responsible thing for the Government to do. It is in the public interest. I commend the motion to the House.
  1.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Ninth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Decision to go to War in Iraq, Session 2002–03, HC 813; notes that substantial oral and written evidence, by and on behalf of the Government, was provided to the Committee; believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee, established by Parliament by statute, is the appropriate body to consider the intelligence relating to Iraq; and notes that this Committee has already begun its inquiry."
  The Opposition's motion raises two central questions: whether an independent judicial inquiry in respect of intelligence relating to Iraq would be the most appropriate form of inquiry; or whether the membership, powers and practices of the Intelligence and Security Committee are sufficient to give this House and the general public an objective and informed picture of the role of intelligence in the run-up to military action.

  295
  The demand for a judicial inquiry stems from accusations that the Government may have misrepresented or exaggerated intelligence. I think that that was the point that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made, although it was not always clear. Let me reiterate that the Government stand by the judgments reached in the dossier published on 24 September and, in respect of the accuracy, of the contents of the briefing paper that we issued on 3 February this year.
  We welcomed the Foreign Affairs Committee's decision on 3 June to conduct the inquiry. I note that the Opposition also welcome it in the motion, but another element of the motion is frankly disingenuous—namely, the implication that the Foreign Affairs Committee had to pursue its investigation within time constraints dictated by the Government. It is not the place of any Government to seek to influence the time scale of any Select Committee inquiry, nor did we do so. The deadline of 7 July for the publication of the Committee's report was determined by the Committee alone. Moreover, as everyone knows, it continues to take evidence and has sought further material from me in the past two days. As the Committee records, it took evidence from a number of sources. I spent more than five hours before the Committee, including a private session where I disclosed sensitive details relating to the Government's intelligence on Iraq. On each occasion, senior officials from my Department joined me, including the permanent secretary, Sir Michael Jay, and the political director, Peter Ricketts. My office sent the Committee substantial written evidence, including, on 19 June, a comprehensive memorandum setting out the main political and diplomatic developments in the months preceding military action.
  We will of course respond in writing to the FAC's report and recommendations within the standard two-month period, as well as meeting much earlier deadlines set by the FAC for further and better information. However, I hope that some of the FAC's conclusions will lend perspective to today's debate. Although Committee members split 6-4 on the last part of recommendation 14, repeated in paragraph 86, that
  "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established",
  they were unanimous in their central conclusions that although they had concerns about the emphasis given to some of the intelligence, the claims made in the September dossier
  "were in all probability well founded on the basis of the intelligence then available".
  Mr. Edward Gamier: It is not quite clear to me whether the Foreign Secretary accepts that the Foreign Affairs Committee had insufficient access to crucial documents to come to comprehensive and definitive conclusions. Will the Foreign Secretary answer that?
  Mr. Straw: I have said on the record that in our judgment the FAC is not the appropriate body to see all the intelligence. That job, the House and Parliament have decided, is for the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is a matter of fact, and I do not want get involved in another matter of fact—the gentle tussle between the FAC and the ISC. However, I would tell the
  296
  hon. and learned Gentleman—I am happy to be corrected, but I think that this is true—that I have gone further in seeking to provide evidence directly from intelligence than most Ministers have gone in the past. I shall continue to do so, and I regard it as my duty to be responsible to the House and its Select Committees—as I am—as well as to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  I shall now deal with the key issue of a judicial inquiry raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes. The original motion tabled in the middle of June by the Leader of the Opposition called for a judicial inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. An inquiry under the 1921 Act is established to investigate a
  "definite matter…of urgent importance."
  Given the wide judicial powers of any such inquiry, a key feature is the protection afforded to witnesses, now in accordance with the so-called Salmon procedures. Those procedures, introduced to
  "minimise the risk of injustice to individuals",
  mean that all persons called before an inquiry held under the 1921 Act are entitled to legal protection. Of course that is admirable, but it means that inquiries can be frustrating for the public because of the duration and the costs involved. The Salmon procedures are not confined to inquiries formally established under the 1921 Act, and apply to any other judicial inquiry. The Scott inquiry was not formally a 1921 Act inquiry—one of the demands by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), with the full support of the Opposition, was that it should be a 1921 Act inquiry—but even though it was not, in practice, as the report makes clear, it had to take full account of the rules of evidence, provide for legal representation and follow the Salmon procedures.
  The motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition in June called for an inquiry to be completed in six months. The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to that today, but I have to tell the House and him—and he
  should know this—that if a senior member of the judiciary is asked to conduct an independent inquiry, he will exercise independence on timing as much as on content. If he is not allowed sufficient time, justice cannot be done or be seen to be done. I should like to correct a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who underestimated the time taken by the Scott inquiry. That inquiry was established in 16 November 1992 and did not report until February 1996. A similar time scale would take any inquiry in this Parliament beyond the final date for a general election, and that is in no one's interest.
  Moreover, it is quite wrong to assume that independent judicial inquiries, whether established under the 1921 Act or not, automatically bring the issues to a close. Sometimes they do not, and I ask the House to take full note of that. In 1972, an independent judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday was set up under the 1921 Act by the then Prime Minister Edward Heath, under a most distinguished senior member of the judiciary at the time, Lord Chief Justice Widgery. However, his report did not close the issue to the satisfaction of all the parties. There was continuing criticism of his independence and judiciousness, notwithstanding his distinguished reputation, which led many years later to

  297
  the establishment of the latest independent judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday, the length of which has far exceeded the length of the Scott inquiry. It is now in its fifth year and has cost £100 million.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that setting up that inquiry was as profound a mistake as the setting up of any inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq would be?
  Mr. Straw: My lips are sealed on the setting up of the first one. However, as I said, it is now in its fifth year, and some people who were evangelical in their support for it may now be questioning its utility.
  Mr. McLoughlin: If the Foreign Secretary is to have credibility, can he explain to the House why, when the Government were first elected, they were so keen to set up not just the Bloody Sunday inquiry but a number of inquiries into the actions of the previous Government, whereas they are now reluctant to have any inquiries into their own actions?
  Mr. Straw: I was just about to come to that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
  I set up a judicial inquiry, chaired by Sir William Macpherson, into the events surrounding the death of Stephen Lawrence. I hoped—and this was the family's wish—that the previous Government would set up such an inquiry, and we urged them to do so for five years. There was no reason for them not to do so, as plainly they were not to blame for what happened in Eltham that terrible April day. However, they failed to do so. When I made my decision, I was rightly supported by the then shadow Home Secretary and the House as a whole. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for prompting me, because if he looks at the 24 1921 Act inquiries carried out over the past 82 years, he will see that almost all of them have involved serious allegations of misconduct flowing from, or leading to, criminal investigations. Before it comes to conclusions about the utility of the Opposition's motion, the House needs to weigh up the fact that those inquiries have on average taken two years to publish their findings.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: May I chide the Foreign Secretary a little for referring to evangelical requests? There may have been evangelistic pressure, but if it was evangelical it would be seeking truth. Instead, it was actually yielding to the terrorists who wanted to get at the British Army and security services in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Straw: I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman about the difference between two words with a similar root.
  Paul Flynn: Before the Foreign Secretary gets bogged down in the details of the inquiry, can he address the central objection to relying on two internal parliamentary Committees, whatever their merits? That objection concerns their independence. Every member of those two Committees took part in the
  298
  vote on going to war a—new experience for us. They cannot therefore be judged to be independent when they are asked to make a judgment on their own decisions. That is the main reason why the country will not be satisfied—there must be a group of people outside the House who are free of accusations about making that original decision.
  Mr. Straw: That is an ingenious argument, using something that was welcomed across the House—the introduction of substantive motions for the decision to go to war—against the position that I am recommending to the House. The answer is clear. If that is the case, every single Select Committee will be disabled in every single inquiry that it ever undertakes. Moreover, my hon. Friend may not know members of the judiciary as well as some of us do. To my certain knowledge, the idea that a wide range of members of the judiciary did not have clear opinions about the decision to go to war is nonsense. I spoke to many of them in the run-up to the war. It was a matter of great controversy and interest. Some were in favour, others were against; none was indifferent.
  The usual argument about the control and scrutiny of the intelligence and security services has been that there ought to be stronger parliamentary scrutiny of them through the establishment of a Select Committee, rather than by the ISC. My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that we should not have confidence in our own ability to scrutinise the work of Ministers. Finally, if my hon. Friend looks at those who sit on the ISC—I shall deal with the ISC in more detail in a moment—he will see that the distinguished members of that body cover a fairly wide range of opinion on military action. I am clear that they are capable, as their record shows, of reaching decisions that are independent and judicious.
  Richard Ottaway rose—
  Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Straw: I must make progress. I apologise.
  That brings me to my second question: whether the membership, powers and practice of the Intelligence and Security Committee are sufficient to give the House and the general public an objective and informed picture of the role of intelligence in the run-up to military action. My answer is yes. The ISC was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 after years of concern that Parliament was not able to play a proper role in holding to account the intelligence and security agencies or the Ministers responsible for them. One of the concerns that I recall was that where there were serious questions about the agencies and the use of intelligence, Government had to resort to establishing one-off inquiries—as they had to with Franks inquiry on the Falklands, and to a degree, although there were also allegations of criminality, in respect of the Scott inquiry on arms to Iraq—because there was no standing machinery to do this, as there is in countries such as the United States and in other parliamentary democracies.
  The debate in 1994 shows that although there was some questioning about the composition and powers of the ISC, the whole House welcomed its establishment. There was no vote against it. Over the years, the ISC has

  299
  shown that any initial concerns about it have been unfounded. With members drawn from both Houses and all main parties, the ISC has performed its function with distinction. Its reports on the Mitrokhin archive and the terrorist atrocity in Bali are models of their kind, and proof that the ISC is perfectly capable of independence of judgment. Its reports have included important recommendations that have helped the agencies and their supervising Ministers and Departments to improve their performance, and they have included strong criticisms of the Government. If the ISC finds fault with our performance during their current investigation, I expect to hear such criticism again.
  Mr. John Maples: The Foreign Secretary again uses the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as he did in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee, as an excuse for not giving us access to documents and officials. Does he acknowledge that, when the ISC was set up, the then Foreign Secretary said that the existence of the Committee would not
  "truncate in any way the existing responsibilities of existing committees"?
  The right hon. Gentleman is now praying it in aid to do exactly that.
  Mr. Straw: No—and nor has the ISC truncated those responsibilities. The point about the ISC was that it filled a vacuum. There was no Committee for Parliament to supervise the intelligence and security agencies. The hon. Gentleman knows that, although there is some overlap between the work of the agencies or their product and the role of the FAC, the FAC's role is in respect of my responsibilities for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not in respect of my responsibilities for the intelligence and security agencies. Parliament could have chosen to decide otherwise. As the Committee acknowledges, I am open to the argument that there should be a special Select Committee, but the current arrangements are those that Parliament decided.
  Donald Anderson: Surely the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is correct. The Government are cutting across the work of an existing Select Committee by their decision. I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 169 of the report, in which the Committee states:
  "We recommend that the Government accept the principle that it should be prepared to accede to requests from the Foreign Affairs Committee for access to intelligence, when the Committee can demonstrate that it is of key importance to a specific inquiry it is conducting and unless there are genuine concerns for national security."
  Precisely so. It was a specific inquiry. The Government hampered our inquiry by not allowing us full access to the relevant
  intelligence.
  Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that I provided a considerable degree of relevant intelligence. Moreover—this is a matter for the House, not for me—my right hon. Friend must acknowledge that there is an issue here of the boundaries of responsibilities of the FAC and the ISC. I am glad to see the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick
  300
  Cormack) acknowledge that. It is true. It is wrong for my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and others to seek to embroil me or Ministers in what is essentially an issue for Parliament.
  The crucial thing is that we are fully accountable in respect of foreign policy and the work of the agencies to those two bodies established by Parliament, one a Select Committee, the other established by statute. Furthermore, as I suggested to my right hon. Friend when I gave evidence, and as I believe is happening, there is a good case for the two Committees to work in co-operation—for example, as I know from my visit to the ISC yesterday, the FAC provided the ISC with the full transcript of the evidence that I gave in private to the FAC so that I could be further interrogated by that body.
  The House may be wondering why no member of the ISC is present for this debate. The answer is that members of that Committee are in the middle of their inquiry, which they initiated on 8 May. The Prime Minister and I gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. Other Ministers and senior officials will also be cross-examined.
  The Conservatives established the ISC, and when it has suited the right hon. Member for Devizes, he has been fulsome in his praise for the Committee and its work, as he was in the case of Bali and as he was just two weeks ago in the debate on the ISC's annual report on 3 July. So I find it astonishing that there is no mention of the work of that Committee, which was set up by the Government of which I think he was a member in 1994. Still less did he mention the ISC at any stage in his speech. That is astonishing, and the approach is insulting to all members of the Committee, including distinguished members from his own party—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is insulting, too, to Lord King, who chaired that Committee with distinction for many years and who was one of those who were able to build up its reputation and methods of operation.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Having given evidence before the ISC as both Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary over the past six years, I can personally testify to the integrity and rigour that former and current members of the Committee bring to their work. I have no doubt that they will pursue their investigation into the use of intelligence in respect of Iraq with the same degree of probity and concern for the public interest as they displayed during the Bali inquiry. We can expect them to deliver their conclusions swiftly, and the public can be sure that they will have arrived at their judgments on the basis of key intelligence material.
  Richard Ottaway: Does the Foreign Secretary think the Committee will look into the question of supplies of uranium from Africa? I tabled a question last week asking whether Iraq had sought the supply of uranium from Africa that had no civil nuclear application in Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise those words as being exactly the words in the September dossier.

  301
  Judging by what the Prime Minister said at Question Time today, one would have thought that the answer would be yes, but instead, the Minister for Europe replied with some waffle about the civil nuclear programme being frozen and there being no civil application for the uranium sought. Why can we not have straight answers to such questions? The question was perfectly clear. It is obfuscation like that that requires committees to be set up to give the straight answers that we are after.
  Mr. Straw: It was a straight answer. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that I sent the Foreign Affairs Committee a two-page letter last Friday with further detail that was put on record on Friday evening, after he and his colleagues on the Committee had received it.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien rose—
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I am going to make progress.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes spoke about this matter drifting on into the autumn. He wants a judicial inquiry, but if such an inquiry were established, it would not drift into the autumn, but be kicked into the long grass for the next couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman needs to be aware of that, as there is no way that a judicial inquiry could take six months and do a proper job.
  The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Devizes an issue that has also been raised in the press—the question whether a Franks-type inquiry should be held, as in respect of the Falklands. There have been some suggestions in the press that the Franks inquiry was a judicial inquiry, but it was not. Lord Franks was a distinguished public servant, but never a judge. He had been a diplomat, a United Kingdom ambassador in the US and permanent secretary to the Ministry of Supply at the end of the war. He was a distinguished business man, head of an Oxford college and a member of the House of Lords. A judge, however, he was not.
  Three other members of the Franks committee—I make this point since we have heard Franks prayed in aid outside the House as the answer—were Members of the House of Lords. I shall read out their names so that people can weigh the degree of judiciousness and independence that they brought to the job—as, of course, they did. Lord Barber was a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord Watkinson was a former Conservative transport Minister; and Lord Harold Lever, an entertaining friend of ours on the Labour Benches, was a former Paymaster General and Minister without Portfolio. The committee included one Member of this House, Merlyn Rees, the former Home Secretary, and Sir Patrick Nairn, a good man and a former permanent secretary of the Department of Health and Social Security, who had before his translation to that post spent the whole of his
  302
  career in the Ministry of Defence. They were distinguished people, but no one can seriously claim that such a group was any more qualified or distinguished than the current ISC. I was in this House when the Franks committee was established.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I think that I am the only Member of the House of Commons to have been summoned by the Franks committee to give evidence. Frankly, however distinguished its members were, they were all round the shop in their questioning. Their questioning was absolutely loose, and I was not the only witness or judge who thought so. Franks was tired and too old to do the job, and it was a disaster.
  Mr. Straw: And that is what the Opposition want.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: What the distinguished Father of the House really means is that the Franks inquiry did not agree with him.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was in good company at the time. Indeed, I have been reading the statements that were made in this House when Franks reported. My hon. Friend made an important point. If we are going to find a judge to do such work—I had to recognise that this was the case when I established entirely justified judicial inquiries into judicial matters—on the whole, we have to go for judges who are retired, as others will not be available for the indefinite period for which they will operate. Sometimes, they could be described as old and tired.
  Frankly, when we are dealing with subjects that are so intrinsically political, the idea that simply because somebody has been adorned with a judge's wig, they will be devoid of political judgment or opinion, or that that will not seep through into what they say, is nonsense.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I need to make progress.
  Let us be clear: if there had been an ISC, there would have been no need for Franks. Neither the nature of the committee's membership nor its modus operandii removed it from controversy. As well as the criticism laid at its door by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I remember, as I was in the House—I double-checked my memory earlier today—a wonderful put-down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who said that Franks was
  "an establishment cover-up and a whitewash".—[Official Report, 18 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 180.]
  Such inquiries often do not lay such intense political issues to rest, but merely keep them as running sores.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Foreign Secretary not even been tempted to set up an independent judicial inquiry? Such an inquiry has its attractions. I think that it would be convenient to him, as he could say to the Liberals, the Tories and even to some Labour Members, "I am not

  303
  going to deal with these details, as they are being dealt with by a judicial inquiry." If such an inquiry were established, we would not have these debates and questions, and as he said, the report would not be published until after the general election. Surely, there is some temptation, as it is far more difficult for him to be constantly questioned and challenged by this House and by two Committees.
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is possessed of even more guile than me. Of course, there is an important truth in what he says. The Opposition tabled a motion calling for a judicial inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 in the middle of June, and when the ISC arose in the debate about Iraq two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Devizes did not mention the idea of a judicial inquiry. However, he now thinks that, if he avoids the name of the 1921 Act, he can avoid all the complications that go with it. That shows what a shambles and how useless the Opposition are.
  Mr. Ancram: We were talking earlier about smokescreens, but the Foreign Secretary has now been speaking for half an hour and he has yet to get on to the merits of what the Select Committee looked at or indeed the allegations that I made. He has so far talked about nothing except the very last part of the motion. Unless he is going to speak for a very long time, he may be trying to avoid dealing with the issues that are of interest to the public. May I ask him one question: does he agree with Andrew Marr's senior sources at the top of Whitehall who said that the Government now accepted that they would not find weapons of mass destruction, or with The Herald's senior Foreign Office adviser, who said:
  "We remain confident that weapons of mass destruction and products will be found"?
  If he answers only that question, we may at least make a little progress.
  Mr. Straw: That also shows just how useless this Opposition are. Yesterday we had questions lasting an hour and a quarter in which I was interrogated and during which he could have asked me those questions. I do not know whether he has noticed it, but the reason why I am concentrating on whether there should be a judicial inquiry is that that is in the terms of the motion. It is my experience that, if one strays beyond the terms of the motion, one can be pulled up. The right hon. Gentleman is not asking me to pre-judge these issues, as I have already made our assertions and made clear our confidence about the judgments in the 24 September dossier and the contents of the document published on 3 February. He is seeking to avoid any involvement by the House in these judgments and to ensure that they are made instead by some independent judicial body.
  At the heart of the argument is the question whether we should kick this matter into the long grass for two, three or four years, at a cost of some £20 million or £30 million, or allow Members of this House to hold the inquiry. That is the central issue before us today. I know that some Members of the House challenge the method of appointment and reporting of the ISC. That does not lie well in the mouth of the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Devizes; the Intelligence Services Act 1994
  304
  was their Act. To make such claims because the ISC is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the House through him is outrageously to traduce the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for not being able even to utter the words "Intelligence and Security Committee" when it was he and his Government who established it. It is representative and its members are not toadies.
  The House knows that, because the ISC must have access to sensitive intelligence, there has to be a filter to ensure that the published contents of the report do not compromise national security. However, the 1994 Act spells out that any redactions have to be made clear; and there is no question of the Prime Minister or any Minister interfering with any of the Committee's conclusions, and neither would the Committee keep quiet if there were any attempt to do so.
  Let me come to my last point on a judicial inquiry. Who would appoint that judicial inquiry? I have some news for the right hon. Member for Devizes. If it were outside the 1921 Act, I am sorry to have to tell him that I would have to make the appointments. If it were under the Act, by law the appointments would have to be made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman should think about that.
  The dossiers of September and February set out the case for dealing with Iraq rather than ignoring Iraq, not the case for military action. In September and in February, all our efforts were devoted to finding a peaceful solution through the UN. When, in the end, we were faced on 18 March with a decision to take military action against Iraq, that decision was based—in the words of the motion that this House endorsed by a majority of 263 votes—on the need to
  "uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it".
  Let me repeat what is in the FAC report. The Committee agreed unanimously that the decision to take military action was based not on the Government's intelligence assessments, but on the need—I quote from paragraph 3 of its report—
  "to enforce unanimous Resolutions of the UN Security Council".
  For all the efforts to rewrite history, I remind the right hon. Member for Devizes that intelligence was not the issue for the Opposition. In the crucial debate of 18 March, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that the main issue was Iraqi defiance of the UN. He said that
  "Saddam Hussein has lied to the UN for 12 years"
  and that
  "it should be evident to everyone that he remains in breach of the obligations under 1441."
  He then listed the agents and viruses that had been identified, not by us but by Hans Blix in his report of 6 March, and recommended that
  "every Member of this House read"—
  that 173-page report—
  "before passing judgment."
  He added:
  "There is a huge and powerful argument to act."

  305
  Indeed, he went on to say that
  "if decisive action had been taken earlier, we would not now stand on the verge of war".
  The Leader of the Opposition therefore concluded:
  "There are matters at stake that rise above party politics. It is the duty of the Government to act in the national interest, and it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they do so. The Prime Minister is acting in the national interest today. That is why he is entitled to our support in doing the right thing."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 775-79.]
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am about to close.
  The Liberal Democrats' argument for a judicial inquiry is even more bizarre. They disagreed with the decision to take military action even on the basis of the intelligence that was made available. For them, intelligence was not an issue.
  The decision to take military action is as justified today as it was on 18 March. Nothing in the report that the Foreign Affairs Committee published on 7 July challenges the facts on which the House's judgment was based. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for the majority of the House when he said:
  "If we vote to give Saddam yet another chance, the moment will pass, our concentration will falter, our energy and our focus will disperse and our nerve will fail, with disastrous consequences for us all."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 779]
  As for the Opposition's motion, what they describe as the "facts of the matter" now form the very heart of and backdrop to the investigations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was set up by Parliament. I know that the ISC will be rigorous with its witnesses, scrupulous with the intelligence material and, if necessary, unsparing in its criticism. I know, too, that—unlike a judicial inquiry—it will be able to deliver its conclusions in a timely manner, not months or years down the line when public interest has waned. A vote for the Opposition's motion would be a vote of no confidence in the Intelligence and Security Committee—[Interruption.] Conservative Members did not mention it once: they could not utter the words. It would also be a vote of no confidence in the ability of this Parliament to have effective oversight of agencies and Ministers on intelligence matters. I urge the House to reject the motion and to accept our amendment.
  1.44 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the right hon. Gentleman came to the end of his speech, I thought that I had strayed into Blackburn on a Saturday morning and he was on his well-known soap box.
  As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, the whole House is grateful to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its report. I do not doubt for a moment that the Committee has done its best in the time available and with the information that was made available to it, but I hope that its Chairman will not think it churlish of me to say that in this context, its best is not enough. Indeed, the Committee itself implies in paragraph 29 of its
  306
  recommendations, on page 5, that because it had to operate within the envelope of restriction imposed by the Government, it did not see everything or everyone.
  The Foreign Secretary set great store by the Intelligence and Security Committee. No hon. Member would argue that the independence of that Committee was in doubt, nor could we argue about the fact that its access to documents and to individuals may be rather wider than that afforded to the Foreign Affairs Committee. But we cannot ignore the fact that the final contents of any report produced by that Committee may well depend upon the judgment of No. 10 Downing street as to what information about what occurred in No. 10, which has inevitably been a source of controversy, should be allowed to reach the public domain. That is why I do not shrink from saying that we need an inquiry—
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Campbell: I shall give way in a moment.
  We need an inquiry that is independent of the House and of any role for the Prime Minister or any other Minister. We need an inquiry that will satisfy public opinion, which was reflected very unusually to the extent that here in London more than I million people took to the streets to express their anxiety, which was mirrored up and down the country on the same day.
  Mr. Straw: I hope that on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not pursue the point that there can be, or has been, any censorship of the reports and conclusions of the ISC. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 is very specific. Section 10(5), (6) and (7) make it clear that where any issues are redacted—as they sometimes have to be from FAC reports too— that has to be made patent in the report. There is no question of any of its conclusions ever being interfered with. I pray in aid the remarks of Lord King, formerly Tom King, whom we all knew, and who was Chairman of the ISC before my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). He said:
  "The reports cannot be censored."
  Mr. Campbell: I accept all that. The Foreign Secretary will remember, however, that we had a debate on the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee only a fortnight or so ago, when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I were at pains to point out that substantial parts of that report were subject to asterisks. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) described as an improvement the inclusion of a table that in previous years the Committee had been persuaded should not be inserted, but when I pointed out that the table was not particularly illuminating because large parts of its columns comprised asterisks, he had to agree.
  What took place in No. 10 Downing street is undoubtedly a matter of controversy. The ISC is a different kind of Committee from a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It is not, in the sense in which the public would understand it, a Committee that is independent of the House of Commons. To those who argue that the House of Commons should never give up its jurisdiction over such matters, and that Committees

  307
  of the House are the only competent means of investigation, I would say that they do not understand the extent to which we are disregarded by the public. This is an issue of enormous public importance that requires an inquiry of a different kind. Such an inquiry would go much further towards restoring confidence in this institution and the way in which it operates than an investigation confined to instruments of the House of Commons.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously believe that a judicial inquiry would publish sensitive national security information for everybody to read? Surely he is not suggesting that it would behave any differently from the Intelligence and Security Committee in that regard?
  Mr. Campbell: Of course I do not suggest that—but introducing independent scrutiny from outside the system is much more likely to command public support than proceeding with our current method. As the Foreign Secretary said, the Intelligence and Security Committee is well able to conduct the annual scrutiny and monitoring of the activities of the three security services. However, going to war is not normal; having a million people on the streets is not normal. It is not normal to go to war when, shortly after the momentous decision—as the Foreign Secretary rightly describes it—substantial and controversial issues arise about the basis for doing so. We therefore need a solution in the form of an inquiry that does not follow the normal course.
  Why should there be an inquiry? We have to be careful and not allow ourselves to be blown off course by the tempest that rages between Mr. Campbell and the BBC. When the vote was taken on 18 March, the Government's case was that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction constituted a clear and present danger and that military force was the only way in which to protect our interests. The clear implication of that position, notwithstanding the comments of Dr. Blix on the extent of the limited co-operation that he continued to receive from the Iraqi regime, was that all other political and diplomatic options had been exhausted.
  The Government, and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, now place great reliance on the passage that the Foreign Secretary read out earlier about the fact that some 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions had been breached, and especially that resolution 1441 authorised force. Many PhDs will be written about whether resolution 1441 authorised force, and whether the precise language in which it was couched was designed more to achieve unanimity than clarity when it passed through the Security Council.
  However, there is no doubt that although clear and obvious breaches of resolutions may authorise military action, they would not make it legitimate under the normal rules of international law unless it could be demonstrated that all other diplomatic and political options had failed. Let us consider the Government's case at its best. Resolution 1441 did not absolve them of their obligation to explore alternatives or to use only force proportionate to the resolution's objectives. If, as the Prime Minister said on 25 or 26 March, after the debate on 18 March, the object was disarmament not regime change, any force that had the converse as its
  308
  purpose was disproportionate. If it was disproportionate, it was illegitimate and contrary to international law.
  I make that analysis to point out that the centrality of the Government's case was that weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear and present danger existed. and that, although the words "immediate" and "imminent" were not used, it was essential for the protection of our interests—political and otherwise—and those of the region, to use military force at the time.
  Donald Anderson: We are hearing a skilful analysis by a persuasive advocate. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned the unanimous acceptance by all members of the Security Council, in resolution 1441 of 8 November, of the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime posed. In the preamble to the resolution, all members recognised
  "the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security".
  Mr. Campbell: That recognises the threat, but there is dispute about whether the remainder of the terms of the resolution authorise military action. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out in his resignation speech, the Government went to great lengths to obtain a second resolution but subsequently claimed that the importance of securing it was not especially great. However, their efforts to obtain a second resolution suggested that it was important.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes cited a passage from resolution 1441, but we must be careful about making an assumption that the United Nations Security Council is the only fount of international law, which somehow did not exist until the charter of the United Nations appeared in San Francisco in 1947. The rules of conflict have existed for a long time; they preceded the United Nations. Proportionality, and using military force as a last resort, have been part of the code of international law for a long time. They were not undermined, and could not be swept aside, by the Security Council's passing resolution 1441. In the view of at least 13 members, it was ambiguous, certainly on whether it specifically authorised military force.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who recently retired from the Ministry of Defence, let the cat out of the bag yesterday or the previous day when he said:
  "What we are talking about here is trying to put the best gloss on your case to ensure people accept it."
  Members of Parliament do that all the time; barristers and advocates are well paid for doing it. However, the legality of war, with the political, economic and social consequences, is much too important a topic on which to put a gloss to ensure that people accept it.
  The question that remains is not whether Mr. Campbell had too much to do with intelligence matters in No. 10, but whether the United Kingdom went to war on a flawed prospectus. Was that flaw in the intelligence or the way in which it was handled once it reached the Government? The Prime Minister and other Ministers have been skilful at denying guilt of a charge that was not made against them. It is said that those who raise such issues are somehow accusing the Prime Minister of

  309
  lying. I am not doing that. However, there may be issues not of truth but of judgment and competence. I therefore believe that an inquiry is necessary. What if similar circumstances arise in the course of this Parliament? What if a further perceived threat arises? Where will the Government find the credibility to persuade the House and the country that military action is required?
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a Queen's Counsel and has a good record in such matters. I ask him a genuine question: what form should the inquiry take?
  Mr. Campbell: I agreed with the Foreign Secretary in some of his criticisms about the form of inquiry that would be appropriate, and I shall deal with that subject shortly.
  I caution the Government, and the House, about campaigns against the BBC. I suspect that a shoot-out between the BBC and politicians about which is the more reliable is unlikely to be resolved in our favour.
  Dr. Kelly has fallen on his sword but his emergence, blinking into the sunlight, like the chorus of prisoners in "Fidelio", underlines the fact that he did not believe in the 45-minutes claim—members of the Foreign Affairs Committee who heard him yesterday will doubtless correct me if I am wrong about that. He made it clear, and the Committee accepted it, that whatever sort of contact he constituted for Mr. Gilligan, he was not his source for the broadcast on 29 May. I had the impression—perhaps a rather naive and superficial impression—that the reason why Dr. Kelly was put up by the Ministry of Defence was to undermine Mr. Gilligan. The Committee is seeing Mr. Gilligan later this week. If we are to make a judgment about Dr. Kelly's intervention in these matters so far, he seems, if anything, to have buttressed and supported the Gilligan view, rather than undermined it.
  These questions certainly will not go away. That is why I believe that the case for an independent inquiry is irresistible—a point that I made to the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I do not think that he challenged me when I suggested that if he were sitting on this side of the House rather than on the Treasury Bench in a debate of this kind, he would be putting many of the same arguments that we are putting today.
  Let me deal with some of the points that the Foreign Secretary has raised this afternoon. First, the Scott inquiry was not the first investigation of the issue of arms to Iraq. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry carried out an investigation right at the end of the 1987 to 1992 Parliament. It did so under the sanction of the fact that that Parliament was coming to an end and that an election was inevitable. It also did so in the face of great obstacles and considerable hindrance. At least one Minister who appeared before the Committee declined to answer questions on his role in the matter, although when he eventually had to face Mr. Geoffrey Robertson, QC, in the witness box, he was rather more forthcoming. There was also a Member of Parliament who declined to give evidence to the Committee when it was engaged on what came to be known as the Iraqi
  310
  supergun inquiry, and there were certainly officials whose evidence to the inquiry was later proved to be, shall we say, neither whole nor complete.
  Mr. Straw: Economical with the actuanté.
  Mr. Campbell: Perhaps.
  Scott therefore followed an imperfect inquiry, carried out by the House of Commons under the same rules as the inquiry now being carried out by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  As for getting a busy judge to conduct the inquiry, let me remind the Foreign Secretary that Lord Cullen was a full-time judge when he was asked to conduct the inquiry into Piper Alpha, which many people regarded as a model of its kind. He was also a full-time judge when he was asked to conduct the inquiry into the Dunblane shooting tragedy. So the objection that it might be difficult to find someone who is currently exercising judicial responsibility is not necessarily one that would stand up in all circumstances.
  I also believe that it is perfectly feasible to say that the inquiry would have to be completed within a prescribed time. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that from the point of view of a judge heading up an independent inquiry, there might need to be some qualification of that, and that in special or difficult circumstances, an extension might be granted. It is not beyond our wit to create an independent inquiry, headed by a senior figure from the judiciary, with a time limit within which he and his inquiry are expected to report.
  The Foreign Secretary is right to say that an inquiry set up under the terms of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, with all the statutory implications that that would involve, might not fit the bill because of the length of time that it might take. If the Government were willing to allow the independent and impartial scrutiny that I believe to be necessary in this case, however, we should not have much difficulty in arriving at a form of inquiry that would be adequate to meet public anxiety and appropriate to get to the bottom of these questions.
  In spite of the Foreign Secretary's vigour today, nothing that he has said has persuaded me other than that independent and impartial scrutiny is required here, as much for sake of the reputation of the House as for that of the Government. That is why my colleagues and I will be supporting the Opposition in the Lobby tonight.
  2.4 pm
  Donald Anderson: I begin on a happy note of consensus. I note that both the mover of the motion and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary welcomed the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee. From that point on, however, the divergence began.
  The key points of the report are set out in the summary of the conclusions and recommendations, and I need hardly go through them, save to point out that, on a great swathe of the recommendations, the all-party Committee was united. There were, of course, certain differences, but we concluded that Ministers did not mislead Parliament. The two dossiers were the focus of

  311
  the report. On the allegation that the first dossier of September 2002 had been embellished or exaggerated, the Committee concluded on the basis of the evidence before it that that had not happened. There was a divergence of opinion on the role of Mr. Campbell, but the majority—with a casting vote—agreed effectively to exonerate him. The minority was agnostic and concluded that, on the basis of the evidence available, it was unable to make a decision. That was a wholly principled view. There was no part of the Committee saying that Mr. Campbell was guilty of any particular crime. Although the Committee was therefore not unanimous, there was a substantial degree of agreement.
  I am confident—I think that members of the Committee would join me in this—that the Government believed that there was a real threat of the Iraqi regime using weapons of mass destruction. What other reason could one give for the issuing of protective anti-chemical warfare uniforms to our troops? It would require a conspiratorial mind of great magnitude to imagine that our Government would have gone through the charade of equipping our forces in that way if they did not believe that the threat was real.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The MOD gave Challenger 2 tanks sufficient chemicals for the detectors to run for only six hours. Does that reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's point? Were we selling our troops short, or were some people in the MOD not taking the threat seriously enough?
  Donald Anderson: I was not aware of that fact, and I shall have to reflect on it. I know for certain, however, that our troops were equipped in the way that I have just described, and that chemical weapon kits were also found among the Iraqi soldiers. On the face of it, therefore, they too were being equipped for such a war. It is also clear from the part of resolution 1441 that I cited earlier that the United Nations Security Council accepted that the Saddam Hussein regime posed a real threat to international peace and security.
  I turn briefly to the points raised in the Opposition motion. In regard to the Select Committee having had insufficient time to conduct its inquiry, the schedule for the report was set unanimously by the Committee itself. It was wholly self-imposed, and for good reasons. One reason for the admittedly tight timetable was that we wanted the report to be published in time for the issues arising from it to be discussed at the meeting of the Liaison Committee with the Prime Minister on 8 July. Any criticism of the time constraints is, therefore, a criticism of the Committee.
  So far as our having had insufficient access to crucial documents in concerned, I wholly concur with what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has said. We stated in our report that the lack of access to such documents hampered our work. In particular, we sought interviews with the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. In my judgment, it would have been good for the Committee—and, indeed, to the advantage of the Government—had the chairman been
  312
  able to endorse orally what he had stated in writing in respect of the various letters involving Mr. Campbell, and so on.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Donald Anderson: I will, so long as I get injury time.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he thinks that the Government did not trust his Committee to interview the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee?
  Donald Anderson: I believe that it was not a question of trust but of the Government relying—wrongly, I think—on the jurisdictional point that that was within the province of the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hence, in paragraph 169 of our report, we recommended that the Government
  "accede to requests from the Foreign Affairs Committee for access to intelligence, when the Committee can demonstrate that it is of key importance to a specific inquiry".
  Manifestly, the request to meet the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee was not a general fishing expedition. It was wholly related to our specific inquiry and, in my judgment and that of the Committee, it should have been acceded to. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary looks at the recommendation—within two months, he has said—he will give careful consideration to the point that we have made, and be prepared to trust us in such matters.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes made an important point in suggesting that it was now the Opposition's policy to grant the Foreign Affairs Committee access to such documents, and that they would pursue that policy if and when they were elected to govern. May I have an assurance that any future Chairman of the Committee will be able to rely wholly on the integrity of Opposition Front Benchers in that regard?
  Mr. Ancram: For the sake of accuracy, let me explain what I meant to say. I think that the Committee's inability to gain access to the documents is a very good reason for instituting an independent judicial inquiry.
  Donald Anderson: I am not entirely satisfied with that response. The right hon. Gentleman has accused Mr. Campbell and others of not always answering the question, and I hope that, on reflection, he will look carefully at his own answer. Mine was a very simple question: am I to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's clear statement that the Opposition now believe that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be granted access to such intelligence material in the terms of recommendation 169 of our report?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman remains seated for too long, he will be in danger of losing the Floor.
  Donald Anderson1b: That was a pregnant pause. I think that the silence of the Opposition spokesmen will be noted, for it was eloquent in its own way.

  313
  The only certainty about the judicial inquiry was that it would drag on for years. Even the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), with all his persuasive powers, could not surmount the point about timing, and the fact that, if some artificial time limit were set, by definition, the inquiry would not be independent.
  I am reminded of a wonderful story told by Lord Weatherill. An elderly Jewish tailor to whom he was apprenticed, when given work to do on a suit, asked the customer, "Do you want it good or do you want it quick?" That may be part of the answer in this case; but all that we know about the judicial inquiry, given the precedents of Franks and Scott, is that it will take a very long time, and at the end of the day may deliver no more than can be delivered by the combination of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  We are almost certainly reaching a time when it is not just a question of looking at what Mr. Campbell did or did not say, but of focusing on the future. There has been a media circus, sometimes using the theme "Get Campbell". Yesterday, I met UK officials returning from Baghdad, who painted a very different picture from the one conveyed to us by the press. Positive things are happening on the ground in Iraq. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that 98 per cent. of schools there were back at work. Alas, our press will concentrate on the 2 per cent. that are not.
  As a sort of historian myself, I believe that when historians examine these events they will not look at the Campbell-Gilligan spat; they will look at the big picture. Of course the prospectus on which we went to war is important, but they will look at the effect on the middle east peace process, and the reconstruction of Iraq. The new governing council may have its limitations, but at a press conference on 13 July, Talabani said
  "Why do you say its powers are limited? The BBC always tries to distort Iraq's news…the council enjoys a relatively good number of powers"—
  and he went on to list them. I believe that that, and the broad support given by a representative group of Iraqis, will be judged to be the key in the longer term.
  Let me return to the Committee's report, and the welcome that it has been given on both sides. I trust that it will be agreed that our report has fully justified the decision of our all-party Committee to conduct the inquiry, and that the fact of its having been conducted largely in public will be seen as a valuable contribution to what is an important debate on the subject of going to war in Iraq.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I am sure all Members realise, the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches is now in operation.
  2.15 pm
  Sir John Stanley: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He has chaired the Committee during
  314
  a difficult and contentious inquiry that has involved a huge amount of work in a short time with his customary skill and patience.
  Yesterday, and again today, the Foreign Secretary made what I considered an extraordinary statement, suggesting that the Government did not consider the intelligence assessment that was made before the war in Iraq to be central to the issue of whether we should go to war. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that had the Government's motion of 18 March not suggested that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that assessments suggested that they were there in substantial quantity, were being concealed and were likely to be effective within 45 minutes of deployment, I do not think the House could possibly have voted for it. It is profoundly disingenuous to say that war happened purely because Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions. UN resolutions are being breached throughout the world, but we do not go to war because of that.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Sir John Stanley: I will of course give way to the Foreign Secretary, but I ask him to bear it in mind that he spoke for more than half an hour and the rest of us are limited to 12 minutes.
  Mr. Straw: I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed an extra minute in injury time.
  With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has parodied what I said. The point about the September dossier—which, I may say, was produced not least because the Foreign Affairs Committee had clamoured it for in the past and at the time—is that it made the case for action against Iraq, rather than inaction. It did not make a case for military action. The strategy followed by the Government was to get the matter into the United Nations, and to seek to resolve it peacefully. It was only as a result of Iraq's failure to comply that we then brought the matter to the House.
  As for the issue of the 45 minutes, which was mentioned earlier by another Conservative Member, as far as I know it was not mentioned by a single Member on 18 March.
  Sir John Stanley: The Foreign Secretary says that I parodied his words. Yesterday, he said:
  "the intelligence assessments that were provided formed part of the background, but they were not the heart of the argument and never were."—[Official Report, 15 July 2003; Vol. 129, c. 162.]
  For a great many of us who voted on 18 March, the intelligence assessments were not part of the background at all; they were absolutely part of the foreground—part of the heart of the matter.
  As for our armed forces in Iraq, who had to put their lives on the line for the war, let me draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to a paper placed in the House of Commons Library at the time: the Government's own paper entitled "Iraq: the Military Campaign Objectives". The very first paragraph states:
  "The prime objective remains to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles, as set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions".

  315
  That was the first and overriding military objective: to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction that were the basis of the intelligence assessments put before the House.
  I want to say something about those assessments, and, in particular, the key assessment placed before the House in the dossier of September last year. I start with the issue of uranium from Africa. That was no minor issue but a central plank of the Government's assessment that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to recommence its nuclear weapons programme. What we know about the uranium from Africa story is that Mr. el-Baradei revealed to the UN in February this year that the Niger allegations were based on forged documents. We now know, from the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee—it is mentioned in the Committee's report—that the insertion of the story about uranium from Africa was, like the 45-minute claim, a suspiciously last-minute insertion into the document.
  Significantly, and remarkably, we learned last Friday for the first time, from the letter that the Foreign Secretary released to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East, that the CIA had expressed reservations to the British Government at the time that the September dossier was published about the inclusion of the claim about uranium from Africa. The Committee has taken evidence from the Foreign Secretary on that point and on the source behind the statement in the dossier. All that I can say in this public forum is that we await with great interest the views of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the source for that information.
  The 45-minute claim is of huge significance, not because of the Campbell allegations, which—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said—have been a smokescreen and a diversion. It is important because the Government highlighted that claim in the September 2002 dossier. It appeared no less than four times—in the Prime Minister's foreword, in the executive summary and in two other places. That 45-minute claim underpinned completely the Government's claim for the immediacy of the need to take military action. Those who voted on 18 March had to consider carefully their position if they failed to support the Government, given that they had been advised by the Prime Minister, with access to all the information available, that Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had used WMD before and now had them ready and available to use within 45 minutes. That was a significant claim.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence in public and in private, and of course I cannot reveal what was told to us in private. However, I am entitled, as an individual member of the Committee, to offer my own personal conclusions on the validity of the 45-minute claim. My conclusions are, first, that the intelligence base for the claim was very narrow and, secondly, that the accuracy of that intelligence base could not be guaranteed.
  It remains to be seen whether that intelligence will be validated on the ground. I do not rule out the possibility that the Iraq survey group may discover, hidden in some clever and fiendish way, chemical or biological weapons ready to use and located within 45 minutes of the
  316
  appropriate delivery systems in place in Iraq at the relevant time. However, if no such discoveries were made, that would not surprise me in the least.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the deterioration of any chemical weapons that Iraq may have had in the late 1980s or early 1990s?
  Sir John Stanley: That is an issue on which we took public evidence. The published volume of evidence contains some interesting evidence from an expert witness who worked at Porton Down and has great experience on the issue.
  The third question is the biggest: the key issue of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical and biological weapons, irrespective of whether or not they were within 45 minutes of being ready to use. On that issue, the Committee concluded that the jury is out. I was amazed that the Prime Minister, before the Liaison Committee and in answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East, said that the jury was not out. I do not understand on what basis the Prime Minister made that statement. The jury is clearly out, because no chemical or biological munitions have been found, and that is a key issue.
  As of today, nearly four months after we invaded Iraq, none of the central intelligence assessment claims in the September 2002 dossier has been validated on the ground. No evidence has been uncovered that Saddam Hussein was restarting his nuclear weapons programme. We have no evidence of imports of uranium from Africa or of continued production of chemical and biological weapons. We have no evidence of up to 20 longer-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching British bases in Cyprus or of chemical and biological weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes. We have no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction at all so far. Perhaps that will change with some dramatic discovery by the Iraq survey group, but if by the time it has completed its work we are in the same position as today, it will raise serious personal issues for the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Before I decided to take part in this debate, I thought that I would read what I had said in the debate on 24 September—in case another hon. Member raised it—and what reason I had given for supporting the Government. I talked then about someone who was a member of CARDRI—the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—most of his political life, who worked against Saddam Hussein and who opposed those who sold weapons to him. That person, because of his other interests in the middle east, also had a sneaking hope that perhaps Iraq could use its military influence to put pressure on the middle east peace process to bring it to a conclusion. However, he was regularly let down by Saddam Hussein, who allegedly supported the Palestinians but who did things that were against the interests of peace in the middle east and the Palestinians specifically. One need only look at how Palestinians were treated in Iraq—they were subsumed into the Iraqi army as part of the defence forces—to understand that

  317
  although Saddam sought to interfere in the peace process by rewarding those who carried out acts of terrorism on the west bank, he did not assist the peace process itself. I still had the lingering hope that he might have played a useful role, but he did not.
  It was obvious that things had to change in Iraq. As hon. Members said, children were dying in Iraq and people were suffering under Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of Saddam was desirable, but it had to be done in a legitimate way that was consistent with international law. At the same time, however, contradictions existed in respect of international law, Iraq, and this House.
  As I said, I refreshed my memory of my previous speech, in which I made the point that
  "if we do not get the United Nations resolution, and if we do not get the inspectors back and the removal of the weapons of mass destruction, in my judgment regime change would indeed be justified—if necessary, by military means."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 85.]
  Why was I thinking that way? I think that it was not so much because I was impressed by any particular dossier, but because the Americans were prepared to go back to the UN to get resolution 1441. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made the commitment that we would work for a specific resolution. That caused me to support the Government in that period.
  Towards the end of my speech on 24 September, I said that I hoped that we would get a specific resolution. I have worked in international law, with special reference to the middle east, and I am aware of how non-specific and ambiguous most UN resolutions can be. However, 1441 was as specific as it could have been; it was certainly one of the most specific resolutions that I have seen. When the second resolution was not achieved, I found no problem in voting for action against Saddam Hussein, his family and his regime on the grounds of his non-compliance.
  If we learned one thing about Saddam Hussein, it was that he was a complete Stalinist and a unilateralist. He signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the chemical weapons convention, but flouted them immediately. He agreed to the UN ceasefire in 1991, under which he was to give up nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but then spent a decade lying, cheating, and hiding. He deliberately denied the inspectors access and did not allow them to do their job. He attempted to conceal weapons in all sorts of places, and put pressure on scientists to deny that weapons programmes were going on.
  We had to bring Saddam Hussein to account. The House had debated the question of sanctions and their impact on the people of Iraq, but we had never really been able to deal with the subject. The closed nature of Iraqi society led some of us to believe that we could use the mosque system in the Muslim community to get aid to people and children in Iraq. However, that proved to be impossible. The Stalinist running Iraq was clearly capable of taking anyone on. The fear that he instilled made certain that people would never attempt to undermine anything that he did.
  318
  The Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein exploited the oil-for-food programme for their own benefit. They denied food and essential medical supplies and material to the people and children of Iraq, including the Marsh Arabs, at great, ongoing and deadly cost. The Iraqi elite, however, were not denied food. They lived in Saddam's palaces and enjoyed a lifestyle that was revealed by the coalition forces to have been way beyond anything imaginable.
  The no-fly zones were another reason why I said that I would be happy to support regime change. The zones, in both the north and south of Iraq, were highly dubious and were not legitimate under international law. I recall their being debated in this House when I was a member of the Opposition, on the other side of the Chamber. I told the then Foreign Secretary—now Lord Hurd—that there was no international law that allowed us to put the no-fly zones in place. I know that the Foreign Office considered that it could find a suitable framework in international law, but the legality of the no-fly zones is still the subject of argument.
  Nevertheless, the no-fly zones saved the Marsh Arabs and allowed them to survive. Saddam was able to drain the marshes, but the Marsh Arabs survived. By the same token, the northern no-fly zones allowed the Kurds to develop a society. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his statement yesterday, the coalition forces are now feeding 26 million people. He said:
  "Preliminary figures for June show that food rations were distributed to about 26 million Iraqis in a target population of 27 million. Food distribution is being extended to the Marsh Arabs, a people who I understand received no food at all under Saddam Hussein."—[Official Report, 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 153.]
  The no-fly zones allowed people to survive, and we are now feeding those people.
  The Iraqi Kurds had been fighting among themselves, having been turned against each other by Saddam Hussein. Once they had resolved their issues, the northern no-fly zone allowed them to develop a society and infrastructure, one result of which was an improvement in the child mortality rate. When an administration was established, the first thing that the Iraqi Kurds did was to affirm the territorial integrity of Iraq. They did not attempt to move towards breaking away from Iraq, but said that they wanted to form a government. They are now part of the provisional authority in Iraq.
  The Iraqi Kurds have survived because of the no-fly zones, even though those zones were illegal. The British and Americans broke international law and, in so doing, allowed the survival of people in Iraq who would not have survived otherwise. It is clear that we were dealing with a person in such complete control of Iraq that we in this House could not have allowed the weapons inspectors to continue for much longer.
  I shall not comment on the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I am not in a position to do so, and I do not want to disagree with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley). However, although he did not mean to, when he spoke about his own view of information that he had received he gave a clear indication as to what that information—to which

  319
  we are not privy—might have been. Whether he intended to or not, people will be bound to look at his speech to try and ascertain what the information was.
  Sir John Stanley: I made it quite clear that I was expressing my personal conclusions.
  Mr. Ross: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he had said earlier that the Committee had received a specific briefing. People are bound to draw an inference, and see an implication, when two such statements are made in the same paragraph. That is a danger for Select Committees; they need to work out how to handle the information that they are given.
  The way ahead for the House is to welcome the report and to look forward to the Foreign Secretary's response. Much more important, however, is dealing with the more immediate problems of Iraq and the middle east. On 14 and 15 April this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and I attended a conference in Doha, in Qatar. The experience was amazing. Although there was anger among the Arab participants about the action of the coalition forces, it was anger that someone had had to come from outside to do what they should probably have done themselves. They hoped that if we could give the Iraqi people the opportunity, they would demonstrate that they could run their country. That is the message that the Foreign Secretary gave us yesterday.
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It seems that much of the past parliamentary year has been dominated by Iraq and the situation and circumstances leading up to our debate on 18 March. I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report, although it is a pity that the Committee could not agree more generally on many issues. Some of the conclusions were pushed through on the Chairman's casting vote, which shows that the Committee was not wholly united on some serious questions.
  The changes in the Government's attitude are interesting. Like many Members, I received numerous letters in the run-up to the debate on 18 March trying to persuade me not to support the war and that what the Government were doing was wrong. However, it was the first time that I had seen the Prime Minister take on public opinion. He did so because he passionately believed that he was right. I took the view that, if a right-wing American President and a centre-left British Prime Minister were assuring the House of Commons that there was grave danger to our country, we would have been foolish and, in some respects, irresponsible not to accept that assurance and that warning.
  We had not held such a debate before, and it was with a heavy heart that I supported the war, because I was aware that people would lose their lives in conflict as a result of my using my vote. In conflict, lives are always lost. Sadly, that has been true for a number of families in this country, who have been devastated by the war—it will live with them for ever.
  Sometimes, tough decisions have to be taken and the Prime Minister was courageous in the way that he persuaded the House. He spoke with a conviction that
  320
  we have not heard from him before. As I said earlier, he took on public opinion, which, undoubtedly, was not with him.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, throughout the run-up to, and the entirety of, the conflict in Iraq, also showed a sense of duty. He showed the right way for an Opposition to conduct themselves on such major issues. Had there been a Labour Opposition at that time, would we have had a similar response from the leader of the Labour party?
  David Cairns: What about the Falklands?
  Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, Labour did give support on the Falklands.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Does the hon. Gentleman recall the support that the then leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, gave the Conservative Government during the first Gulf war?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that. But the first Gulf war was far easier to understand. There was an invasion, so it was easier to see the necessity for recapture. No vote was taken on that war, and most of the debates at that time were held on the Adjournment at the request of the then Opposition—[Interruption.] I was merely wondering whether, if there had been a substantive vote on such a matter, there would have been similar support from a Labour Opposition.
  I want to explain why there should be a public inquiry and why this situation is different: I cannot recall a Cabinet Minister who had sat at the Cabinet table during the Falklands conflict and the first Gulf war, saying after those events that the Government's action had been wrong. On this occasion, that has happened. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) was a long-serving member of the Cabinet and she voted for the war, but now she says:
  "I have concluded that the PM had decided to go to war in August sometime and he duped us all along. He had decided for reasons that he alone knows to go to war over Iraq and to create this sense of urgency and drive it: the way the intelligence was spun was part of that drive. There was political spin put on the intelligence information to create a sense of urgency. It was a political decision that came from the Prime Minister. We were misled: I think we were deceived in the way it was done…The suggestion that there was a risk of chemical and biological weapons being weaponised and threatening us in a short time was spin…That didn't come from the security services."
  That was a member of the Cabinet, someone who had access to information.
  What did the former Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary's predecessor say? The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) called for a public inquiry. The calls for a public inquiry are not coming merely from an opportunist Opposition; they reflect serious concern in the nation about our deploying our forces in war. I believe that the Government are committing a serious folly by not accepting that such an inquiry should take place. People are asking what the Government have to hide. If they have nothing to hide, why are they afraid of the inquiry?

  321
  I say sincerely to Members on the Treasury Bench that it comes a little rich from the Government when they tell us that the inquiry will take time, or when the Foreign Secretary told us, as he did a little while ago, of the huge cost of such a public inquiry, because the Labour Government have held more inquiries into the actions of the previous Government than ever before. We have had the Phillips inquiry, the Bloody Sunday inquiry and others that the Prime Minister has launched into the actions of the Conservative Government. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister used to accuse the Conservatives of being responsible for BSE, and he set up the Phillips inquiry. He can no longer make that charge, because the inquiry showed that his allegations were rubbish.
  The Government have seriously mishandled Iraq since the war. That point cannot be made too strongly. They could have retained the unanimity of the parties as they moved forward. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) mentioned Labour support for Baroness Thatcher when, as Prime Minister, she deployed her troops in the south Atlantic. Referring to the "awkward squad" in a response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the then leader of the Labour party said:
  "I can assure him that, if he had been a member of the last Labour Cabinet, he would know that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lever qualifies for that appellation better than anyone else in the country, rising even to the high standards of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian".
  In those days, Michael Foot was very content that the inquiry should go ahead. He went on to say,
  "For the rest, I believe that what the right hon. Lady has proposed is right and that the House would be wise to support it. I emphasise what she said, and what we have always understood in our discussions, about the fullness of the report to be made to the House and to the country. That is an absolute requirement, but I do not believe that there has been any difference between us on that."—[Official Report, 8 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 477.]
  What happened this year was right. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been a lesson to world order. I was immensely impressed, as I am sure were many of my hon. Friends, by the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) during the many debates that we had in the lead-up to the decision. We certainly did not expect her to propose that course of action. She was clear in her own mind. She said that she would support the Government if it were only a case of regime change. She was in no doubt about that. However, that was not the assurance that the Government gave us—it was not what the Prime Minister assured us was the reason for doing it.
  I cannot understand why the Government are now so reluctant—why the matter has been so mishandled. For example, Alastair Campbell was not going to appear before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, then he appeared before it and then we had that incredible outburst on the Channel 4 news of the same night and, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister's reputation has been put in grave jeopardy. If it has been put in jeopardy, it is because of the way he has run his Government in the past six years. They have become a Government almost created by spin and run by spin, but on a matter such as war we should get to the truth and that is why we should have an inquiry.
  2.52 pm
  David Cairns (Greenock and 1nverclyde): In the last few moments of his speech, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) let the cat out of the bag. He said that he agreed with the Government, he thought that what we did in Iraq was right and getting rid of Saddam Hussein was right. He just does not like the Government. He does not like the fact that we did that and he is going to find some reason to oppose it.
  Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made a disgraceful slur against the patriotism of former Labour leaders by saying that they would not have supported military action. I think that I have to go back to George Lansbury to find a Labour leader who did not support British troops—[Interruption.]—other than Suez.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman may be about to mention that subject, but I recommend him not to drag it up at this point if he wants to keep me with this case.
  Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has guessed wrongly. One thing that is worth remembering about the Falklands is that at the time there was a man who was about to become Labour leader—Neil Kinnock—who wholly opposed that expedition and said so publicly at a time when our troops were being deployed.
  David Cairns: This really is the stuff of desperation. The Conservatives make an allegation that turns out to be complete nonsense and then they scan the Labour Back Benches for people who were about to become leader of the Labour party and might have supported it. They should think before they make those absurd allegations.
  I join the long queue of people who are thanking and praising the Foreign Affairs Committee for its reports. The Chairman said, I think with a little irony, that everyone was standing up to praise the report but going on to say that it was inadequate because the Committee did not have access to the information, because there should be a further judicial inquiry or whatever.
  For someone such as myself who is a new Member of Parliament and approaches these issues with trepidation in the presence of people who know far more about them, the report was an extraordinarily useful primer into the workings of the intelligence agencies and the way that intelligence is gathered, filtered and compiled. It is an excellent case study into how that happens. I am sure that everyone here has read it, but I commend it to people outside who have not done so. The Committee asked some specific questions of the Government and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he would deal with those within the two-month period that he has to respond in full to the report. We will await his reply with interest.
  In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) did well to remind us of the broader context within which the decisions were taken. After all, the report is entitled "The Decision to go to War in Iraq", not "Finding out whether a dossier was dodgy", nor is it about a particular claim about 45

  323
  minutes. It was about the decision in the broadest sense and my hon. Friend did well to bring us back to what really matters.
  The United Kingdom did not pluck Iraq out of thin air or stick a needle into an atlas and say, "There's a country that we do not like. We'll manufacture evidence to make up some sort of case for deposing a leader who is inconvenient to us." That simply did not happen. As my hon. Friend reminded us, we must remember the 17 UN resolutions on Iraq and the action that had been taken up to that date—the no-fly zones as well as the sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime. It was not the UK's intelligence services alone that were making allegations about weapons of mass destruction—it was not only the United States intelligence services that were making those claims.
  I am not one of those hon. Members who is in the habit of hanging out with members of the intelligence and security forces—at least, not that I am aware of—but I recently had an opportunity with some colleagues to meet a former head of the very well-known national security service of another country. I appreciate that this story is anecdotal and that there were no minutes, so hon. Members cannot challenge whether what I am saying is true, but I asked that gentlemen, who has many years' experience in the field, whether the weapons of mass destruction existed, whether we were duped, and if they did exist where they were. He told me in clear terms that I should be in no doubt that the entire world intelligence community had those doubts, knew that Saddam Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction and was continuing that programme with varying degrees of success. As we know, he had attempted to implement it in various ways with varying degrees of success.
  Therefore, it was not a case of the UK acting alone or acting with a right-wing American President; it was the expression of the entire world community, which culminated in resolution 1441. That resolution was passed unanimously by countries including France, Russia and Syria, and it was acknowledged that there was a genuine threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. That is important. This was not a huge propaganda exercise got up by Alastair Campbell—he is not that powerful or influential. The Conservative party is throwing up a smokescreen by pursuing that route.
  At heart, we are all—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley), the hon. Member for West Derbyshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West—reflecting on why we voted to go to war. We are asking ourselves, "Why did I cast that vote? What was the evidence base upon which I cast it?" Two dossiers were uppermost in my mind when I cast my vote in support of military action. I read them very carefully and they swayed me. I regret to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that they were not the dossiers of September and February that the Government produced; they were two distinct dossiers. One was a Command Paper that put together all 17 of the UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein one after the other, with their 29 separate obligations on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the majority of which had been unfulfilled to that point. Reading those resolutions consecutively brought home powerfully to me that the entire world
  324
  community was concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Of course, the resolutions culminated in 1441.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) told us that he thought that the fact that the Government were attempting to secure a further resolution after 1441 demonstrated that they were not convinced of the legal basis given by 1441 for going to war. I refute that—that is not my understanding of why the Government were attempting to secure a second resolution. They openly said that it would be politically preferable to have that position explicitly set out in a new resolution. [Interruption.] I recommend that my hon. Friends who are dissenting from that view consider what was said at the time by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who argued very cogently that we were voting not to go to war, but to support resolution 1441. He said very clearly that he would not vote for that because resolution 1441 provided a basis for further military action. He was opposed to that then, and it was a very principled stand to take. I listened to him and argued with him at the time, but not about whether resolution 1441 provided a basis to go to war, as we agreed about that.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend not recall that the Prime Minister asserted very strongly that not only would he go for a second resolution, but that he intended to get one and that, after he failed to get one, he told the House in terms that we were going to war to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, which has so far proved—how shall I put it—difficult to justify?
  David Cairns: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend right up until the last point that he made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should be congratulated on trying to go for a second—or an 18th or 19th—resolution and on the way in which his influence on the American President brought him into the whole process at the United Nations in the first place, so I do not accept that resolution 1441 provided no legal basis for the military action that was taken.
  I mentioned two dossiers, and the Command Paper was uppermost in my mind at the time of going to war. The second dossier is the last report of the weapons inspectors, which was produced in early March and runs to 167 pages in the original version and 173 pages in the final version. Reading that document—page after page about the Iraqi regime's non-compliance with the weapons inspectors—helped to convince me that that regime would simply never comply with the weapons inspectors because it had no intention of ever doing so. That put the regime in clear contradiction of UN resolution 1441, which provided a basis for such action.
  Either way, we cast our votes on whether or not to engage in military action on that fateful night, certainly in the knowledge that, as the hon. Member for West Derbyshire said, if we voted for war and war came, there would be casualties and deaths. I put it to him and to hon. Members who voted not to go to war that, if we had not gone to war and deposed Saddam Hussein, people would have died in any event, perhaps in even greater numbers than died in the short conflict. We must not forget that vital point.

  325
  Of course, the judicial inquiry issue is the gravamen of the motion. I found it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) complained that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spent so much time addressing that issue when that is what the motion calls for. The entire motion is one long preamble, with a specific call at the end for an independent inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary demolished that case in his very effective speech, but the right hon. Gentleman simply said in response that it was unfair that my right hon. Friend addressed the judicial inquiry issue.
  The only time that Opposition Members mention judicial inquiries is when they are asking for them to be stopped, and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire complained about the cost of the Saville inquiry and the length of time that it has taken.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Cairns: No, I will not give way; I have less than a minute left to speak.
  The Saville inquiry is considering not a previous Government, but what happened on a fateful day in Northern Ireland.
  I believe that we were right to go to war. I believe that history will show that that was the right thing to do. I believe that weapons of mass destruction will be found in that massive country, which is the size of France, when the inspectors go about their job unhindered by the Iraqi regime. I will await the outcome of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I have confidence in its ability to get to the heart and truth of this matter.
  3.4 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not know whether weapons of mass destruction will be found. I believe that they probably will be, but I agree very much with the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (David Cairns) when he talked about being most influenced by the Command Paper that tabulated all the United Nations resolutions. On this occasion, if perhaps on no other, the hon. Gentleman and I are very much on the same side.
  I am bound to say that when the House, very ill advisedly in my view, changed its hours, I hoped that there might be the compensating advantage that short debates early in the afternoon would at least be attended by the protagonists. Yet it is perhaps less than an hour before the winding-up speeches and there is no Foreign Secretary and no shadow Foreign Secretary. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has, to his credit, returned to the Chamber, but where is the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose report is central to the debate? He made his speech and off he went.
  I have a great regard for the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but his place is above all in the Chamber while this matter is being debated. I am particularly sorry that he is not here because I want to talk a little bit about the Foreign Affairs Committee. I
  326
  had the privilege of serving on it until a few weeks ago. I voted with the Government and against setting up a judicial inquiry when we last debated this issue. I made it plain that I was unhappy about the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee had decided to embark on this road and I said then, and I have said since, that I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the right Committee to investigate the matter. I still hold to that view.
  The report, published after prodigious labour and a great deal of burning of midnight oil, has not taken us very much further forward, save to indicate that the one degree of unanimity appears to be that the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee do not believe that the House was deliberately misled. That at least is good, but I argued on the Foreign Affairs Committee that we should not have this inquiry. I did not leave the Foreign Affairs Committee specifically because of that. I do not want to mislead the House myself. I had already informed my hon. Friend the deputy Chief Whip and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that, for various reasons that they fully understood, I would not remain on the Committee beyond the end of the summer. I came to that conclusion very reluctantly.
  When we came to discuss this issue, I argued—the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) knows this very well, as he is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee—very forcefully that we should not have the inquiry. I asked for my dissent to be minuted, and it was. When I then discovered that I could not, for very good reason, attend two crucial sittings, I felt that I should not put myself or my colleagues in the position where would probably write a minority report not having heard all the evidence. No one should put his name to that report, for or against, without hearing every last bit of evidence.
  So I brought forward my withdrawal and the House discharged me from the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) was appointed in my stead. I wish him happy years on the Committee, but he has not been able to begin on a very good note because one of the great defining characteristics of Select Committees is that they try to examine issues without being over-influenced by party prejudice. The Select Committee reports that have most effect in the House—I speak as someone who has been a Member for a very long time and been involved in a number of such reports—are those that are unanimous or near unanimous.
  The Committee has done what I prophesied would happen if it embarked on the inquiry: it has divided more or less on party lines. On one or two occasions, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) voted with my right hon. and hon. Friends, but the Committee has divided more or less on party lines, and I believe that that is a very great pity indeed. It will undermine the effectiveness of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and it will take a long while to recover from that.
  Sir John Stanley: I invite my hon. Friend to look at the Votes and Proceedings, and he will see not merely that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew

  327
  Mackinlay) voted with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, but that the Chairman of the Committee also did so on two or three occasions.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend's intervention, frankly, in no way demolishes the point that I am making. If one looks at the significant Divisions, one finds that they were along party lines. One even finds that what was arguably the most significant Division of all was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. That is a fact; it is there for everyone to read, and it does not reflect credit on the House when that sort of thing happens with one of its very senior Select Committees. I deeply regret that because I cherished my membership of that Committee. I tried to be an assiduous member, and I wish it every possible success in the future. That is totally genuine.
  When we come to this particular issue, however, nothing has significantly changed apart from the attitude of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I deeply regret that. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a brave and proper speech in support of the Prime Minister on 18 March. The Prime Minister made what was probably the best prime ministerial speech that I have heard in 33 years in this House. I have certainly never heard a better one. It was as good as that by Mrs. Thatcher on the Falklands and other great prime ministerial speeches that I have been privileged to hear. When the Prime Minister addressed this House, as I said in the previous debate, I believe that he spoke in good faith.
  Of course, the so-called dodgy dossier incident was not particularly well handled. Does that seriously alter the material facts of the case, however? No, it does not. One is tempted to think that dodgy dossiers have had a place in the history of the Labour party—I am surprised that no one has yet resurrected the Zinoviev letter. The fact is, however, that although elements of the Government's handling could have been better, although the Prime Minister, as I have said before, has created difficulties for himself by his over-reliance on spin on many issues, and although he has my implacable opposition to many things that he has done and proposes to do—and will continue to have it—nevertheless, on this issue, he behaved as a proper national leader should. He had the support from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that he deserved. Nothing that has happened since has altered my opinion on that.
  I must say this to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench: rehearsing the mantra, "Nobody will ever believe a word that he says," does no good to them, the political process or this place. Yes, Labour Members did it to us as our Government fell apart between 1992 and 1997. By visiting on them what they did to us, or seeking to do so, especially over a grave national issue, however, we serve only to increase public cynicism and dislike of the political process, on which the House should be united to allay and to answer.
  I therefore beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to take heed of a quotation from Jonathan Swift:
  "Lash the vice but spare the name".
  Attack the judgment but do not impugn the sincerity.
  On this issue above all, let us not undermine the honourable credibility of our position as the Opposition by nitpicking over these matters, which do not affect the
  328
  material issues that we are discussing—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) says from a sedentary position that this is a question of weapons of mass destruction. No one who has studied the matter, who has taken part in the debates in the House, or who was here at the time of the first Gulf war, can doubt that we were dealing with one of the most evil tyrants to deface the world scene since the second world war. No one can doubt that not only did he have the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction but that he produced weapons of mass destruction. What was the state of those particular weapons at the time that we went to war in March I do not know, and I do not much care. I believe that the decision to go to war was entirely justified. All the UN resolutions, which were detailed in the Command Paper, and which showed this man thumbing his nose at the international community, gave sufficient justification for this country to go to war.
  It grieves me deeply that my party, to which I am honoured to belong, should have started nitpicking when it was so right to give support on the principal issue. It also grieves me that those young men and women in Iraq at the moment—I have spoken to some of them, and we still have 11,000 out there—are wondering whether we have lost our marbles in this place. They are helping to bring to Iraq—a country that has been subjugated to an evil regime for the best part of half a century and that has never known democracy—an infrastructure, both physical and political, that will allow that nation to exploit properly in its own interests its indigenous oil wealth and to become a force for stability in the middle east and in the world beyond. What do we do? We spend our time looking at these silly accusations, which have no substance, and I am ashamed of my party for doing it. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will desist—certainly, if they do not, I will not.
  Let us move on. Perhaps there is a paucity of attendance in the Chamber this afternoon because our colleagues think that we have said enough.
  3.16 pm
  Ann Clwyd: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), in his customary candid and robust way, has expressed many of the views that I hold. I have on many occasions argued for regime change. I believe that it was the right thing to do. I might have wished for a different approach to it, and I tried to argue many times in this House that it was possible to indict members of the regime in the same way that Milosevic was indicted while he was still head of state. It was unfortunate that despite INDICT—the organisation that I chair—taking evidence to the Governments of four countries, including this one, not one Government was prepared to act on the evidence that we had given them. That would have been my preferred option, as I am sure it would have been for many other Members of the House. I also thank the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for his kind words.
  Clearly, when one has seen and been involved for such a long time in events in Iraq, one can describe them with some passion and conviction, and in the belief that something ought to have been done. I believed as far back as 1984 that something needed to be done. In 1987,

  329
  I was chair of an organisation called CARDRI—the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—which was the only pressure group in this country that highlighted the excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime. The group wrote newsletters, published books and used every opportunity to try to make the world take notice of the atrocities that had taken place since the beginning of Saddam Hussein's regime. In 1987, I put out a newsletter on behalf of CARDRI that called for Saddam Hussein to be divested of his chemical and biological weapons.
  In 1988, Halabja took place. No one took any notice of what we had said in 1987. This country continued to sell arms to the Iraqi regime and to deal with members of the regime as though they were honourable people—of course they were not. In 1988, I also took a group of women from the House of Commons to visit some of the survivors of Halabja in a London hospital.
  At the beginning of this year—the last time that I spoke to the House about my visits to Iraq—the Kurds took me to the area of the country between Chamchamal and the road to Kirkuk, which was the dividing area between Saddam's Iraq and the Kurdish part of Iraq. The Kurds pointed to rockets on the hillside. They believed that chemical and biological warheads were to be fired in their direction. They were so convinced of that that they asked me to ask our Prime Minister to provide them with protective suits. I made that point to the Prime Minister and in the Chamber on my return. The Kurds contacted me several times during the following weeks to ask when they would receive the protection. They were close to everything that was going on and had their own intelligence. They sincerely believed that chemical and biological warheads existed, although I do not know whether they did or not.
  I did not make an argument about weapons of mass destruction. I argued that we needed to take action in Iraq for humanitarian reasons. When I spoke in March about the plastic shredder that was used to kill in one of Saddam's prisons, I never imagined that only a month ago in Baghdad—after the war—I would read in a chillingly meticulous record that one of the methods of execution in Saddam's prisons was mincing—that was the translation from the Arabic. I had finished a press conference at the British embassy in Baghdad when a person from Fox television asked me to take a dossier that the company had been given that was an account of methods of execution. I read some of the methods outlined in the 56 pages—they were horrific.
  The Abu Ghraib prison is the largest in Iraq. Since the early 1980s, I have read about executions that took place there and methods used by the regime to deal with its opponents in the prison. I visited the prison in the company of the Americans. When we reached the gate, it was locked, and the people inside refused to open it until they had received instructions from a higher military commander. We stood around for some time talking to children who were playing around the prison. The prison could house up to 75,000 people. The total prison population of this country is about 75,000, so those people could be contained in that prison alone. The 15 and 16-year-old boys who were playing around the prison had been guards there. They told us that only one day before the Americans arrived at the prison, the
  330
  remaining prisoners had been killed. They had been stood in trenches up their waists and shot through the head.
  There are murals of Saddam Hussein on the corridors of the prison, which is gruesome beyond imagination. The murals show Saddam with a hawk on his shoulder, Saddam with a rocket launcher with a dove in its barrel and Saddam in a silk shirt with a cigar. His victims were taken from dark and overcrowded cells to the execution block that had ceiling hooks and levers that catapulted them to a grizzly death in the pits below. Some remained alive, so the guards broke their necks by standing on them. The United Nations could have continued passing resolutions for the next 50 years and sending inspectors and rapporteurs into Iraq, but in the end, despite my reservations, there was no realistic alternative to war.
  When I was in Iraq, the people on the streets to whom I talked were irritated because the debate on weapons of mass destruction was raging here at the time. When I asked them what they thought about the weapons, they were amazed that anyone was talking about them at all. They said, "Don't they care about us? Don't they care about the mass graves? Don't they care about the torture?" I assured them that we did care about all those things but that people were nevertheless worried about weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Dalyell: If that is the only side of the story, how does my hon. Friend explain the attacks on American troops in Baghdad, which happen day in, day out and are alas increasing? That is lamentable.
  Ann Clwyd: It is lamentable; my hon. Friend is right. But he must know some of the reasons for that. An Iraqi friend in this country, who had a brother in the Iraqi army for 35 years to whom he had spoken recently on the telephone, was told that people are being
  offered$600 a head for shooting at American soldiers. Of course, my hon. Friend must know that there are also the remnants of the regime—the remnants of the Ba'ath party who have so much to lose because the regime has gone, and the fedayeen who fought for Saddam. There are also extremists. For all those reasons, there is still insecurity in the country.
  For people to feel secure in Iraq now, it is imperative that they know that Saddam Hussein is either dead or arrested. They need to know that his two terrible sons are either dead or arrested. That is necessary because people feel insecure. When I spoke to people on the streets, they said, and this is no exaggeration, "Thanks to Bush and Blair." That was said to me many times. Sometimes I would ask a man a question and he would turn his head away. When I asked why he was doing that, I was told, "He thinks that the Ba'athists are still watching him, and if they come back into power, he will get into trouble." That is the level of concern that the people still feel.
  I say to my hon. Friend: stand at the mass grave at al-Hillah, where between 10,000 and 15,000 people are buried, hands tied behind their backs, bullets through their brains. Look at the pitiful possessions on the ground that the forensic scientists are going through—a watch, a faded ID card, a comb, a bit of cloth. Watch an old woman in her black chador, with tattoos on her hands, looking through the plastic bags on top of the

  331
  unidentified bodies that have been placed back in the graves for something to help her to find her son. Stand at the mass grave near Kirkuk. Look at the skeletons now tenderly reburied in simple wooden coffins. Talk to Nasir al-Hussein, who was only 12 at the time of the 1991 mass arrests. He, his mother, uncle and cousins were piled on to buses, and then the executions started down a farm road in the middle of the country. People were thrown into a pit, machine-gunned and buried with a bulldozer. Nasir crawled out of the mass grave, leaving his dead relatives behind.
  The killing fields of al-Hillah and Kirkuk are unremarkable, but here are some of the hundreds of thousands of the perhaps 1.5 million dead or missing in Iraq. Saddam's victims were the Shi'as, the Kurds and the communists—the people of Iraq. Now the secrets of that evil and despotic regime are being revealed. How much more killing might there have been? My hon. Friends may carry on about weapons of mass destruction, but I think that the action that we took was the right one, and I will always defend it.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I agree with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has said. She has a long and honourable record of reminding us what a dreadful regime that was, and if ever there was a case for regime change on humanitarian grounds, this was surely it. But of course that is not the basis on which the Government went to war.
  Interestingly, the United States Government do not have the same problem, because they basically said what the hon. Lady said, "This is an extremely unpleasant individual, who is murdering millions of his own citizens and destabilising the region, and we are not going to put up with it any longer." If the Prime Minister had come here and said that, I would have supported that, but that is not what he said. What he did, at great length, was to construct a legal case for going to war. I do not know whether that is because he felt that that was necessary, or because he felt that it was necessary to carry the majority of Labour MPs with him, but he did it.
  That surprises me to some extent because the House was very willing to go to war in Kosovo on the grounds of humanitarian intervention when 30 people had been killed in the so-called Racak massacre. That intervention was clearly illegal by any standards of international law. There was absolutely no justification for it. If there is a doctrine of humanitarian intervention, it would not have extended to that. It certainly would have extended to Iraq, but that is not the case that was made.
  I rejoiced in the outcome. I believe that the policy that we and the United States are pursuing will result in great benefits in the region. Progress—albeit modest and slow—has started towards the rule of law and democracy. There have been more elections in the middle east in the past six months than for a very long time outside Israel. All that could, and I hope will, result in a much more stable region and cut off the finance and support for many terrorist movements. However, no one would deny that it is a high-risk policy. It may or may not result in that, but it is worth a try and I hope that it succeeds.
  However, the issue is not whether we were right to go to war; the issue is the Government's credibility. So many question marks hang over the evidence presented
  332
  to Parliament that it has become an issue all of its own. The crucial question is, "Did the Government misuse or misrepresent intelligence information?" There are so many possible indicators that they did that those questions have to be answered. We have tried to get them answered and, to a large extent, failed. They cannot remain unanswered for much longer.
  The central allegation about the W M D dossier is that it was manipulated because the 45-minute claim did not justify inclusion. It was not just Andrew Gilligan who made that allegation. We set out in the report a series of newspaper articles that appeared around the same time. Many people within the machine were talking to journalists. Pauline Neville-Jones, a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, told us:
  "There was clearly turbulence inside the machine".
  We are not talking about some concoction got up by one journalist at the BBC.
  Those of us who heard Andrew Gilligan could not simply dismiss his evidence. His source was right about two things: first, that the 45-minute allegation was a late entry into the field and, secondly, that it was single sourced. He said that before anyone else and the Government have since confirmed it. He clearly had a source who knew quite a lot about what was going on. Because his evidence could not be dismissed, the Committee had difficulty in reaching a conclusion on the matter, although I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that it was virtually unanimous on everything else in the report.
  I shall highlight one or two things that cast doubt in our mind. We were a bit mystified about what was the first draft of the report. It was presented to us by Mr. Campbell and the Foreign Secretary that the first draft appeared around 9 or 10 September, which we then debated. However, the idea of the dossier had been around since March. The crucial question is what happened between March and 10 September, not what happened between 10 September and publication. What was the role of people at No. 10 during that time? I imagine it was not published in March because it was not interesting enough. The Foreign Secretary dismisses the 45-minute claim and the uranium, but they were the two things that grabbed the headlines. They got the press interested and gave some credibility to the dossier. One of those claims was so late that it did not even go through the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment procedure. The other came in very late in the day.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall not because Front-Bench spokesmen want to start the winding-up speeches.
  We find that Alastair Campbell chaired the meeting at which the draft document was considered in September, even though John Scarlett, who chairs the JIC, was at the meeting. We were told that the document was produced by the JIC, yet its chairman only sits as a member of the committee. Pauline Neville-Jones told us, as did an Australian intelligence agent, that it did not read like a JIC document. It is much more certain than a JIC document. The 1998 document that the Foreign

  333
  Office put out before Desert Fox is full of qualifications—"may be", "could be", "perhaps". Furthermore, if we compare the body of the text on the 45-minute claim and the chemical and biological weapons claims, it contains many more qualifications than the executive summary, which is more certain. We draw attention to that in our report.
  The Government's behaviour has been bizarre in several respects, including Alastair Campbell deciding that he would, would not and then would appear before the Committee, and the huge smokescreen that was thrown up. The Government have two ways of dealing with the problem. One is to pretend it does not exist. The other is to throw up huge smokescreens by letting off explosions in adjacent areas to distract attention. Alastair Campbell's performance was impressive, but bizarre. This week, there has been the extraordinary episode with Dr. Kelly. Apparently, the Ministry of Defence knew that he had talked to Mr. Gilligan the week before the Foreign Affairs Committee published its report, so why did it delay identifying him and explaining that it knew who had talked to Gilligan until after we published the report? The cynics say that that was because on the Tuesday there was a vote on foundation hospitals, but I suspect that the real reason is that the MOD did not want us to talk to him. It knew that he was not Mr. Gilligan's source for the 45-minute claim—something that we found out in the first 10 minutes of his time with us. There may be paranoia, but such actions certainly feed it. If people suspect that someone is not telling them the truth, and then that person does all sorts of bizarre things, that tends to reinforce their position.
  There are a lot of unanswered questions. The war with the BBC is an extraordinary and exaggerated distraction. The BBC has not accused the Prime Minister of lying—one of its correspondents has said that someone in the Government told him that they were unhappy about the document, which is a fundamentally different thing. The Committee was completely united in its view of the dodgy dossier, which is the most amateurish, irresponsible document that any Government have put out for 100 years or even longer. I am afraid that it has the fingerprints of the Prime Minister's director of communications all over it. It was produced at his request by a unit for which he is responsible. He has tried to lay the blame on a junior Foreign Office official for not including some footnotes, but it is inconceivable that the document would ever have been published if the person responsible for producing it were a senior Foreign Office official. It could only have been produced by an amateur or someone so irresponsible that they could not see that in pursuing the advantage of their political master they were damaging the Government's credibility.
  People who do not have any doubts about the dossier on weapons of mass destruction—and I started off without very many—will wonder, once they realise what had happened with the dodgy dossier and the way in which it was produced, how the first one was produced. We know that Mr. Campbell was chairing the meetings on both. In one, apparently, he is a complete amateur and blithering idiot, but in the other he is an objective professional, which begs what the lawyers would call
  334
  further and better particulars. The Government have undermined their own credibility with the dodgy dossier, which the Foreign Secretary himself described as a load of Horlicks; the way in which Dr. Kelly was used and abused; and the completely artificial row that Alastair Campbell has got up with the BBC, and that is now the issue.
  I believed the WMD dossier when it was published because it was common sense, considering what UNSCOM and UNMOVIC found. As a witness told us, it would have been irresponsible to come to any conclusion other than that Iraq had a WMD capability. One has increasing doubts while such weapons are not found but, of course, if they are, that will be the end of the argument, and the Government's case will have been comprehensively proved. However, if they are not found, there are only two conclusions that one can come to—either our intelligence was comprehensively wrong or, alternatively, it was misrepresented by the Government.
  The Government's credibility is now at stake. It is in their interests, if they want us to believe them on an issue like this in future, to let Parliament and the public get to the bottom of this. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that a judicial inquiry is an incredibly laborious and unsatisfactory way of doing that, but there is only one alternative. I put it to him that even now, at this late stage, he should let the Foreign Affairs Committee, o f which I am a member—[Interruption.] No, he should let it see the draft of the document and the JIC reports going back to March, so we can see who said what before the final document was produced. We should also be allowed to interview the witnesses whom we wanted to see. If we could do that, we could get to the bottom of this. It would not take two years but a couple of months, and would be much more satisfactory than the alternative. If the Foreign Secretary will not let us do that, the only alternative is an independent inquiry of some sort.
  Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Undoubtedly, the vote on 18 March on going to war was the most controversial thing to have happened in my time in the House, and it led to the biggest rebellion among Labour Members. This afternoon, four Labour Back Benchers have been called, all of whom supported our going to war, while a number of us who voted against the war were not called. The public are entitled to hear both sides of the argument, and this certainly smacks of the management of business by a Government who are in deep trouble.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is criticising the Chair directly, but to do so she must table a substantive motion. I can certainly speak for the way in which these arrangements are made, and I can assure her that every possible consideration is taken into account. The Chair may not be perfect in the eyes of all Members in the arrangements that it makes, but it does try to do so fairly and impartially. If the hon. Lady does not think so, she should table an appropriate motion.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but on a different aspect of it. I am not

  335
  making a personal complaint. I spoke for four minutes in the previous debate. Surely some consideration should be given not to rebellion, but to dissent. My particular point is that some of those who were lucky enough to be called have evaporated from the debate. Hon. Members who are lucky enough to be called in a short debate have some obligation to the rest of the House to remain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and I might share a view on the standard of courtesies currently observed in the House. Mr. Speaker has on occasion tried to remind hon. Members of the ways and practices of the House, and that it is customary to stay for debates. However, it is not a matter of order for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman looked back on the record of contributions made to all the debates that have taken place on or about this subject, he would see that there has been an attempt by the Chair to ensure the widest possible participation.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: This is a pretty sad and mucky day for the Government, following a pretty sad and mucky month. Historians will look back with astonishment at the way in which a decision that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, seemed to be brave and courageous, and which was applauded and respected by many, has since deteriorated into a morass of suspicion and recrimination that has seen trust in the Government plummet to unforeseen depths. Perhaps I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that the climate of concern that that has engendered cannot be denied or ignored.
  In the context of that collapse of trust, the report, as far as it goes, matters. We welcome it, and the Committee's work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) catalogued in great detail the confusion and inconsistency that have become the hallmark of the Government. He spoke of the September dossier, the February dossier, the weapons of mass destruction, the 45-minutes claim, the supposed uranium from Niger, and Dr. David Kelly's witness, but the Foreign Secretary failed to address any of those matters. We did not hear a single word about any detailed aspect of the report. We had 35 minutes of fog and distraction, and he dwelt only on the idea of setting up a judicial inquiry. That is only a part of the motion.
  If I accused the right hon. Gentleman of taking 45 minutes to launch an argument, he would no doubt find a way of denying it. His tactic at the end was shameful. Saying that a vote for the motion would be a vote to criticise the intelligence services is the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Straw: I did not say that, as the record will show. I said that the Opposition's motion represented a lack of confidence in the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is true. I also said that the fact that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) failed to mention the ISC in the motion or in his speech was an insult to members of that Committee from both sides of the House.
  Mr. Duncan: The record will show whether the right hon. Gentleman said "services" or "Committee".
  336
  I thought I heard "services". However, it is not the Committee or the intelligence services that we are criticising. It is perhaps his conduct, and that of Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister and the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, the debate is about the nature of the information that the Government had and the way in which that information was handled.
  I say again on the record that we supported the decision to take military action in Iraq. We still think it was right, but we took an enormous amount on trust. The Prime Minister's conduct is now under scrutiny. We have not changed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire implies. The Prime Minister must be judged by the terms of his arguments and reasoning, and he must be judged against the arguments that he put and the methods that he adopted. That is why the anger is most heated on the Government Benches. Many there feel that the Prime Minister has engaged in chicanery in order to win them round. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) implied in her point of order, it was his own side that had to be persuaded.
  I cannot rehearse all the arguments, but let me take one—the subsequent approach to weapons of mass destruction, which follows from the main argument that was put to justify going into Iraq in the first place. It appears from everything that the Government have done that they hoped that after the successful so-called liberation of Iraq, the question of weapons of mass destruction would go away. It was "so-called" in terms of the obvious jubilation and total agreement within Iraq that was predicted by many who went in—which I have to say that the Opposition questioned at the very beginning. The Prime Minister always said, "Oh, we'll definitely find them." In The Spectator, the Secretary of State for Defence said of WMD:
  "Well, that was the reason we gave, which I stand by, for taking military action against Saddam … We're confident that weapons of mass destruction are there. We now have to find them."
  Yet, within a few days, the newly appointed Secretary of State for International Development said that they were not a high priority. Of course, the Government are now saying that all that they need to show is that there were some kind of plans or programmes.
  I think that the Committee has done its work very well. Clearly, its work has not finished, and some of the questioning has been very tough and will remain so. We have had a productive debate this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) put his finger on the main question of whether the UK went to war on a flawed prospectus, and whether that prospectus was mishandled by the process of government at the highest level. It is that process that is now under investigation, and we welcome the Liberal Democrats' decision to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) again questioned the 45-minute claim, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire spoke very thoughtfully about the coalition between the left-of-centre Prime Minister—or perhaps I should say the so-called left-of-centre Prime Minister—and a right-of-centre President.

  337
  In the speech that we heard at the very end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) put his finger on the central issue. What is now of great concern to everybody is that this matter has gone to the heart of the credibility of the Government in so many areas. We took the Prime Minister on trust. Maybe we were ill advised to do so, and our eyes should have been wider open.
  It is not as if we have not voiced our concerns in the past. Perhaps I may even, in a rare moment of self-indulgence, refer to a little-known pamphlet—guess who wrote it. It was published on the day that John Major announced the date of the 1997 election, so it is unique in being the most ignored and overshadowed document in British political history. Do not the Government just wish that their own dossiers were the same?
  The pamphlet states:
  "The evidence is that young people are already beginning to see through the slick imagery of Tony Blair. A recent opinion poll commissioned for … a …satellite youth channel, found that 56% of 18-25 year-olds regard Blair as 'untrustworthy'. They can sense that there is something not quite right about him."
  Allow me a little more self-indulgence:
  "What are his dominant qualities? The first is a seemingly insatiable vanity, touching on vainglory."—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is far too much sedentary comment. He should be allowed to make his speech, and we will then hear a reply from the Minister.
  Mr. Duncan: Labour Members do not like hearing what I am saying. There is nothing dodgy about this:
  "The second is a simplistic evangelism of the sort that believes that wanting a better world constitutes a serious policy. The third is a ruthlessness which is deployed only for power but never for principle. This is a potent cocktail for tragedy."
  Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman has accepted that he launched his pamphlet on the day when John Major announced the date of the 1997 general election, will he remind us what effect it had on the result of that election?
  Mr. Duncan: Sadly, it had no effect, for the reasons that I have explained, but it had another useful paragraph. It said that the Prime Minister's
  "first act would be to appoint a political No. 10 press secretary in order to blur the conventional distinction between official government activity and party political matters."
  It also said that he would
  "extend the system of surrounding senior ministers with political appointees whose prime purpose would be to override the impartiality of civil servants."
  All that I missed out of that wonderful document was the fact that Alastair Campbell would appoint himself effective head of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
  That was a fitting prelude to the conclusions of the report. The ingredients of the tragedy that is unfolding have always been there. We have had the smiles to camera, the slogans, the negative politics, the crafting and the spin. I could live with that—as my hon. Friend
  338
  the Member for South Staffordshire urged—if it had stopped there, but the trouble with riding so high for so long on the back of those techniques is that the Prime Minister now finds it difficult to distinguish truth from falsity. That is what brings politics into disrepute; we would be fools to pretend otherwise. The effect of this sad episode is that the Prime Minister's credibility is crumbling. His party, rather like Baghdad, is teetering between order and security. The evident decency of most Labour Members has been sorely affronted, prompting two Cabinet resignations and no end of disquiet on the Prime Minister's side of the House. Instead of getting an honest account, we receive groundless rebuttals and a cheesy grin of deceit.
  The question of trust is important enough even on the battleground of our own domestic politics, but as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, it is of far graver significance in the context of potential global events. Institutions are under strain, and concepts and doctrines of military action are in turmoil. The crucial moral foundation needed by any country that might choose to exercise military authority over another is the decency of its own conduct and actions. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would accept, as a principle for his future actions, that if a country is not trusted by its own people, it will not be trusted in the context of wider global events.
  I urge Labour Members to consider what might happen in the event of a decision to take action against: North Korea or Iran in relation to the nuclear programmes that we all believe that they are trying to build up. Given the Government's conduct in this case., and in the absence of any resolution of the concerns that have subsequently arisen, what credibility would they., or any coalition, have? Where would the world end up if a cloud of suspicion were to hang over such judgments in future?
  We can address that problem now, and we cart address it conclusively. I urge the House to vote for the motion and to take steps towards rebuilding the trust that befits this country, but which has been inexcusably sullied by the Prime Minister.
  3.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): We have had a constructive and serious debate, and I am pleased that so many Members were able to contribute.
  Let me start with the nub of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—that because of concerns raised over some elements of the intelligence material, there are doubts about the integrity of the Government's decision to take this country to war, and that there should therefore be an independent judicial inquiry. Yet the Foreign Affairs Committee, in a report and conclusions that every Member welcomed, specifically said: first, that Ministers did not mislead Parliament; secondly, that the claims made in the September dossier were in all probability well founded; thirdly, that the threat posed to UK forces was genuinely perceived as a real and present danger; and fourthly—and importantly, given that it is the Committee's response to the key accusation that has been running for weeks— that Alastair Campbell did not play any role in the inclusion of the 45-minute claim in the September dossier.

  339
  The Foreign Affairs Committee, after receiving much evidence and following exhaustive examination and deliberation, effectively rebutted the key allegations and arguments that have been presented today.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Its report also stated:
  "We conclude that it is too soon to tell whether the Government's assertions on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons will be borne out."
  Mr. Rammell: I am confident that the information the Government received and the judgment they made were correct.
  Various hon. Members have commented on the allegations. In opening the debate, the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to the February dossier. I was interested to note that he said that the substance was not wrong but that the process for drawing up the dossier was flawed. The Government have accepted that the way in which it was drawn up was not perfect. However, not one word has been proven inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman did not challenge the accuracy or the Facts in the dossier.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I want to make progress.
  I was interested in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who expressed his anxiety about the lack of independence of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who supported the Government in the vote on going to war, voted against the Government at least once during the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs Committee. [Interruption.] Perhaps I do my hon. Friend an injustice; he voted against the Government more than once. However, my point is that the Select Committee process is independent, robust and capable of getting at the issues.
  Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I am not happy about the term, "voted against the Government". If that is the criterion, I provided the majority that insisted on Alastair Campbell coming back. Some of my colleagues did not believe that he should.
  Mr. Rammell: I stand corrected on the terminology.
  Paul Flynn: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No.
  The actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock nevertheless demonstrate that the process is robust and independent. I stress that point to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who claimed that the Intelligence and Security Committee process is flawed because the Government will vet its report. I refer him again to the comments of Lord King, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, who said that
  340
  the reports cannot be censored and that the Government cannot delete anything simply because it is embarrassing for them.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Under-Secretary understand that we must satisfy not ourselves but public opinion? If the Government have nothing to fear, why not have an inquiry that is answerable to the public?
  Mr. Rammell: As the Foreign Secretary made clear, an independent judicial inquiry would take such a long time that the questions would not be tackled and answered.
  The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was interesting. He had a fascinating exchange with the shadow Foreign Secretary. Given the comments of Conservative Front-Bench Members, he rightly asked whether the Conservative party would in future take the stance that the Foreign Affairs Committee should have full access to intelligence information and witnesses. The question was greeted with resounding silence from the shadow Foreign Secretary.
  Donald Anderson: I was trying to make a simple point: if shadow Front-Bench Members criticise the Government for not doing something that they themselves refuse to do, that is pure opportunism.
  Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. I too was trying to make that point, albeit less eloquently than the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Paul Flynn: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I shall make progress.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West(Mr. Ross) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) made significant contributions. However, the most impressive and courageous speech was that of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). With extraordinary prescience and courage, he pointed out, to put it at its politest, the official Opposition's errors. He rightly argued that, through their actions and tactics, the Conservatives were undermining their credibility by nit-picking—I use his phrase—over matters that do not affect the material issue. It is worth pointing out that he ended his contribution by saying that he was ashamed of his party for making the accusations that it is making today. That took courage, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. John Randall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rammell: I will make some progress, if I may.
  Two important claims that have been made against the Government are that in key respects, the intelligence material presented in the September dossier, and, by implication, the basis on which we went to war, were false. On behalf of the Government, I flatly reject that

  341
  allegation. The 45-minute claim came from an established, reliable and long-standing source that the intelligence services judged to be credible.
  Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for you to remind the Minister that, according to the courtesy of the House, when a Member is mentioned in a Minister's speech, it is usual to give way to that Member?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. Whether an hon. Member gives way is ultimately a matter for the Member in question.
  Mr. Rammell: Because of the shortage of time, I want to try to make some progress.
  I flatly reject the allegation about the 45-minute claim.
  Secondly, many hon. Members have referred to the issue of the yellow cake from Niger. We have consistently made it clear that, notwithstanding the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency, other information was available to us. The importance of this and the other accusation has been blown completely out of proportion, in relation to their relevance and importance in the debate that took place in the run-up to the passing of the resolution that committed our troops to action in March.
  Mr. Randall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I want to make some progress.
  The key issue that was consistently put forward at that time did not relate to this or that piece of intelligence information. The fundamental issue, then and now, is Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441. It was on the basis of that resolution, which was not based on specific intelligence materials, that we took the decision to commit ourselves to military action.
  It is also worth recalling the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on 18 March, when that key vote took place. He took an absolutely justified position. He did not say that he was supporting the Government because of what they had told him about 45 minutes or about yellow cake; he rightly said that he was doing so because, after 12 years of non-compliance, resolution 1441 had given Saddam a final opportunity to comply and he had not taken it. That is why the Leader of the Opposition supported the Government in committing to war. If he has now changed his mind on that fundamental issue, he is entitled to do so, but I think that the House is entitled to know the reasons why the Conservative Opposition have changed their position.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman keeps making that point, but did he not hear me making it absolutely clear when I opened this debate that we backed the Prime Minister on 18 March because we believed that he was acting in the national interest? That remains our position, and the Minister should stop making these accusations.
  Mr. Rammell: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has heard very clearly today from one of his own hon.
  342
  Friends why that argument has no credibility whatever, because of the nit-picking and the Conservative party's attempt to play politics with this issue.
  I want to deal briefly with the issue of the independent inquiry, which forms a key part of the motion tabled by the Conservative Opposition. If we were to go down that route, it would take at least two years—judging by previous experience—for such an inquiry to reach a conclusion. Is that really the mechanism that we want to use to get to the bottom of these issues? I do not believe that that is what the House wants.
  Mr. Randall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No, I want to make some progress.
  Let us consider the detail of the Opposition motion. They claim first that the Foreign Affairs Committee had insufficient time to complete its task. That was a matter for the Committee; it chose the time scale and the deadline. If the Conservative Opposition have a problem with that, they should refer it to the Select Committee.
  Secondly, the Opposition claim that there are concerns about intelligence material. I believe that I have dealt with those concerns, and made it clear that we committed ourselves to the war not because of individual pieces of intelligence but because Saddam had failed to comply with resolution 1441. Nevertheless. there will be a robust and independent inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will be able to get to the bottom of those issues.
  Thirdly, the Opposition claim that we need an independent inquiry. As I have said, it would take two years to complete such an inquiry. The ISC could do the same job in an eighth of the time.
  I do not consider the motion credible. It is not worthy of the official Opposition, and certainly not worthy of an Opposition who claim to aspire to government. I urge my colleagues to support the Government amendment and oppose the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 299.

  Division No. 294]

  [4:05 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Breed, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Amess, David

  Burnett, John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barker, Gregory

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cash, William

  Barrett, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chope, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Conway, Derek

  Brazier, Julian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  343

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Curry, rh David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McDonnell, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dodds, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Maples, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Maude, rh Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Flook, Adrian

  Moore, Michael

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, rh Eric

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Francois, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Öpik, Lembit

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Goodman, Paul

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Grayling, Chris

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, rh John

  Gummer, rh John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hague, rh William

  Rendel, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hendry, Charles

  Salmond, Alex

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Holmes, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Jack, rh Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Steen, Anthony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lamb, Norman

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lidington, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Thurso, John

  344

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Viggers, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Walter, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Weir, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Angela Watkinson and

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cummings, John

  Baird, Vera

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Banks, Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Battle, John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  David, Wayne

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davidson, Ian

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Stuart

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benn, Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Denham, rh John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bryant, Chris

  Flint, Caroline

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cairns, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Goggins, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  345

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Healey, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  MacDougall, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McFall, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heppell, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hodge, Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miliband, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Margaret

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Olner, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kidney, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pearson, Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Perham, Linda

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Picking, Anne

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lammy, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lepper, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pound, Stephen

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Linton, Martin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Love, Andrew

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Purnell, James

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Quinn, Lawrie

  346

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ward, Claire

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

  Watts, David

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Helen

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Straw, rh Jack

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Gillian Merron and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Ninth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Decision to go to War in Iraq, Session 2002–03, HC 813; notes that substantial oral and written evidence, by and on behalf of the Government, was provided to the Committee; believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee, established by Parliament by statute, is the appropriate body to consider the intelligence relating to Iraq; and notes that this Committee has already begun its inquiry.

Vulnerable Children
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.18 pm
Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That this House notes that it is now almost six months since the publication of Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbie Inquiry and well over three years since the death of this little girl; further notes that, of the 108 recommendations by Lord Laming, 82 were recommended to be acted upon within six months; condemns the Government for its continued failure to produce the long-awaited Green Paper on Children at Risk, which was originally promised in the spring as the Government's response to many of the systemic failures in child protection highlighted by Lord Laming; is concerned at the continued failure of the Government to address the crisis in recruitment of social worker professionals skilled in child protection who are essential to addressing these failures; regrets that local authorities are unable to implement changes recommended in the Report which would improve the delivery of children's services, because of the delay in the publication of the Government's response; welcomes the creation of the post of a Minister for Children, after six years in government; and calls on the Government to publish the Green Paper immediately as planned in order to secure the confidence and support of all those involved in the protection of vulnerable children.
This debate should not be happening today. On the penultimate day that the House sits before the summer recess, it has taken an Opposition day debate to force the Government to address the issues of child abuse and safeguarding vulnerable children that were highlighted so graphically and alarmingly by Lord Laming's report into the death of Victoria Climbié. The report was published almost six months ago, and the number of hon. Members remaining in the Chamber shows what a pent-up demand there is for this debate.
Since 28 January, no Minister has made a further statement to the House and we have been constantly fobbed off with the excuse, "It's all in the Green Paper, just wait a little longer". We are still waiting. Only this month, we were told that we and, more important, vulnerable children will have to wait even longer, at least until the other side of the summer recess, despite the Government's previous undertakings, on a matter of the utmost urgency and relevance for all hon. Members.
The events and circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, set out in Lord Laming's excellent, comprehensive but deeply worrying report, cannot have failed to move everyone in the House and beyond. It is the most harrowing case that I have ever experienced in my six years as a Member. An eight-year-child was brought to the United Kingdom from the Ivory Coast, supposedly in search of a better life, in the care of a distant relative, only to die 10 months later with 128 injuries, including cigarette burns, weals from beatings with bicycle chains, belts and coat hangers, and hammer blows to her feet. She weighed only 3 stone 10 lbs, with severe muscle wasting and lung, heart and kidney failure after months of systematic abuse. As Lord Laming said, she was
"the victim of almost unimaginable cruelty".
348
Thankfully, the perpetrators of that horrific crime, Marie Therese Kouao and Carl Manning, are currently serving long jail sentences. More worryingly, the serious systemic failures that let down Victoria Climbié have still largely to be addressed.
In a report of 405 pages with 108 recommendations, in an inquiry that took 279 witness statements and sifted through 4,000 documents, Herbert Laming insisted that changes to the system were urgently required. He identified 46 recommendations that could be implemented within three months and 36 that could and should be implemented within six months. The rest could be implemented within two years. Those recommendations, as he put it,
"cannot be deferred to some bright tomorrow".
He made the grave finding:
"Not one of the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children in positions similar to Victoria's—funded from the public purse—emerge from this inquiry with much credit. The suffering and death of Victoria was a gross failure of the system and was inexcusable…bad practice can be expensive."
Haringey police admitted:
"In the A-Z of an investigation, that investigation did not even get to B."
The then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) assured us:
"If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it too."—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 741.]
The Opposition have offered unqualified support to address a situation that brings shame on our society, with whatever measures are needed, and quickly, and have expressed a determination that this report—the latest of 30 reports on the deaths of children known to social services in as many years—should be different.
Despite all that, since 28 January, no Minister has come to the House to report on the progress of the measures being taken in the wake of Lord Laming's report. No Government time has been allocated to debate child protection measures in the Chamber. The Green Paper on children at risk, promised much earlier in the spring as the Government's formal response to the Laming inquiry, and almost "sexed up" as the universal panacea for everything that is wrong in the whole issue of child protection, has still not appeared. It has been shunted off until some unspecified date in the autumn at the earliest.
The tragedy is that the events surrounding Victoria Climbié's death were not Isolated. There have been numerous other high-profile cases of children dying at the hands of parents or carers: for example, the case of six-year-old Lauren Wright from Norfolk; the case of two-year-old Ainlee Walker from Newham; and the case in my own constituency of four-year-old John Smith, who died on Christmas eve 1999 with 54 bruises, bite marks and burns that he suffered at the hands of his foster carers. We know that, on average, 80 children, mostly under the age of one, die in such circumstances every year, and that most of the perpetrators go unpunished.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children survey of 366 such cases found that in 225 no further action was taken against the suspected perpetrators, and 99 convictions were secured, but few

349
of them were for the charge of murder—they were mostly for the lesser charge of cruelty. The indictment rate for such people has been falling drastically.
As hon. Members know, there is a particular problem with the legal loophole of proving joint enterprise that still needs to be resolved despite the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House to amend Home Office Bills to that effect.
It is not only the extreme cases that end in death about which we need to be concerned. Many more problems associated with vulnerable children urgently need action from the Government. For example, a quarter of all rape victims in the United Kingdom are children and those are just the ones that we know about. Despite the good work that is being done as a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which we all supported, there are still about 55,000 looked-after children and 30,000 children are on the child protection register, with 600 being added every week. Those children are 50 times more likely than the average child to end up in prison, 60 times more likely to become homeless and 88 times more likely to be involved in drug abuse.
Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the Adoption and Children Act. Will he also acknowledge the fact that the Adoption Forum has decided to wind up because the Government have fulfilled its agenda, including the passage of that Act and the creation of the post of Minister for Children?
Tim Loughton: Indeed. I pay tribute to the excellent work that members of that forum did. It is regrettable in many ways that it has been wound up, but it is a sign that much work has been done and I pay tribute to the progress that has been made as a result of the 2002 Act on which we both spent many hours, days and weeks—in fact, more than a year.
It is also estimated that three out of every five children who suffer abuse have mothers who experience domestic violence from their partners, that 19 in every 10,000 children under the age of 18 are receiving support services from local authorities—in inner London, that figure rises to as many as 43 in every 10,000—and one in 10 have mental health problems. It is estimated that about 450,000 children are the victims of bullying at school. We have recently seen too many examples of children being driven to suicide as a result of those and other pressures. Furthermore, 130,000 children call ChildLine every year.
We also have a crisis with the children and family court system. A recent report revealed that children at risk of abuse are waiting up to 15 weeks in some parts of the country for court hearings on their future because of a shortage of guardians to represent them after the Government's bungled reorganisation resulted in the loss of many skilled professionals in that area of child protection.
In London, where about 190 children are waiting for hearings to decide whether they should be taken into care, vulnerable children often remain with the people who pose a threat to them because the system is overloaded and taking too long at a crucial and sensitive time. As the Minister recently revealed in a written
350
answer, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is dealing with about 12,245 public law cases concerned with care, adoption and guardianship.
There are also serious concerns about the number of children who are held in prison, which has doubled from 1,328 in 1992 to 2,609 last year. The provisions of child welfare considerations under the Children Act 1989 do not extend a duty to prison authorities.
There are concerns about the continuation of private fostering despite the strong recommendations of the Utting report, echoed by Lord Laming, which affects more than 10,000 children, primarily from west Africa whence Victoria Climbié came. There are concerns about the continued delay in the national service framework for children, which now seems to have been put back well into 2004.
All in all, the health and welfare of our children does not appear to have been a priority under this Government and the delay in the Green Paper, which is intended as a discussion document and not firm Government proposals, can only add to that impression. As the all-party parliamentary group on children put it in its annual review,
"In general children are, and have been ignored in the area of health policy. But children should be a focus because nothing matters more to families than the health, welfare and future success of their children."
As Lucy Thorpe, policy director of the NSPCC put it,
"Children area ¼ of the population and for too long their health needs, from a child-centred perspective, have come a poor second to those of adults."
What the Government have been good at, however, is coming up with new schemes, bodies and titles, supposedly to deal with child welfare: the children and young people's unit, area child protection committees, sure start, home start, children's fund, children's trusts, children's centres, the neighbourhood support fund, the parenting fund, Connexions, quality protects, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative, children's strategic partnership bodies, the national service framework for children—or lack of it—CAFCASS, the children's tsar, and so on. I am sure that each of those has merits, but taken together, they represent a bombardment of local initiatives from central Government. They are not joined up, often work in silos and, as Lord Laming has said, often poach staff from one another.
Conversely, what the Government are particularly bad at producing is the increase in the number of social workers skilled in child protection who can carry out those initiatives and look out for children on the ground. The Government always claim that they have no central information on recruitment or retention rates. According to Library figures, the social worker vacancy rate is well above 10 per cent. and much higher for child social workers, and things are much worse in London and the south-east.
Many experienced professionals are demoralised and leaving the profession. The figures conceal the real problems of a heavy reliance on agency staff and a big turnover in staff. A Unison survey revealed that 60 per cent. of departments said that, even if all the vacant posts were filled, there would still not be enough social workers to manage the current case loads—and those case loads will increase, with the extra duties being

351
placed on local authorities, for example, with responsibilities under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and so on.
Clearly, there are many problems with the welfare of children that the Government urgently need to address, and we might have expected them to be addressed urgently after the then Secretary of State's encouraging response to the Laming report.
Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend mentions social worker vacancies. Does he agree that it behoves all of us, particularly the press, to act with great responsibility when social workers are brought into the limelight for having done something wrong? Although we would all want such matters to be fully and properly investigated, we must bear in mind the effect on those thinking of joining the profession if the downside seems huge and the upside is ignored.
Tim Loughton: I could not agree more. No one is interested in reading the story about the plane that landed safely. The press only like to come up with the bad news stories that pillory social workers, who are given a bad reputation. The vast majority of them do a very good job in increasingly difficult circumstances, and we all have a duty to improve the image. There has been too much finger-pointing, which is most unhelpful.
There are many questions still to be answered. In his response to the Laming report, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) posed a series of practical questions to clarify the Government's intentions. He asked how the House could monitor progress on the Laming report in a truly transparent way. How will communications improve in practice, beyond just setting up new structures? What role is envisaged for the greater use of information sharing in early detection? What review of the Data Protection Act 1998 will the Government undertake to ensure that nothing stands in the way proper information sharing? To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current classification of children in need of protection militates against appropriate protection? What changes will be made? What has the Secretary of State learned from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which places a positive duty of care on parents to promote children's well-being? Should sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 be amended to include the police and general practitioners as agencies that should support local authorities in carrying out their duties in relation to children in need of protection?
Many other hon. Members have asked questions as well about the future of children's trusts and whether the Secretary of State agrees that all the agencies involved in area child protection committees should have a statutory duty to take part in them. In answer to all those points and more, which the Secretary of State welcomed, he pointed to the forthcoming Green Paper to provide the comprehensive answers. I say again that we are still waiting, so I and other hon. Members have been tabling a number of questions to elicit answers from the Government.
352
for example, earlier in the year, I asked the Secretary of State
"how many recommendations by Lord Laming in his report on Victoria Climbié shown as achievable within three months have been initiated; which have not".
The response from the Minister, who is present today in a new role as the Minister for Industry and the Regions, was:
"There are 46 recommendations in the Victoria Climbié Inquiry which are…achievable within three months…the checklist of good practice recommendations sent to police, health and social services…were also included in the self-audit tools which were issued subsequently by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Social Services Inspectorate. The remaining…recommendations will be covered in our substantive response to the report, to be published shortly as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk."—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 65-66W.]
Sending out a checklist is not the same as acting on the recommendations and being able to see how the system has changed as a result. What auditing mechanism is in place to make sure that local authorities have acted on the good practice recommendations? Will compliance, for example, be a component of social services star ratings in future?
Earlier in the year, I asked which area child protection committees are complying with the guidance from the Laming report. I received the answer:
"The information requested is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 10 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 96W.]
I asked which recommendations the Government intended to implement. The Government's answer was:
"we will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk, which will be published in the spring."—[Official Report, 3 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 882W.]
We do not therefore know how much of the Laming report the Government agree with and want to implement. Which recommendations do they not intend to adopt?
I asked:
"what communications to GPs regarding procedures for dealing with children suspected of suffering harm at the hands of their carers have been issued"?
I received the answer:
"There were no communications directly to general practitioners regarding procedures for dealing with children suspected of suffering harm at the hands of their carers".—[Official Report, 27 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 701W.]
I asked,
"what discussions he has had with social services authorities in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast about the dangers to children coming to the UK to live without their parents."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 516W.]
The answer was, "None". One might have expected the Government to address the source of the problem in Victoria Climbié's case— not least because of the high incidence of child trafficking from that part of the world and private fostering involving children from west Africa—either through dealing with international social services or directly with those Governments. The answer, however, is that nothing has happened.

353
I asked the Minister,
"what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the confidentiality considerations contained in the Data Protection Act…and the sharing of information about vulnerable children between agencies recommended by Lord Laming."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring mentioned, that was a key consideration. Surprise, surprise, the answer was that the Government
"will publish a full response to the report in the spring."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 31W.]
I therefore asked what estimate the Secretary of State had made of
"the cost of the implementation of recommendations in the Laming report for each local authority".
We were told:
"This good practice… is covered within the budgets already allocated"—
but, surprise, surprise—
"The response to the Inquiry, covering all the other recommendations, will be made as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk."—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 368W.]
Never in the history of Parliament, it would appear, has so much been promised in a single Green Paper.
Local authorities are in limbo as to what resources to use for the Laming recommendations, let alone which will take priority, and we all know that without the resources and the professional staff, the Laming report will not be implemented in anything like the comprehensive way that is necessary if it is to make a real difference.
Clive Efford: Those of us who were on social services committees during the last Conservative Government will not recognise anything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. As a member of a social services committee that went through the Kimberley Carlisle inquiry, I know that the Government did not fund a single recommendation that came out of it. Local authorities were forced to fund that from their existing budgets. For his information, the local authority was also forced to pay for the entire inquiry out of that budget.
Tim Loughton: Labour Members may like to play the usual game of saying that it is all the fault of the Conservative party.
Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: Let me give an answer first. In the 1990s, we had nothing like the same haemorrhaging of professional, skilled social workers—the people with the experience of dealing with these cases day in, day out—demoralised by having too many agency workers filling places and having extra responsibilities placed on them without the extra resources to go with it. We do not therefore need to take any lessons from the Labour party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tim Loughton: I will give way in a minute, if I can make a little more progress.
In many respects, therefore, an awful lot is riding on this Green Paper. Its non-appearance is not simply an unfortunate oversight in parliamentary procedure—something for political debate, relevant only to the confines and niceties of this Chamber—but is having seriously detrimental effects on professionals involved in child protection, and, inevitably, on the welfare oaf children themselves. The lack of progress is causing chaos for other Bills as well, with Bill teams increasingly saying that legislation depends on issues still to be raised in the Green Paper.
Ms Debra Shipley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that measures such as my Protection of Children Act 1999 show that there has been a constructive approach from all parts of the House on child protection? I especially pay tribute to Opposition Members for their work on my Act. Will he outline his party's opinion on the Laming report and tell us how it would contribute constructively to the report's recommendations?
Tim Loughton: Gladly. We published a response on 28 January. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring outlined a series of criteria that we want and on which we largely agree with Lord Laming. We also held a summit on child health and protection issues at Westminster on the day that the Laming report came out, which brought together a whole host of professionals. We have made many suggestions on how we should move forward from the report. We have been waiting for the Green Paper so that we may make our suggestions formally in response to the Government's consultation.
Let us listen to what other people have said about the problems caused by the lack of progress. The Local Government Association said:
"The Local Government Association…is disappointed and frustrated at the further delay to the Green Paper on Children at Risk. Five months after Lord Laming's report into Victoria Clirnbié's tragic death, progress should have been made on introducing measures to address the failings that Laming identified. Councils should not still be waiting for the government to give an indication of the changes to be proposed. Too many councils are in limbo, ambitious about improving their services in line with Laming's recommendations but afraid to implement changes without knowing what is around the corner."
Voluntary bodies such as the NSPCC have voiced their frustration at being constantly fobbed off about the timing of the Green Paper. Doctors need clear guidance and training. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said:
"Implementing Laming advice will mean a lot of extra work. We will need perhaps 30 trainers across the country to roll out the programme to …6000 college members in the UK".
On the point about information sharing, it says:
"All reports into child abuse say it is essential to share information—with other doctors, with social services, with the police. But the laws on confidentiality state that we must not share this information"—

355
although that is a crucial point that Laming identified. Doctors point out that we need a rational system for classifying abuse cases because, as their representatives say:
"At the moment child protection is seen as black or white. Either there is a child protection issue or there is not."
Many questions and problems need urgently to be addressed. There is a lot riding on this illusory Green Paper and there is no excuse for further delay. Victoria Climbié was murdered three and a half years ago. The trial of her killers ended two and half years ago. The proceedings of Lord Laming's inquiry opened more than two years ago. Numerous studies on child protection have been commissioned, such as the "Safeguarding Children" report that was published last autumn and dealt with arrangements for area child protection committees.
On 30 October 2002, the Prime Minister promised that a Green Paper would be published early in 2003 on the whole issue of children at risk and that the problem would be dealt with across the whole of government. However, there has been great confusion about which Department has taken ownership of the Green Paper and the Departments that have inputted information; I gather that it has largely been under the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. On 28 January, the former Secretary of State for Health said:
"We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk which we intend to publish this spring."—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 737.]
The spring has come and gone. Secretaries of State have come and gone. A new Minister for Children has come. We welcome the creation of the post of Minister for Children if it will genuinely join up Government policy on children across Departments. We have long called for that as an alternative to the situation under the previous nominal Minister with responsibility for children, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He was also the Home Office Minister with responsibility for prisons, so that sent out all the wrong signals about the way in which the Government deal with children.
The hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) made a terrible start as the first holder of the important, sensitive and much-trumpeted post of Minister for Children. She has spent her first four weeks on the defensive for her track record as the leader of Islington council when she presided over one of the worst cases of systematic child sexual abuse and neglect in a local authority, despite the strong warnings that she was personally given by senior social workers.
Yet perhaps we should not be surprised when we see that senior officers in other Labour-run London councils, who all had responsibility for departments that should have looked after Victoria Climbié, went on to greater things. One became the head of the Commission for Racial Equality; one was head-hunted by Hackney council; one council leader went to the Lords and is a member of the Greater London Authority. If we add to that the track record of the hon. Member for Barking for putting the considerations of political correctness before the common-sense welfare of children, personally launching a booklet about banning skipping ropes, musical chairs and GCSE grades below C, we have to ask whether this important appointment is not already fatally flawed and one of the biggest let-downs of the botched reshuffle.
356
Although the creation of the role was widely welcomed by all sorts of organisations involved with children and by us, the hon. Lady's appointment was greeted with deafening silence. Rather than spending her first month defending her record, claiming that her mistakes make her ideally placed for this new role and trying to sell us the line that the Green Paper will again be delayed because the Prime Minister wants to be personally involved in its launch, which she says is an unparalleled commitment—it is not, because he took ownership of the review on adoption, for example—she should be answering questions about what her new Department will cover.
Will the new Department or the Department of Health be responsible for children and adolescent mental health services? Will the hon. Lady be responsible for the even more delayed national service framework for children? When will we get serious and comprehensive solutions to the issues raised by Lord Laming? When will responsibility for child protection be properly joined up at local level, and which individual will ultimately take responsibility for drawing all the relevant agencies together locally? Where, and when, will the buck stop? When will we have properly informed assessments of need for individual children, properly monitored, resourced and implemented? When does the hon. Lady expect to have established a framework for children at risk which is all about outcomes, not structures, and which is child-centred, not concentrated on the adult agenda?
Those are the issues that need addressing urgently. Instead, it would appear that the hon. Lady's sole achievement today is an undertaking that she will not in fact be the Minister for Children but the Minister for Children, Young People and Families. We fear that the Green Paper will be further delayed by the new Minister being sidelined and sidetracked by having to defend herself, now that the truth is coming out about her failure to protect vulnerable children in Islington.
The Laming report must be different. It must herald a radical shake-up of the system. As the former Secretary of State for Health promised:
"In future services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation, but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structure—should be allowed to stand in the way."—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 741.]
We agree wholeheartedly with that now, as we did then. But changing ministerial titles, giving feeble excuses for delay about prime ministerial interests and issuing checklists about how many interdepartmental committees need to meet do not save children at risk and are now standing in the way of protecting those children.
The real test for any new structures must be measured not by how many bulletins and meetings are generated, but by how many children are saved from cruelty and abuse. The Green Paper has been promised as a crucial element in that process, and must be produced and promoted without further delay. To repeat Lord Laming, the
"recommendations cannot be deferred to some bright tomorrow."

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Immigration, the Ayes were 376, the Noes were 52, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Social Security, the Ayes were 270, the Noes were 52, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]
4.49 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's commitment to children's services as evidenced by the appointment of the Minister of State for Children; congratulates the Government on its Quality Protects initiative, which provided £885 million to improve children's social services; supports the action the Government is taking to legislate to establish an independent inspectorate to inspect local authority children's services and social care provided by the private and voluntary sector; notes that the Government, local authorities and other statutory bodies are already taking further action to improve services for children, in the light of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report; congratulates the Government and local services on the announcement of the 35 Children's Trusts Pathfinders on 10th July; and looks forward to the publication of the Green Paper on children in the autumn."
We welcome the debate. I shall begin by addressing aspects of common ground before exploring points of difference. We all welcome Lord Laming's report and its recommendations. We also all regret that the time scale is so long, although the reasons for that are understandable. Victoria Climbié tragically died on 25 February 2000. Two individuals were convicted of her murder on 12 January 2001; Lord Laming's inquiry was established on 20 April 2001; the evidence was finished on 31 July 2002; and the inquiry reported on 28 January 2003. The period is too long. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that that is a matter of concern which we need to address.
The truth is that we have a long history of sad inquiries. Since about 1980, there have been more than 50 inquiries into child deaths and child abuse, of which five, including the Laming inquiry, were statutory inquiries. The others were serious case reviews of high-profile cases, including some in my county. As an aside, I pay tribute to Conservative Secretaries of State during that time who tried to address those matters in a principled way. That is how we should address politicians who tackle such problems; we should not cast slurs.
Equally, there have been inquiry reports—17 in the same period—into the abuse of children in residential care. We all know that there is too long a history of a children's social services profession that has been blown about by difficult sequences of appalling tragedies and their consequent inquiries. Sometimes the profession has been accused of intervening too much, and at other times of intervening too little. It has been difficult to get stability in those circumstances. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that getting a sense of proportion and balance is
358
extremely difficult but also extremely important. So another aspect of common ground is the need for stability and confidence in the profession so that people can proceed with their professional duties in a positive and strong way that deals with the interests of the child.
The third element of common ground, on which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham concluded, is linked to the second. The child's welfare must be at the centre of everything that we do. We are not interested in the welfare of particular professions, institutions or whatever.
Mrs. Joan Humble: The Secretary of State rightly starts by referring to social services, and many earlier reports concentrated on that agency. A key aspect of the Victoria Climbié report, however, is that the recommendations cover not just social services, but a raft of other agencies—the health service, the police, voluntary organisations and the local church—which shows that we all have a responsibility to make child protection a priority. The message must go out that all statutory agencies and all individuals should look out for the needs of children.
Mr. Clarke: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend puts that well. I only add to her list the responsibility of schools and the education profession. Her remarks are a key part of what I am about to say about steps that have been taken to deal with the recommendations of the Laming inquiry.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In the past, the Secretary of State for Health would probably have been at the Dispatch Box to respond to such a debate, as some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) implied. Do the changes mean that future funding for children's services through social services will come via the Department for Education and Skills as opposed to other Departments? With the Secretary of State's known love of local education authorities, how will he ensure that the money is available to front-line services?
Mr. Clarke: The answer to the first question is yes. We are also bringing together the children's services at the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to get the coherence that Lord Laming recommended. That is another aspect of common ground. The House knows that Lord Laming recommended that a Cabinet member be responsible for the services. I am that Cabinet member in those circumstances and I take that responsibility extremely seriously.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the concern in the social services world that schools might gobble up resources that would otherwise go to social services—I put it more strongly than he did. I am happy to give an assurance that that will not happen. Whether through the ring fencing that exists in, for example, the quality protects arrangements or through other means, we will continue to fund children's services at current or better levels. The coherence of the arrangements that Lord

359
Laming commended ought to bring together different funding streams to deliver support for children that is better than previous
arrangements.
David Wright: I think that we will hear quite a bit of knocking of local authorities in our debate, but we ought to give credit where credit is due. Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent initiative in Telford and Wrekin, which uses new technology, including a traffic light system, to track child safety issues? All the agencies are working together so that they can pinpoint whether children are moving into a vulnerable situation, then intervene. We should back local authorities that are doing such excellent work.
Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I was going to come to the question of children's trusts and co-operation. I have not seen what is taking place in Telford and the Wrekin, but I am aware of it and have been briefed on it. It illustrates the important role of local government and the key role of integration, as my hon. Friend said.
Ms Shipley: I welcome both the appointment of a Minister for Children and the fact that my right hon. Friend is the Cabinet link for the Government, but who has key overarching responsibility at local level for bringing together all local services, including the police, health and social services?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has a tremendous record in this area. I shall not tell her to wait for the Green Paper, but if she will permit me, I shall come to that issue later.
There is common ground, and it is important to take a co-ordinated approach and have a Minister for Children. I am glad that the Opposition motion praises and supports that development. However, I thought that the aside of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about delay was unfair, especially as the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—she has a distinguished record on these matters and I am delighted to see her in the Chamber—was cited in the Eastern Daily Press, which usually, but not always, reports things accurately, as welcoming the proposal. According to the newspaper, she
"welcomed the joining-up of responsibilities, saying it was something she had proposed in 1999."
I do not know whether she was reported accurately, but no doubt she will tell me.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful to be able to put the record straight. I did indeed publish a pamphlet in 1999 proposing exactly that, but I shall not bore the House with that now or, if I am called to speak, later. The right hon. Gentleman may not be here if I am called, so I should like to pay tribute to him for his support for the work of the all-party group of Norfolk MPs on integration, accountability and transparency. I hope to hear more about those proposals in his remarks.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who has confirmed that we have worked together in Norfolk, as well as in other areas—there is important common
360
ground among political parties about many of the points that we are debating. I am delighted that the Opposition support the development in the machinery of government, but I thought that the reference to the time that we had taken to set up a ministerial post was a little unfair, given that no progress was made on that during their time in office.
I had not intended to address this but, in light of the highly personalised remarks by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I should like to place on record my view that the Prime Minister made an inspired and strong choice in the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as Minister for Children. She has a long and distinguished record in this area, and she will put together the cross-governmental approaches that are important in making improvements a reality. My cordial advice to the Opposition is that if they decide to personalise the issue they will be going down a blind alley instead of debating the important issues on which we share common ground.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Everyone in the House attaches importance to Lord Laming's report and the protection of the most vulnerable children, so I hope that we do not obfuscate our responsibilities by playing a game of personality politics.
Mr. Clarke: I very much agree. There is common ground and a genuine record. That is why I paid tribute to Conservative politicians who had held responsibility in this area. They tried to carry out their responsibilities properly, as colleagues in my party have also sought to do.
My final point of common ground is on the need for co-ordinated provision locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) asked about local responsibility. We believe that the children's trust approach is important, with the key responsibilities held by education, social, health, police and other services, as she described. The central relationship is that between schools and children's social services. The extended schools approach that we have adopted has been widely welcomed and is constructive. My hon. Friend the Minister for Children recently announced 35 pathfinder children's trusts to go down that course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge also asked the important question who bears final responsibility. I confess to the House that there is something of a dilemma in that regard. Of the existing office holders, there are three alternative candidates: the director of social services, the director of education and the chief executive. Strong representations have been made to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Children that we need to be careful about saying that for all local authorities there is one solution—one of those three candidates—in every situation. There are different local circumstances in each area.
The Green Paper will not say that one of those three people should operate in that way. We will say that there must be local determination, but the key element is that one person must be chosen to bear overall responsibility. The way in which that is done will be set out in the Green Paper. In a moment, I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing

361
and Shoreham, but I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point that there must be one person who is responsible. However, I will not say that that should always be the director of education, the director of social services or whatever.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to a sequence of hon. Members and then respond.
Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. When considering the arrangements for the official in charge, will he ensure that appropriate structures are in place? When joint working works well, it often does so because of the personalities involved. When it fails, it is because people committed to doing the work are not there. Although a different approach may be taken in different areas, there must be something in writing to ensure that the scheme does not fail.
Mr. Clarke: There must be not only something in writing, as my hon. Friend describes, and I agree with what she says, but clear responsibility under statute to place the responsibility in the way described. In addition to the different natures of different local authorities with different circumstances, I would add the factor that my hon. Friend identifies: different personalities. For the state centrally to stipulate that ultimate responsibility should always rest with one particular role is not necessarily the right way to proceed. That is an important aspect of the Green Paper consultation that will take place.
Tim Loughton: I want to add to the consensus on that important point, which I mentioned when I said that the buck must stop with somebody. I agree that it should be left to local determination and horses for courses as to who that person is. Can the Secretary of State give an undertaking that whether it is the director of education, the director of social services or a newly created director of children's services, it should be a person at chief executive level or, at a minimum, at director level with whom the buck stops?
Mr. Clarke: I agree. I am prepared to give the assurance that the Green Paper will contain that commitment. As Lord Laming identified in his report, it is critical that there should be a senior level personal responsibility for these matters. However well intentioned and committed individuals lower in the hierarchy may be, the buck must stop at a senior level.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the key recommendation of the Laming report is not simply, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made clear, that we and all the agencies have a responsibility, but that we should know who is in charge and who is accountable. In recommendation 7, Herbert Laming made it clear that he wanted each local authority within six months to have a management board responsible for these matters
362
and chaired by the local authority chief executive, so that there was no question even of a director-level appointment being distracted by other priorities. Will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 7 or, by implication, not accept it?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman was correct to use the word "accountable", as the key to this matter is an accountability that is not only formal, but genuine in terms of the individual in question feeling that they are responsible. I shall come in a moment to the Laming recommendations, including the one that he mentioned. The fact is that the most important thing that we can achieve in that regard is a clear individual senior board-level responsibility in every local authority, and that is what we will achieve.
The areas of common ground that I have sought to set out represent important common ground across the House generally. On at least three important issues in the motion, there are differences that I hope are not simply about party political point scoring or game playing. The first point of difference is the suggestion that the recruitment of social work professionals has not been proceeded with. That point is set out in the motion and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham addressed it in his speech. I rebut absolutely the allegation that we have not made progress in this area. Strong steps have been taken and will continue to be taken.
In October 2001, the release of £1.5 million was announced for the first ever social work national recruitment and retention campaign. Over the 12 months to October 2002, the number of applications for social work training increased by at least 6.5 per cent., so an increase was coming through. Since then, new specific grants to councils have been established for human resources development. The grants are of £9.5 million in 2003–04, and there will be £25 million in training grants in 2004–05. Those grants will lead to more appropriate use of staff, ensuring that highly trained workers are used only where their skills are essential. We aim to raise the number of people applying for social worker training by 5,000 by 2005–06, to inform the public about what social workers and social care workers do and make existing social workers and social care workers realise that their work is valued. In the 18 months after the campaign was launched, there were more than 50,000 calls to the helpline and hits on the website.
I rebut the charge made by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I will always acknowledge that we need continually to do better and that important recruitment and retention issues remain, and those will be addressed in the Green Paper. However, the charge in the motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is false and I rebut it entirely.
Tim Loughton: I remember the speech made by the Secretary of State for Health at the Local Government Association conference. In announcing that £1.5 million would be provided for a training programme, he pointed the finger of blame at many of the social services employees, councillors and representatives who were present at the event. What the Secretary of State cannot tell us is how many people have been recruited as social workers. Many people may have rung the hotline or

363
applied for training places, but how many are ending up as social workers in key positions? His own Department cannot produce those figures, but it is they that matter.
Mr. Clarke: Those figures form part of the figures that matter, but only part. The number of people going into training, the quality of the courses and so on are also important. That is why the fact that we are training people is important in achieving precisely the end to 'which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The most important allegation that the hon. Gentleman made, which I rebut and is a point of difference between us, is the suggestion that we have done absolutely nothing to implement the Laming report over this period. That too is untrue. [Interruption.] He is demurring, but his motion says that the House should note
"that, of the 108 recommendations by Lord Laming, 82 were recommended to be acted upon within six months".
It goes on to say that we have not been doing the work that we need to do in those areas. Does he accept that we are implementing Laming?
Mr. Loughton: The point is that we do not know, as we have no evidence. That is what we are waiting for. It was promised that the Green Paper would provide the evidence about what the Government were doing, choosing not to take up from the Laming report and so on. That is why the motion is there—we do not know and we are waiting for the evidence.
Mr. Clarke: I shall come to the Green Paper, but I want to answer the hon. Gentleman's helpful question by telling him what we are doing to implement the Laming report.
On self-audits and inspection activity, Ministers set out, on the day of publication of the Climbié inquiry report, a checklist covering 56 of its recommendations on basic good practice. That was followed up with self-audit tools whereby social services, health services and the police were asked to guarantee that those recommendations were put in place within three months. My Department has received all the responses, which are broadly positive and indicate that most services are following the basic good practice recommendations of the Laming report. Those who are riot will be followed up by the relevant inspectorate. The responses are being analysed fully to provide the information that the hon. Gentleman wants. We have been proceeding in accordance with Laming and shall continue to do so.
As regards the services in north London, the health, police and social services inspectorates are undertaking joint monitoring of the local services that failed Victoria Climbié. Haringey was inspected in March 2003, Brent was inspected in May 2003, and Ealing and Enfield will be inspected in July 2003. Full reports of the findings for those four boroughs will be published in due course and followed up as necessary in each area to ensure that local services are satisfactory and have addressed the various issues raised by Lord Laming.
All the relevant inspectorates have reviewed their planned individual and joint inspection activity. The chief inspectors concerned have met to consider the outcome of those reviews and to plan for the next
364
triennial joint chief inspectors' children's safeguards report. There will be an integrated inspections framework for children and a lead inspectorate for children's services—namely, the Office for Standards in Education, or Ofsted—to assess joint working and the achievement of outcomes and standards.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to clarify the Secretary of State's intentions on inspectorates. Is he saying that the lead responsibility for co-ordinating joint inspections of children's services will be held by Ofsted, and not by the Commission for Social Care Inspection?
Mr. Clarke: I am saying that the lead responsibility will be with Ofsted and that it will be an integrated approach. The Green Paper will set out the precise process by which we get to that point.
On training, a review is being undertaken involving all the relevant bodies in health, social care, education and the police. The initial stage of that review identified current standards for inter-agency training. The second stage, which is to report by the end of this September, will make recommendations on the changes that might be implemented to improve inter-agency training. The Government are in the process of commissioning training materials to accompany the booklet, "What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused". Social work training has recently undergone reform, with the new three-year social work degree from September 2003, new funding of £7 million in 2003–04 for practice learning to support individual students, and the creation of learning resource centres and skills laboratories.
On guidance, on 19 May the then Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), launched a clear and concise booklet for people working with children and families—"What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused". It is designed to be clearer than existing guidance in order to help people get to grips with the best-practice approach for safeguarding children. By publishing a single set of guidelines for all those working with children and families, we intend to eliminate any need for local bodies to produce their own. That is in direct response to Lord Laming's concern about the amount of out-of-date local guidance that he found in the services involved with Victoria Climbié. We will also update the guidance on the Children Act 1989 to make it shorter and clearer.
Ms Shipley: I welcome the guidance, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it often does not reach people on the ground? Can he give me an assurance that sampling will take place across the country to find out whether the guidance is being disseminated and acted upon?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, Lord Laming dealt with adequacy and the extent to which it informed the way in which professionals operate. I can give the assurances that my hon. Friend seeks: we are simplifying the guidance and ensuring that it reaches every professional through training, and that we will test whether we are succeeding through the statistical techniques that she mentioned.
Mr. Burstow: I want to emphasise a question that Conservative Members have already asked and that I

365
raised during the statement on the Laming inquiry: when does the Secretary of State expect to issue the overdue and much-needed guidance on sharing confidential information between agencies? The lack of clarity causes grave anxiety for many agencies and gets in the way of good, integrated childcare practice.
Mr. Clarke: I cannot give a firm date, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Children whether she can provide further information when she responds to the debate.
I do not want to spend much time considering children's trusts, because we dealt with the point in earlier exchanges. However, many recommendations in Lord Laming's report relate to the lack of co-ordination and communication between the relevant agencies. We believe that children's trusts are the way forward; they are already being established to help tackle such issues. They are intended to bring together some or all of the services that local education authorities, social services, health or criminal justice services commission and/or provide for children. They may also include other services for children up to the age of 19. Local authorities will be the lead organisations. We believe that such integration is the way forward, so we held a bidding process that led to the announcement of 35 pathfinder projects to establish the best way in which to proceed.
Let us consider the national service framework and the way in which hospitals deal with children who need protection. All health and social services bodies should work to common standards, and on 10 April 2003 the Government published the first part of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, including a standard for hospital services. The full framework, to be published in 2004, will set standards for child protection services against which health and social care organisations will be inspected. We have a 10-year programme for improving health and social care services for children and young people. The standard takes account of Lord Laming's recommendations that apply to children in hospital.
Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State tell us his views on the balance between prevention and cure, especially in the context of couple stability and parenting courses? What are his views on mainstreaming some of that activity?
Mr. Clarke: My thinking was pre-echoed, if such a scientific concept exists, by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). We must move from saying that social workers are the only people responsible for children's protection and security to a position whereby a wide range of professionals and their communities believe that that is part of their overall responsibility. We believe that the different professional structures, funding and bidding regimes have not fostered that necessary sense of mutual and collective responsibility. The Green Paper will be centred on tackling that point. It will stress that social workers alone cannot bear all the responsibility. The teams and approaches and the collaborations between that profession and others are vital.
Mr. David Kidney: Although it is understandable that today's focus is on intervention when things go wrong, does my right hon. Friend accept that investment in promoting positive parenting means that things will go right most of time?
Mr. Clarke: Absolutely. One of the aspects of which the Government can be most proud is the sure start programme, which has tried to make my hon. Friend's point central. If I can use jargon, mainstreaming the sure start approach is important for everything that we must try to achieve. Many Labour colleagues are keen for that to happen and I hope that that applies to colleagues in other parties.
A further recommendation by Lord Laming referred to the review of private fostering. We have noted the recommendation in his report that the law on the registration of private foster carers should be reviewed. Consequently, the Social Care Institute for Excellence was commissioned to undertake a study into the effectiveness of child-minding registration and its implications for private fostering. The report is due for publication shortly and it will inform our conclusions.
So, I reject the charge that we have not been active enough in acting on Lord Laming's recommendations. My colleagues in the Department of Health and in my own Department who have taken on these responsibilities have been energetic and vigilant in seeking to make progress on the approach set out by Lord Laming, and I emphasise that they will continue to be so.
Mr. Lansley: Given what the Secretary of State has just said, is he in a position to say how many of the 82 recommendations in Herbert Laming's report that were intended to be implemented within six months have been so implemented? Perhaps the Secretary of State can also now answer my question on recommendation 7.
Mr. Clarke: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for Children that about 83 of the 108 recommendations have been partially or fully implemented at this stage. I have tried to set out as clearly as I can that we have made major progress.
The final point of difference—an important one—is the suggestion that the delay in the publication of the Green Paper on children is a key problem. The Opposition put that point at the core of their motion, and it was also a central part of the speech made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The delay is of one parliamentary week. We shall publish the Green Paper in the week in which the House comes back after the recess.
We have delayed the publication by one parliamentary week for two reasons. First, the recommendations of the Green Paper—I acknowledge that it is a Green Paper and not a White Paper—are very far-reaching in a great many respects. We want to ensure that, when we publish it, we take full account of the changes in the machinery of government to which I have referred, and of the informal conversations that we have held with interested organisations in the field, such as professionals and representatives of local government. The exchange that we had a few moments ago about the appropriate person to be the named individual with the

367
right level of responsibility illustrates how difficult and delicate that issue is. I want to ensure that the Green Paper reflects those dilemmas in the best way possible.
The first reason for the delay is, therefore, that the Green Paper is a far-reaching document, and I want to ensure that I get it right. We also want to take full account of the machinery of government changes that we have made, and of the initial responses that we have received.
Tim Loughton: Before the Secretary of State tries to convince us that this is a delay of only one parliamentary week, will he acknowledge that that delay will involve children not getting for two months the attention from the Green Paper that we were promised? This is not the first delay but the second. The Prime Minister promised us last October—a promise that the Secretary of State reiterated in January—that the Green Paper would be published in the spring, which is now some months behind us.
Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that for a second. It might be an illusion that is current in the Conservative party. Publishing a Green Paper is not the same as doing something. To publish a Green Paper is to get to the policy decisions that we have to take. The protections that we are applying and the work that we are doing are going on in precisely the way that I have described, and they would go on regardless of when or in what way the Green Paper was published. I have outlined in some detail the work that is going on. The suggestion that professional social workers in social services departments are stopping doing their work of protecting the people in their care because they are waiting for the publication of a Green Paper is simply wrong. Equally, the legislation that we prefer is in place.
Tim Loughton: Listen to the Local Government Association.
Mr. Clarke: I listen to the LGA in a number of ways, Put I do not accept its assessment of every issue.
The second reason for the delay is that the Prime Minister associates himself with this initiative, as we made clear at the time. That is because the seriousness and scale of it will require commitment right across government to ensure that it will work. We wanted to make sure that that could be the case.
It is always possible to score political points on these questions, although I advise the Opposition against so doing.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: That is what we are here for.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady says that we are here to score political points.
Mrs. Laing: What we as an Opposition are here for is to hold the Government to account. It is right for us to ask questions—lots of questions—which should be answered by a Government who are not doing enough.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with every word that the hon. Lady has said, although it is an interesting elaboration
368
of what she said about scoring political points. At our last education Question Time, when my hon. Friend the Minister for Children was present, there was not a single question from the Opposition about how we would implement our proposals. By all means let them ask questions, but they should ask about the substance of what we are doing and how we are doing it, rather than scoring cheap political points. The hon. Lady has been scoring them ever since my hon. Friend's appointment. She is wrong to do so; she should talk about the substance.
What is important about the Green Paper is what it says and the policies that it sets out. This historic step builds on what the Government have already achieved with, for instance, provision for children aged three and four and the sure start programme, but for the first time allows us to make a major advance in providing for the welfare and protection of children. My party and I will be happy to be judged on the basis of the Green Paper, and the stability that I believe it will offer the entire profession. I hope that Members will support the amendment.
5.26 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: First, I should like to record the fact that I act as a parliamentary ambassador for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I am grateful for the opportunity of doing so.
I congratulate the Conservatives on choosing this as the subject of one of their Opposition day debates, for it is important. It is only sad that, since the publication of the Laming report through a statement in the House on 28 January, we have not had a debate in Government time that would have allowed issues raised by Members on both sides to be put to the relevant Minister. It would have been useful to learn the extent to which 83 of the 108 Laming recommendations, to which the Secretary of State referred, had been met. It would be helpful if Ministers felt able to write to Members who have taken an interest today about what progress is being made.
What we should be saying is that what counts is the protection of vulnerable children from harm, and giving them an opportunity to thrive and develop. We are glad that the Government have drawn together all the threads of their policy on children in a single Minister and a single Department. This should not be about personalities; it should be about the substance of policy, and whether that policy turns into practice that makes a real difference to the lives of not just vulnerable children, but every child in the country. That should be the litmus test against which we judge this or any other Government.
As the Secretary of State said, Victoria Climbié died on 25 February 2000. It was a tragic death, and we need only turn the pages of the Laming report to see that it was a preventable death. Poor practice on the part of social workers, police and medical staff let Victoria slip through the net. As others have said, the key feature of the Laming report was its acknowledgement that the problems could not be laid just at the door of social workers and social services, and that responsibility was shared by a range of agencies. This was, perhaps, the first time that that had been acknowledged.

369
It is to the Government's shame that, three and a half years later, the country is still waiting for a definitive response to Laming. It is a damning indictment that we have not had an opportunity during Government time—there has been time during the months that have elapsed since the statement—to have an Adjournment debate that would inform the Government's own thinking during the development of their Green Paper. That, surely, would have been a useful part of the consultation process.
As we have heard today, the
"long-awaited Green Paper on Children at Risk"
has already been delayed, and has now been postponed again. In early November last year we were told that the Green Paper would be published in early 2003. That was later refined to spring 2003. By January this year, the talk was that publication was imminent—in the next few weeks. Then everything went quiet. The Laming report was published and we learned that the Green Paper would contain the Government's response to Laming's 108 recommendations. In May we were told that the Green Paper would be published "any time now". By mid-June, the message was that it would published before the House rose on 17 July. It is not here, and we now hear from the Secretary of State that it will be delayed by only one week.
Mr. Charles Clarke: One parliamentary week.
Mr. Burstow: Well, of course "parliamentary" is the important word. While that might be a semi-persuasive argument for some of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers, it would be difficult to try to spin that argument to those outside the House who have been waiting and waiting for the definitive response. That is not a credible argument to answer the accusation that the report has been delayed. Now we learn that one of the reasons is that the Prime Minister's diary is too full before the summer recess and, therefore, it seems that the needs of vulnerable children are to take second place to the Prime Minister's need for a good news story.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: That is a disgusting thing to say.
Mr. Burstow: It is disgusting, and that is why I made the point. If that is why publication has been delayed, it is outrageous.
The Secretary of State has told us that the Green Paper will be a pivotal and essential document, and that that is why the Government are taking time to review it carefully and ensure that it fits in with all the other changes of which he spoke. If it is such a substantive change, how can he then say that it is only a Green Paper that will not make much difference? That would seem to be the conclusion that we should draw from his concluding remarks. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps she can tell us what will happen in those weeks that do not exist in parliamentary terms—the summer recess. Will she take the draft report with her on her summer holidays to revise it and rewrite it—yet again? It has already been many months in production.
370
The Conservative motion rightly points to the Government's failure to address the issue of social work recruitment. Last August, the chief inspector of social services commented on the impact of staffing shortages. She said:
"In the councils inspected an average 3 per cent. of cases of children on the child protection register were not allocated and an average 5 per cent. of looked after children were not allocated to a social worker. From a sample of case files, doubts were raised about arrangements to protect one in eight children. Inspectors took the view that the welfare of children was adequately safeguarded in only 21 out of 32 councils. A particular area of concern was staff recruitment which was insufficiently robust to ensure adequate safeguards."
Those percentages sound small, but the detail shows that for looked-after children alone, that adds up to 4,000 children without an advocate, or even a safety net. If the arrangements for safeguarding children are poor. that means question marks over the safety of a further 11,250 children.
The latest figures from the Local Government Association paint a sorry picture of staff issues. For example, high vacancy rates stand now at 9.8 per cent. and turnover rates are even higher, at 15.3 per cent. Those figures mask marked regional variations, with the south-east, south-west and London having particular difficulties. As a result, social services departments have to place great reliance on agency staff.
According to the latest figures published, there are some 376,000 children in need in England alone. They are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Ensuring that each and every one of those children, and their families, gets the right support, at the right time and in the right place, is a complex and demanding job. Its success hinges on the actions of a host of different agencies, each with its own values, personalities, priorities, performance targets, skills and resources.
The need to weld those agencies together to ensure that they deliver a seamless response, tailored to the needs of children and their families is obvious in theory—we have debated the theory for years and years—but it often does not turn out right in practice. Fine judgments have to be made about hard cases, in which none of the options is perfect. Decisions have to be taken with limited opportunity for reflection and limited access to specialist advice and consultation. Child deaths can, and do, occur when the professionals involved—from health, social care, education or the police—are inexperienced, poorly trained, overloaded and under-supervised. In the context of the Laming findings, it seems that they are also poorly led by those at the top of the organisations for which they work.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) intervened earlier to note that the language used in this House and in the media about the quality of social work in this country denigrates and devalues that work. He said that it puts people off going into the profession. I agree with him, and with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We need to raise the status of social work and make working in it an attractive proposition.
For that reason, I was surprised when I read last September's Community Care magazine interview with the Leader of the Opposition. He chose to talk about how social workers always take time off for courses, as

371
though that were a problem. Yet one of the key issues to emerge from inquires into child deaths has been the inadequacy of training across professions that would allow them to work more effectively together. That was a sad message for the right hon. Gentleman to give to social workers.
The death of Victoria Climbié at the hands of her aunt and her aunt's boyfriend was a tragedy, but it was not an isolated one. From the death of Maria Colwell in 1973 to the present day, many of the issues to emerge from the inquires have stayed the same. Unfortunately, however, riot every child registers on the child protection radar screen. Most abuse in this country goes unreported. Every week, one to two children die following abuse or neglect.
Home Office figures show clearly that child homicide rates have not fallen for 25 years or more. We have cut child deaths on our roads, and reduced the risk of disease and illness in children, but child death rates as a result of neglect or abuse have remained unchanged. There is still no system in this country for the systematic follow-up of child deaths, nor one that gives a clear picture of both individual cases and the flow of cases. We need a clear picture so that we can use it to develop policy and, more importantly, practice on the ground. As a result of the lack of a clear picture, the full extent of child death in this country remains largely hidden.
Last year's report from the UN committee on the rights of the child expressed alarm at the lack of a co-ordinated strategy to reduce child deaths. When the Green Paper is finally published in one parliamentary week's time, I hope that it will set out a strategy for bearing down on the problem of child deaths in this country. Indeed, I hope that it will set out clearly how the Government will translate the principles enshrined in the UN convention on the rights of the child into policy, law and practice.
One reform that is long overdue, and which has aroused press speculation in recent days, is the establishment of a children's rights commissioner for England. The Select Committee on Health and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have very recently recommended that such an office be set up, and I recently introduced a private Member's Bill on the same subject. It is an issue that hon. Members of all parties have championed and campaigned for for many years.
A children's commissioner would be a guardian of the human rights of all children, not just those within the care system. A children's commissioner would not be the manager of child protection services, or of a Government welfare or quality assurance programme. I hope that the Green Paper will contain the good news that the post will be part of the Government's programme, and that the Government will learn the lessons both from what has happened in Wales already and from the recently established commissioner post in Northern Ireland.
So far, the Government have focused more narrowly on the rights of children in regulated care services. The children's rights director is a valuable post, but it is limited. Indeed, the new health and social care commissions mean that the director's writ will not extend to children in the NHS, private health care or hospices. That is an omission that I hope that the Green Paper can address, so that the children's rights director
372
has a right to be consulted by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. There is no such provision at the moment.
The Conservative motion is also right to point to the difficulties that delaying the Green Paper's publication has caused. I intervened earlier on the Secretary of State to raise recommendation 16 of Lord Laming's report, which states:
"The Government should issue guidance on the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998, and common law rules on confidentiality. The Government should issue guidance as and when these impact on the sharing of information between professional groups in circumstances where there are concerns about the welfare of children and families."
Surely, that is a critical recommendation. The ability to pass information freely but confidentially between agencies to protect the welfare of children is vital, yet confusion still reigns, so I hope that when the Minister for Children comes to the Dispatch Box she will bring clarity where currently there is none.
I hope, too, that, in her reply to the debate, the hon. Lady can clear up confusion on another point. The Children's Act annual report, published last week, refers to the Munby judgment. The Prison Service and the Home Office had argued that the Act did not apply in full to prisons. The court held that it did and required that guidance be changed to reflect that. The annual report states that the Department of Health is working with the Home Office and others to consider the implications of the judgment. Can the Minister tell us whether the Department of Health will still undertake that task or is that another of the issues that she will take forward? It would be useful to know to whom one should address questions about the outcome of the Government's review.
I raise the issue because, last year, the UN committee on the rights of the child expressed serious concern about the Government's approach to the high and increasing number of children in custody at earlier ages for lesser offences. In addition, I am concerned about the increasing use of restraint in custody. Figures in the UN report highlight the fact that, in two years, 296 children sustained injuries following restraint and control in prison.
The joint chief inspectors' report "Safeguarding Children" revealed that the weaknesses in the Government's current arrangements for the protection of young children are letting children suffer serious harm, or even die, in custody. The report states:
"An analysis of surveys undertaken of young people in Young Offenders Institutions revealed that 24 per cent. reported incidents of assault by other young people, 14 per cent. reported that they felt unsafe some of the time and six per cent. felt unsafe often. In one Young Offenders Institution, there were over 700 reported incidents of injuries to young people over an eight-month period."
That is a huge number, but I am concerned not only about injuries but also about deaths.
Since 1997, 93 young people have committed suicide while in custody. Detention and training orders seem to have led to an increase in jail sentences, apparently in the mistaken belief that that would result in more rehabilitation. Many children in custody should not have been put there in the first place. Half of them are casualties of an under-resourced and over-pressured child protection system. So far, the Government have refused to lift their reservation on the UN convention in

373
respect of the detention of children in adult prisons. The UK locks up more children than any European country, which is a scandal.
The Government amendment talks a lot about more resources, but, interestingly, not much about outcomes and delivery. Can the Minister be more specific about outcomes and delivery? On resources and the budgetary pressures faced by local authorities, 60 per cent. of the overspend on social services budgets is accounted for by children's services. How will the Government address the constant pressure, year after year, on resources that were intended for adult social services but are being redirected to fund children's services? Extra resources are having to be brought in due to inadequate funding of such services.
Last year, the Government published the Wanless report on health care funding. Throughout that welcome report, it was recognised that health and social care were two sides of the same coin. The report recommended that further work should be carried out on social care funding. Can the Government tell the House whether such work will be commissioned? As well as the important Green Paper that we are expecting in due course, we need some indication of the long-term funding that will achieve the step change that the Government and the Liberal Democrats want to see.
The Secretary of State referred to children's trusts. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to make it clear that we support the pathfinder project on children's trusts. We welcome an approach that Governments do not always follow—learning from experimentation before rolling out a particular model. That is undoubtedly the right way forward. We especially welcome the fact that it will offer an opportunity to explore and learn about the benefits of integration in the commissioning of health and social care—albeit only for children, but it is a good step in the right direction. Liberal Democrats can certainly make common cause with the Government on that point.
The Secretary of State mentioned the national service framework and said that the first standard was published in April. A second standard has already been published, but it now appears that the rest of it will be published on a piecemeal basis. Will the Minister tell us at the end of the debate whether all the other standards will be published at some point next year? Is it to be a part-work, like some of those dreary publications produced by national publishers, or will the Government produce one single document?
Will the Minister tell us whether the social exclusion unit report, which was due out last October, will be subsumed within the Green Paper? That is not clear. We understood that a paper was to be published last year, but it has not been published.
There are some concerns about the Green Paper, which have been echoed by a number of the professional organisations and others outside this place, in particular the worry that the Government may in some way confuse accountability with management and that, as a result of the Green Paper, there will be more proposals for organisational change—functional change—rather than cultural change throughout these organisations, which is what we really need.
374
When the Secretary of State answered a question earlier, he acknowledged that that should be a matter for local determination. It should not be for this place or for Ministers to say that local authorities will have a specific person to take on the lead role at a local level, but that person should be at a senior enough level to have the clout and ability to get things done. That is the key point that I hope will come out of all the recommendations in the Green Paper.
However, there needs to be a clear duty not only on local authorities but on all the agencies that work at a local level, to come to the table, contribute and play their part in child protection and children's services. That does not happen at present. Area child protection committees are not on a statutory basis—some are good, some are excellent and some are totally useless. We need to get that right. I hope that the Green Paper will deal with that and that the Minister will be able to tell us whether that is what is intended for the future.
Reference has been made to the need to integrate services. Undoubtedly, that is a key part of how we can make a difference to all children and to those who may be at risk or who are vulnerable to harm and abuse. However, we need more than a whole-systems approach; we need a whole-society approach. That is fundamental. We all have a responsibility for the safety and well-being of our children and that needs to be a key part of any strategy that emerges from this or any other Government. We need an approach to children—all children—that values them, does not stigmatise them., and is ambitious for all of them and protective of those who need extra support.
I have referred several times to the UN convention on the rights of the child, which I hope will be a key part of the document that is to come out later this year. Those rights are critical to how policy and practice should be shaped: the right to life and maximum development, the right to protection from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, and the right that all actions involving children should have their best interests as the primary consideration. Those are clear rights that provide clear purpose and direction for the development of public policy and practice.
Child protection is not the preserve of any single profession. Local government may have its lead responsibility in that area, but if its partners in health and elsewhere are not fully engaged it cannot succeed.
In the past 30 years, public policy has failed to reduce the number of child deaths in this country. Too many of the milestones in the development of child protection policy and practice in those years have been the gravestones of dead children. We can all agree on the goals, and many of those that the Secretary of State set out are the common ground on which we should build a good policy that makes a real difference for all our children, not just a few of them.
5.48 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: I welcome this debate, as do all hon. Members. It is terribly important. As someone who has been the deputy chairman of ChildLine and remains a trustee, I know that the debate will be keenly followed there and throughout all the children's charities.

375
My only regret is that I suspect that while this may be one of the most important debates that we have, the pretext for having it was probably not so well intended. For us to debate this subject on a motion that probably has a lot more to do with personality politics does no credit to the House and little credit to the Conservative party. The debate has provided an opportunity—some would describe it as opportunism—to attack the Minister. It has provided an opportunity for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to talk about his party's belief in arguing for a Minister for Children.
Well, I have a little experience of the Conservative party, and I do not remember the creation of a Minister for Children being party policy at the 1997 general election. Indeed, before a small incident led to my departure from that political party, I remember making a speech at the Social Market Foundation in 1999 in which I argued for a Minister for Children, and my then boss, who should perhaps remain nameless, told me that creating a Minister for Children would certainly not be a policy of the Conservative party. So we are talking about short-term memories here. It ill behoves Conservative Members to remind of us such things, because we can remember quite a lot as well—and I will have a little pleasure in remembering one or two things during my remarks.
I looked at the press releases from the Leader of the Opposition about the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) to her Front-Bench job. It is unfortunate that they were so personality-driven. The House could achieve extraordinary consensus on this issue and a great deal for children in this country, but that requires us to lay aside the kind of differences that have given rise to the debate today.
The fact of the matter is that there is no magic fix, and if we are not careful, we set ourselves up for failure for one very simple reason: whatever the Green Paper may produce in a few weeks' time, it will not end child abuse or child deaths by the end of the year. Since 1973, there have been 35 reports on child protection. Since 1945, there have been 70 reports on severe child abuse. Not one of those reports—some were produced under Conservative Governments, supported by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)—ended child abuse or the deaths of children in terrible circumstances. We must be sensible about the idea that the Green Paper is somehow a piece of magic that will end child abuse— at will not—but it may make things better.
The excellent recent report by the Select Committee on Health very sensibly considers some of Lord Laming's proposals, and it says that we need to be careful; we could get things wrong. No hon. Member on either side of the House wants us to get anything wrong an respect of protecting vulnerable children. The idea seems to be that, somehow, all we need to do is produce the Green Paper as quickly as possible and all will be well, but the opposite could be true; we could make mistakes, and I hope that we all want to avoid doing so.
ChildLine—an organisation with which I have been Involved for a long time—counsels hundreds of thousands of kids every year. Last year alone, We counselled nearly 30,000 children who were in need of 'protection. Mercifully, that protection was given, but in
376
some cases things go wrong and a child slips through the net, with one agency or another. That is very clearly what happened with Victoria Climbié.
There are many lessons for all of us to learn. They are not just about social workers, but about the culture in which we operate. Again, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, rightly said that we should be very careful about laying the blame on social workers. Of course we should not do that—but again, if we are not careful, the idea may be that the Green Paper will solve all those problems.
Victoria Climbié was not murdered by a social worker. She was not murdered by a Member of Parliament. She was murdered by people who were supposed to be looking after her. That culture goes to the heart of things. Interestingly, Lord Laming's report and the Select Committee on Health report cite the cultural background of such things and what we learnt from the Stephen Lawrence case. There are cultural issues to do with colour, race and ethnicity, and those issues must also be considered. Such problems will not be solved by referring them to one department. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister for Children, even if she were the best thing since sliced bread—as I am sure she is—the truth is that she will not solve all the problems either. We might just make them a bit better.
At ChildLine, over nearly 20 years, we have learned a great deal about what needs to be done. One of the things that we learned about was the importance of tackling bullying, which was a terribly important issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who, with me, when I was in the Conservative party, recognised the damage that something like section 28 did to young people. She knew that there was a culture of bullying with it. It is a difficult issue, because it drives some division within her party. None the less, she was ahead of her party on the issue and she rightly campaigned for reform. To hear her colleague, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talking about campaigning on children's issues—I seem to remember that he was not exactly in the forefront in campaigning for the reform of section 28—beggars belief. Given the motion that we are debating today, I can only expect that, if the Opposition continue in this direction, they will shortly be tabling a motion complaining about the Government's failure to reform section 28 quickly enough. If they do so, I will welcome it, because it will be great if reform can be driven further and more quickly on these matters, which is important.
Bullying remains a problem. We do not solve it simply by introducing a bullying code into schools. It is not solved overnight. Only a week or so ago, in Merseyside, a young lad of 11 died, having been bullied at school. That is an appalling, unnecessary death. God forbid, there will probably be more. But if we work together, we might make the climate better.
Another big issue on which the hon. Member for Epping Forest might like to take the lead with her party would be, for example, the ending of the defence of reasonable chastisement. Sadly, at the moment, the Government clearly feel that they need to be cautious on this issue. Yet domestic violence is no longer tolerated, and we are not happy to see two men coming out of the pub on a Friday night thumping the heck out of each other—we think that they should be arrested and

377
punished. We do not tolerate men and women hitting each other inside the home—we think that something should be done about it. Again, the Government will be taking steps over the next few months to do more to deal with domestic violence. Yet, bizarrely, we find ourselves saying that it is okay to thump a child.
This seems to me to create an extraordinary climate. What we are saying to people—I know that this will not make me very popular with the Daily Mail, but I have not been popular with that paper for a number of years now—is that we are sanctioning violence. We need to tackle a culture of violence which, at its most ruthless end, has dire consequences. Again, I ask the Daily Mail please not to make a travesty of what I am saying. I am not suggesting that ordinary parents who give their child a clip behind the ear are indulging in anything that relates to what happened to Victoria Climbié. Of course I am not saying that. But it helps to create a culture in which we can somehow tolerate violence.
Again, the hon. Member for Epping Forest may want to take the lead in her party on these issues, because it seems to me that continuing to sanction with the defence of reasonable chastisement the hitting of children is something that, sooner or later, the House will be brave enough to deal with. In a similar way that, I suppose, people look back on wife beating now, in 100 years they will look back and say how ridiculous it was that, in 2003, we had a society that still allowed children to be hit.
Like many Members, I am sure, I have four children, and I have once in my life hit one of them. Tom was four years old, and he had shut the door on his younger sister's fingers and had really hurt her. I did not know what to do, and, like lots of parents, I am afraid, I lost it. I gave him quite a hard smack. The story is legendary in our family—the kids say, "Do you remember the time Daddy smacked Tom?" I thought to myself afterwards, that if he was shocked, I was much more shocked. It was not a particularly hard hit, but it shocked me that I could lose my temper and hit a child whom I loved so much. I realised, of course, that the next time, to achieve any effect, I would have to hit him a bit harder, and then, perhaps, a bit harder. Probably, what ends up happening is what happened to me when I was a kid, which was that I started getting hit with implements. People might ask whether that is the reason why I am as I am—it did not do me much good and I am sure that it would not do my kids any good.
I pay tribute to the work of Esther Rantzen and charities such as ChildLine for taking a brave stance and recognising ahead of their time that smacking ultimately contributes to a violent culture, which is a problem that we must tackle. That is another issue on which the hon. Member for Epping Forest may lead her party.
We should appreciate the steps that have been taken regarding the Laming report. The announcement of the establishment of children's trusts last week is important. Again, there is no magic involved. We are at the beginning of a process that will hopefully allow us to do more.
378
I want to refer several important pieces of information from ChildLine to my hon. Friend the Minister because they arise from listening to children. First, excellent research done by the charity shows that children aged over 16 are often passed from one authority to the other, and that no authority is prepared to take responsibility for them. It is important to address that. Secondly, getting help for children and young people, which is a serious issue, appears to be more difficult in February and March—toward the end of the financial year—than at other times. That is an important consideration when we make decisions on resources.
Thirdly, little support is available for homeless 16 and 17-year-olds who live on the streets to enable them to try to escape from abusive home situations.
Fourthly, there is a serious concern about the lack of safe houses for young people throughout the United Kingdom. Such facilities do not provide long-term solutions for young people but they are needed to offer respite and assessment for vulnerable young people.
ChildLine has identified a further problem from its night service. Children who ring at night in need of help often find it difficult to get help because social services are more overstretched at that time. That fact is not a condemnation of social services or social workers. I tell Conservative Members—their motion is pretty condemning of the Government—that the only years since the early 1990s between which the number of social workers went down were 1995 and 1996. The number has increased in every other year. It is difficult to accept a Conservative motion that condemns the Government for doing insufficient to protect children given that the number of social workers reduced under the Conservative Government. I say that only to illustrate the danger of getting into point scoring. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for Health, is sitting on the Conservative Benches and I know that she cares passionately about working for children. There is a danger of getting into petty political point scoring when we could do more than that, which is why I regret the fact that the debate has been personalised around my hon. Friend the Minister for Children.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has rightly argued for a children's commissioner for England, as have hon. Members. Children need not only a Minister hut an independent voice that is above party politics so that important points may be made regardless of the political party in power. Children are too important for us to play politics with. I hope that the delay to the Green Paper will give my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the opportunity to announce that the children of England will finally have a children's commissioner when the Green Paper is published.
6.3 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am really pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this extremely important debate, not least because it is clear that no hon. Member could fail to be moved by the fate of Victoria Climbié. No one could fail to be impatient for action some six months after the publication of the distinguished and comprehensive

379
inquiry into her death. As the Secretary of State said, I also have a constituency interest. Several hon. Members will know that I had the opportunity to make a presentation to the Climbié inquiry on behalf of an all-party group of Norfolk MPs. I must place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for giving his unreserved support to our conclusions when he was in his former post. The presentation detailed some of the lessons that were drawn from the harrowing case of my six-year-old constituent Lauren Wright, who died after months of abuse at the hands of her stepmother on 6 May 2000—about the same time as Victoria.
I shall be very brief as others wish to speak. I shall give the bare facts about the circumstances of Lauren's death and then, equally briefly, lay out some of the conclusions that the all-party group drew from that sad affair. It was characterised, like the case of Victoria, by a series of errors, muddles, communications failures and general professional sloppiness—the same sort of failures that. all too often, are revealed by the cases of the 80 or so children who die each year in this country from abuse or neglect.
Lauren Wright, my constituent, died from a blow to her abdomen, with extreme bruising all over her body, on 6 May 2000, two days before the date of the case conference that Norfolk social services had finally organised to discuss her plight. From her birth she had been known to Hertfordshire social services. She was known to Norfolk social services for the three years before her death. For the 16 months before she died she was at primary school—a two-teacher, 29-pupil primary school in which she could hardly get lost. During that time, aged six, she lost four stone in weight. She was seen by a community paediatrician and a general practitioner, and again by a paediatrician just a couple of months before she died. She was visited by social workers. Too late they alerted the area child protection committee, and too late the case conference was finally convened for a date after her death.
The real concerns about this case are that Lauren's treatment at the hands of her stepmother, who was eventually convicted of her manslaughter, took place in public, observed by the local community, and under the supervision of doctors, social workers and teachers. Trial evidence revealed that the stepmother was seen hitting the child and screaming abuse at her; that she fed her pepper sandwiches; that she put bugs from the garden in her food; and that she turned off the taps so tightly that the child could not get a drink of water.
Lauren's class teacher said at the trial that she saw marks on Lauren
"lots of times, often she was covered with lots of small bruises and with major bruises about once a month. These included black eyes, bruising on her face and scratches across her back."
As I said, at the time of her death, she weighed little more than two stone. In the words of her head teacher, her physical deterioration had been
"apparent for at least five months before she died."
Of course, Lauren was killed by her stepmother. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) rightly makes it clear that not all blame can be placed at the door of professionals, and that is definitely so. The stepmother was clearly very plausible. The trial was told that she had an IQ of 78. She certainly deceived doctors, teacher and social workers, and Lauren died as a result. But from this sad case we see illustrated a number of the same failures shown in the Victoria Climbié case.
380
As Lord Laming said in the introduction to his report:
"I recognise that those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm face a tough and challenging task. Staff doing this work need a combination of professional skills and personal qualities, not the least of which are persistence and courage."
I agree. We should not underestimate the difficulty and sensitivity of the work undertaken by social workers, police, medical professionals and teachers. But of course when decisions and judgments are so difficult, procedures are more, not less, important. As Lord Laming said about the Victoria Climbié case:
"Even after listening to all the evidence. I remain amazed that nobody in any of the key agencies had the presence of mind to follow what are relatively straightforward procedures on how to respond to a child about whom there is concern of deliberate harm."
I agree with that too, in the case of Lauren. The investigations that I undertook on behalf of the Norfolk all—party group of MPs leave little room for doubt.
In a letter to MPs, the director of Norfolk social services, Mr. David Wright, admitted
"There were failings in other agencies but I believe that our Department should have been able to intervene to save her".
It was only after a great deal of pressure from Norfolk MPs, the public and the media that the Norfolk health authority agreed to mount an independent review of its role in Lauren's case. The review's findings were shattering. The Eastern Daily Press reported on 26 March 2002 that there had been
"a series of errors and poor NHS management which culminated in a failure to safeguard the little girl."
There was also the role of the education service. The Minister will want to take careful note, given her background in the Education Department. Lauren attended a 29-pupil school. She presented at school with bruising. She lost four stone in weight. She was listless and tired. Despite all that, as far as we know her teachers did not report to the education welfare service concerns that they might have had about her health, as they were required to do under local education authority guidelines. 1 say "as far as we know" because the Norfolk local education authority declined to make public any inquiries it might have made in the wake of Lauren's death. She was therefore failed by no fewer than four chief officers and professionals in social services, the health service and the education service, just as Victoria Climbié was failed by a multiplicity of professions.
The all-party group suggested to the Climbié inquiry that the following issues should be tackled. The first was accountability, which the Secretary of State touched on in his remarks. The Norfolk MPs concluded that a statutory duty should be placed on the chief executive of each local authority to convene the area child protection committee in cases of repeated child abuse and neglect, and that he or she should have a statutory duty to ensure that appropriate action is taken. If it is not, the chief executive should ensure that disciplinary action follows. We thought that a similar duty should also be placed on health authority chief executives. To ensure that professional staff are not unduly put at risk from that arrangement or structure, we also decided that the same chief executive should have a statutory responsibility to ensure that all staff have clear information about exactly what is expected of them in a given child abuse situation.

381
The group also felt that authorities should have more regard to transparency in their conduct of such matters. As Members of Parliament representing all the people of Norfolk we had difficulty in getting information out of the authorities concerned. We were greatly helped by the energies of local media and by public support, but it should not be so. Paradoxically, professionals get more blame from the public if there is less transparency about what happens in a given case. Trade unions and professional organisations understandably worry about witch hunts. Everyone can see that. The public, equally understandably, know only what the media tell them. They cannot understand why child abuse tragedies continue to occur while no one is ever seen to be blamed. We all thought that there should be more transparency and an open and public debate about responsibility and blame in society. We thought all those things important.
I add this plea. I ask the Minister to pay attention to the problems of rural isolation with respect to professional agencies. In particular, there could be a reluctance in a small rural school that is close to its community to suspect—let alone denounce—people in that community of child abuse. In such areas, there could be a series of different solutions, such as a special unit at the LEA, or even—I hesitate to suggest this because I think it is a generational point—a return to the old-fashioned role of the school nurse. If the school nurse had gone in and out of that school to examine the children regularly, professionally and objectively, Lauren Wright would not have died, because her injuries would have been uncovered. I understand that school nurses do other things now. I know that my suggestion may seem old-fashioned, but it is a practical idea that might help in future. I am grateful that last summer Ministers accepted amendments to the Education Act 2002 which, in effect, made statutory for teachers, school governors, local education authorities and further education colleges the observance of child abuse guidelines.
It is truly inexplicable that, when there is agreement among Members on both sides of the House, policy and practice changes should be urgently required to reduce an unacceptable number of child deaths. The Government themselves announced that the Green Paper would be issued in spring, but changed that to before the summer recess. However, today we are not much nearer to knowing what they have in mind. The Secretary of State, rather skilfully, I thought, said that there was a delay of one parliamentary week, but in fact it is a delay of several months on the date announced by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), then Secretary of State for Health, on 28 January. The Minister for Children is a former local authority leader and has experience of these matters. I hope that she agrees that the Government should not have spent three years since the appalling death of a helpless, hapless and innocent child considering what should be done. They should not be obfuscating the reasons for the delay in their action. The hon. Lady has only just begun her important job. In the name of all the Victorias and all the Laurens, we want her to get on with it.
6.16 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I rise to defend the Government's actions on the protection of children, specifically in my capacity as chair of the all-party group on abuse investigations.
In the past five years, 35 police authorities throughout the UK have conducted more than 80 extensive inquiries into historical cases of sex abuse in care homes. Many hon. Members will know of my concerns about those inquiries, but it cannot be denied that energy, time and money that has been spent on them. I estimate that perhaps as much as £500 million has been spent investigating complaints involving thousands of cared-for young people throughout the UK in the past five years. Under the previous Administration things were not perfect, and many children living in children's homes were neglected. We need to understand what it was like then for children in care homes who were preyed on by abusive carers. Young people attempted to complain, but whether or not the complaint was acted on was at the discretion of the person they spoke to. The lack of prosecutions over a long period was indicative of the collective failure of the agencies responsible for the care of vulnerable young children.
We must be realistic and fair about the reasons for the failure of the agencies that care for children. We have already acknowledged that the vast majority of professionals working in this area do so because they are passionately concerned about the welfare of the children. However, historically, they have worked with administrations that were procedurally inadequate, and those inadequacies militated against the effective management of complaints. Significantly, there was no statutory relationship to bring the agencies working with vulnerable children together. That serious omission invariably meant that agencies receiving complaints were completely unaware of complaints made in other areas.
Those omissions were partly addressed by the Children Act 1989, but until then, a child making a complaint could have spoken to a significant number of people, none of whom were connected together administratively. Hence there was no collective understanding of the extent of abuse endured by a child. The Children Act sought to address that administrative failure, but it took years to implement. Crucially, it was introduced at a time when social services budgets stood still at best, and in many cases were being dramatically eroded. The measures detailed in the Children Act called for funding, which simply did not exist. It was all talk, and the lack of funding left the vulnerable, vulnerable.
That huge funding omission was addressed in September 1998, when nearly £1 billion—£880 million, to be precise—was invested in the quality protects programme to improve children's social services, sure start and the Connexions service. I could speak at length about those additional services, which meant a great deal to vulnerable children. Many authorities throughout the country, including my own, desperately needed the money. It was not the lack of concern in social services departments that led to complaints being ignored, but lack of funding to pay for an adequate number of appropriately trained staff who could respond comprehensively to complaints.

383
Cash was needed not only in social services departments, but in all the other major public sector agencies involved in child care, to allow them to support joint agency approaches and resolve complaints by children effectively. The police needed further funding, and the enormous children's fund has allowed them to do much good work. The education departments needed huge amounts of funding to employ appropriately qualified staff to work in schools. Health care providers and all the other agencies working with children received dramatic funding uplifts. The Government continue to invest substantially in those areas.
Now, when a child makes a complaint the public authorities have a duty to refer the complaint for investigation. The environment in which looked-after children live has changed radically in the past six years. The Government have passed—and, crucially, funded—a raft of legislation designed to protect vulnerable young people, including the Care Standards Act 2000, to improve the inspection and regulation of children's care services, and the Protection of Children Act 1999, which strengthened safeguards against unsuitable people working with children. The Sexual Offences Bill currently going through the House creates a new range of offences designed to offer children under 13 the maximum protection. I can also give testimony to the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) in introducing the child protection register.
The situation is still not perfect, but the system now not only reacts to complaints made by looked-after children but is proactive, recognising that many of those children may not have the confidence to make a complaint of their own volition. If the police receive a complaint from a looked-after child, they will interview that child and all the other children who have ever lived in the home, irrespective of their age—an extraordinary commitment to the vulnerable.
I was especially pleased when the Government made the decision to continue to care for children after the age of 16. The acknowledgement that children over 16 still need care was such an important and long-awaited move. They are now looked after, and I am delighted with that measure. There is still a great deal to be done, but we have introduced measures that adequately demonstrate our commitment to children and the vulnerable.
6.23 pm
Virginia Bottomley: The House will be aware that this place legislated for the protection of animals several decades before there was legislation to protect children. It is appalling that in this day and age children are still so cruelly treated.
I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). His enlightened and principled approach was enormously heartening. It took me back to the speech by the late Lord Joseph to the Pre-School Playgroup Association on the cycle of deprivation, when many of my own thoughts about child care began. I speak as someone who for many years was chairman of a juvenile court, and I have a mental health background rather than a local government background. nave been involved in the Children's Society and, as the Register of
384
Members' Interests shows, now spend a great deal of time trying to bring effective good managers who are committed to the cause into many of our leading charities and public services.
It is a serious matter that we have not seen more action following the Laming report. The report is, as all would expect, outstanding. Lord Laming is one of a number of extraordinarily eminent inspectors of social services. We have been well served by their contribution, including those of Sir William Utting and now Denise Platt. The contribution that they make must be heard. It is pragmatic, sensible and to the point.
What so many people forget is that dealing with child abuse is one of the most difficult things for any professional worker. If children are removed needlessly, as they were in Cleveland, social workers will receive abuse for getting the decision wrong. If children are left in a home or a children's home where they lose their lives, the social worker is all too easily blamed. Social workers, unlike doctors, are more likely to leave the front line the more experience they get, so the least qualified and least experienced people will be doing the most difficult jobs, exercising the judgment of Solomon and facing the rage of the parent or carer if anyone dare suggest that they might be injuring their child. That is no excuse, but people need to understand the enormous pressures that social workers face.
The crisis regarding child care professionals is very serious. I looked up the figures. In 1995 there were 11,500 applicants for social work places, but by 2001 that figure had fallen to 4,000. That is very serious. The subject of child abuse and neglect also suffers various fads and fashions, such as satanic abuse, and I have to say that the whole issue of politically correct behaviour is also important. We need to learn the lessons about how many of the children who are affected come from ethnic minority homes. I well remember—as will my noble Friend Baroness Howarth, from her Lambeth days—the concept that a child from an ethnic minority family should expect a different sort of chastisement from that which a child from a white family should expect. That is unacceptable in this day and age, and we must consider all the aspects of practice. I also want to mention data protection problems. Too often people are afraid to record on file that injuries are suspicious and may relate to non-accidental injury or child abuse, because the files are open. We must look very seriously at that matter.
It was my privilege to take part in the implementation of the Children Act 1989. In that regard, I pay the greatest credit to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who undertook the most detailed consultation with the different agencies in a very open spirit before implementing the legislation. The programme of training was phenomenal. In particular, it involved the judges and the legal profession, as well as social services and social workers.
I want to make two further points. This debate is about vulnerable children. It is appalling that a child a week should die as a result of injury caused by adults, but three times that number die on the roads, and many more die by taking their own lives. If we want to get our priorities straight about the problems faced by young people in our generation, child mental health is critical. I urge the Minister for Children, in her new role, to look into child mental health and at the work of Young

385
Minds, and to understand the suffering and pain caused to young people and the epidemic of suicide among them. The suicide rate among young men has almost doubled in the past 20 years.
I am sceptical about the nature of the hon. Lady's role, and troubled by the fact that her post is within the Department for Education and Skills. The group that nobody has mentioned today is health visitors, who have greater licence to enter a home and ask a family to remove a child's clothes than those in any other professional group. It has to be said that teachers are not the most skilled in this area. Their record on truancy and casting difficult children into sin bins, getting them out of their way so that they can teach the main cohort, does not make them the people who are naturally most alert to child abuse and neglect.
As often as not, the issue is about the relationship between social services departments and health-related departments. They are both Department of Health responsibilities. It is hard enough persuading Health Ministers to fight for the social services budget, but it is very difficult to understand how a junior Education Minister will fight for the social services and health budgets. I remain to be convinced.
There is no simple answer—and for the children whom we are talking about, cost shunting is often at the heart of the problem. They are expensive children with needy, difficult families. It does not matter whether it is the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health or a social services department that ends up funding their care—we believe in joined-up Government—but there is a cost at the local level, and we must look very carefully at how that works in practice.
I wish the Minister for Children well with her responsibilities: I cannot stress their importance strongly enough. We have to learn the lessons of this appalling latest episode. To err is human, to fail to learn is unacceptable, and to cover up is unforgivable. We have to be open and diligent in working to ensure that every child has as stable and happy an upbringing as possible.
6.30 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), who has tremendous experience in these matters.
This has been a serious debate because it is about serious, often sad and upsetting, issues. I commend the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has done a great deal of work on child protection for many months. I shall not repeat all his points in the short time available, but of course I agree with every one of them.
The Secretary of State urged me to accept a cross-party consensus, so I shall begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I do not often agree with a Liberal. He made some good points, but, most importantly, he took up the Secretary of State's remarks about the delay in the Green Paper on children at risk. The Secretary of State says that that delay is only one parliamentary week. What ridiculous
386
spin gone mad. Strictly speaking, we know that that is true, but it is months—many weeks—since January in the real world. Does the Secretary of State think that cruelty to children stops because the Houses of Parliament are not sitting? I do not know why the Minister for Children is laughing; it is not funny. Children continue to be at risk in the course of one parliamentary week.
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for her wise words. She, like my other colleagues, knows the subject well; she has been steeped in it because of the sad case in her constituency.
I commend much of the speech by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). His work on ChildLine has been very successful over the years. I take his point about reasonable chastisement. I undertake to consider that, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will also do so.
The Secretary of State, in urging me to accept a cross-party consensus, wants to pay homage to those who have worked on the subject in the past; I join him in doing so. I show respect for Ministers of all parties who have done something about trying to improve child protection. I have a lot of respect for the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), and the way in which he handled the Laming report when he presented it to this House. Indeed, I commend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the progress that has been made so far.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) made the excellent point that we need to know who will be the one person who is responsible locally; we have to wait for the Green Paper to deal with that. While we are waiting, I commend Essex county council—my county—for its pioneering attitude in bringing together the departments of education and social services. We have some excellent people in Essex who will make that work.
I remain seriously concerned about the delay in the publication of the Green Paper and the consequent delay in improving services for vulnerable children. As other hon. Members said, the former Secretary of State for Health clearly stated in January that the Green Paper would be published in the spring. When it was not, the former Leader of the House assured us in good faith that it would be published before the summer recess. That was not unreasonable; things were going well, the Government were taking the necessary action and we agreed with them. However, the Prime Minister threw a spanner in works by appointing the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as Minister for Children.
We welcomed the creation of the post of a Minister for Children that would bring together cross-departmental functions. That was practical and good, and many hon. Members from all parties agreed with it. I believed that that new post would mean more Government attention on the issues that Lord Laming's report identified. Far from providing a focus on vulnerable children, the hon. Lady has simply provided a focus on herself and no action on the Laming report. She devised three different excuses for not publishing the Green Paper; the Secretary of State came up with even more today.

387
The first excuse was the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago, his official spokesman said that the Prime Minister wanted to be present at the Green Paper's launch and that he had no time in his diary to undertake such an engagement until the autumn. What is the Prime Minister doing between two weeks ago and the autumn that is more important than the protection of vulnerable children? It is extraordinarily difficult to find out. I wrote to ask him, and his office replied that his diary cannot be published for security reasons. That is fair enough but I wonder whether the reply refers to security from international terrorists or whether he would prefer that his Back Benchers did not know where to find him. The Prime Minister is probably too busy to bother about a mere Green Paper because he has to practise his Pinocchio performances in front of Commons Committees and the BBC.
Let us be fair to the Prime Minister. It is not his job to publish a Green Paper on children at risk; that is why he has a new Minister for Children. She came up with two further excuses. She says that she wants to be Minister not only for children but for young people and their families. As a sort of tsarina for everyone, she wants to expand the Green Paper's remit. That is not a good excuse. She can produce pages of glossy waffle about her politically correct ideas if she wishes, but she should deal with Lord Laming's recommendations now. We do not mind waiting until the autumn for the waffle.
David Taylor: Perhaps it would help hon. Members if, as well as giving us a tirade against the Minister, the hon. Lady would outline some of Her Majesty's Opposition's options, policies and priorities on the most important topic of child abuse.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman has been absent for the debate. It has been serious, and we are tackling the issue of child abuse. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman; he is murmuring. We do not mind waiting until the autumn for the rest of the Minister's ideas, but we should have the Green Paper now.
The Minister's third excuse is that it is only a Green Paper or discussion document, not a statement of Government policy and therefore not urgent. However, it is not only a Green Paper. The document was promised as the Government's response to Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climié inquiry. Lord Laming recommended action within six months. Local authorities have done all that they can on the Laming recommendations, as far as we know. We went into that in great detail during the Secretary of State's speech. We do not know, but we believe that they have done all that they can so far. They need to know the Government's response before they can go further. Local authorities are in limbo, time is being wasted and children are at risk.
I know that the Minister has been under pressure because of her past record of failure to protect children in Islington. It was, of course, the first London borough to ban fox hunting, but it was not very good at paedophile hunting. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever happens, hon. Members should not shout at the hon. Lady. She has
388
been called to speak and she should be allowed a hearing. Sometimes insulting hon. Members is all right, provided that it is within the rules of the House.
Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to insult anyone but to put before the House the facts about what is really happening. That is what we are here to do.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: I do not have time to give way.
The Minister for Children said that she had learned from her mistakes, and I hoped that she had, because it is quite reasonable to do so. But the facts that have emerged in the last few weeks show that she has not. Surely the main lessons to be learned from her past must be that words are not the same as actions, and that producing politically correct speeches does not bring results. That is why she was criticised before, but she is now doing exactly the same things again.
The underlying theme of this Government is that image is more important than reality. No wonder no one can trust them. No wonder no one believes a word that they say. [Interruption.] I am not scoring political points. I am doing my duty, which is to hold this Government to account for their mistakes, their failures and their negligence. [Interruption.] Labour Members ought to get their priorities right. The duty of this House is not to protect a discredited Minister, but to protect vulnerable children.
6.41 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): Apart from the opening and closing speeches, we have had a lot of thoughtful contributions from both sides of the House today on this central issue of concern, which should be above party politics. The final contribution from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) demonstrated that, to the Conservatives, children are nothing more than a convenient political tool to be exploited to narrow political advantage.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call for calm. We are about to have a recess: we should be happy. We should not be so angry with one another.
Margaret Hodge: My final comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest is that I agree with her that actions are more important than words. Certainly, my actions have done—and will do—more for children than her words ever could.
Let me deal with the contributions of the Back Benchers, who have said some important things. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and others on the importance of social workers. One of my key ambitions in my new role is to raise the status of social workers in our society. We all value teachers, police officers and doctors, but we do not give the same value and credence to those utterly key workers who do such a lot for children at the most

389
vulnerable stages of their lives. One of the things on which we should be judged after our time in office is whether we have raised the status of social workers.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked specific questions about the guidance on information sharing. I can tell him that on 19 May we issued guidance on the interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which we sent to the chief executives of all councils, to NHS bodies, to the police and directly to all doctors and nurses. The hon. Gentleman also asked who would be taking forward the implications of the Munby judgment. That has now been transferred as part of the responsibilities of our Department, working with colleagues across government.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the cultural change that we need to achieve if we are to be effective in putting children at the heart of the way in which we deliver services. That theme ran through a number of speeches. I agree that cultural change is absolutely imperative, not only among the professionals but in society. It will be a very tough task, and it will not be easy to achieve.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who made an excellent speech, on his work as deputy chairman of ChildLine. I agree that the best that our past and future actions can achieve is to make things that much better for children. It should not be thought that in such a difficult area, in which difficult judgments must be made, we can ever get it right all the time—however well people are trained, and however experienced they are in any of the spheres involved in working with children. Nevertheless, our duty and our endeavour must be to make things better.
Mr. McLoughlin: Can the Minister confirm that the only reason for the delay in the Green Paper's publication is the Prime Minister's diary?
Margaret Hodge: There is no single reason for the delay; there are several reasons, and if the hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall come to them in due course. Anyone who is concerned about children, especially vulnerable children, surely accepts that further consultation is as important as ensuring that the Prime Minister launches—
Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Margaret Hodge: Not at this stage.
David Taylor: Could not the delay be used for reflection on more recent incidents, such as the internet seduction involving the 13-year-old from Lancashire, now happily restored to her parents? Is that not a further example of "children at risk", and an emerging vulnerability in a changing society?
Margaret Hodge: Over time we need to consider anything that happens, and things happen day by day. We need to reflect, listen and learn from every single incident that places a child at risk of abuse, or endangers that child.
390
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South mentioned a number of issues that ChildLine wished to raise with me, some of which I believe are extremely important. I am delighted to be meeting Esther Rantzen next week to discuss several of them, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend and others as well.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) gave a harrowing description of the errors and muddles that led to the tragic death of Lauren Wright in her constituency. She said that judgments were difficult, so procedures were important. I agree with that, but I hope that she agrees that procedures will not make a difference unless they are accompanied by a range of measures, such as the training of all who will have an impact on children's lives. Account should be taken of common assessments and the tracking of information. Procedures are important, but we need to do far more to strengthen the infrastructure in which we can then protect children and young people.
Mrs. Shephard: Surely the Minister agrees that in the case of Lauren Wright, and indeed in the case of Victoria Climbié and many others, ignoring and disregarding procedures proved fatal. That was my point, that is why the Green Paper is important—I hope it will emphasise the need for new procedures—and that is what we want the Government to accept this evening.
Margaret Hodge: I agree with the right hon. Lady that procedures are important. I hope that she agrees that the legislative framework established by her party in the Children Act 1989 specified a number of procedures on which we now need to build.
I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) as chair of the all-party group on abuse investigations. She said a great deal about information sharing, which I too consider important. She also acknowledged the money that we have provided to support children and prevent them from being subjected to abuse or danger, through quality projects, sure start, Connexions and the children fund—as well as the extra money that we have provided for mainstream education services, the police and the Youth Justice Board.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) stressed the importance of the social work profession, and I agree with her on that. She talked about work force problems, and I share her concern. We need massive reform of how we recruit, train and retain people to work in the range of childcare professions. The right hon. Lady also questioned whether locating the joined-up services in the Department for Education and Skills was appropriate. If we are trying to build stronger preventive services so that we can target the appropriate action to protect children, it is important to put those services in a Department that provides a universal service to all our children and young people. The trick that we shall have to perform—the right hon. Lady will need to watch us on it—is that as we bring together all the professions that work with children, we must value the contribution of each and ensure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in its impact on children's lives.

391
The central contention in the motion tabled by the Opposition is plain wrong. It is simply not the case that the action that we need to take to implement many of the recommendations put forward by Lord Laming in his thorough and comprehensive inquiry has to await the publication of our Green Paper. Indeed, it is unbelievable and unimaginable to suggest that we would not want to make progress as soon as we could in every direction possible.
Tim Loughton rose—
Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Margaret Hodge: No. Every year—[Interruption.] Every year, between 50 and 100 children are killed by their parents or carers—
Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Margaret Hodge: No, I want to make some progress. The names of children such as Darren Clark, who died in 1979, Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile, Paul Brown, Tyra Henry and Lauren Wright will always be embedded in our minds. The horrific life endured by eight-year-2014;old Victoria Climbié when she came to England stands as an indictment on us all. We must all do all that we can, as soon as we can, to put in place the structures, policies, programmes and people that will ensure that every child in our society is safe and protected from the dangers of abuse and injury—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not know why.
Margaret Hodge: Of course we have taken action to implement the recommendations of the Laming inquiry. Indeed, on the very day that the then Secretary of State got up in the House to present the report of the inquiry, action had already started. For instance, the Metropolitan police began restructuring its child protection services. On the very day that we published Lord Laming's report, we issued a checklist of those recommendations that we considered to be basic good practice. Since then, we have published the booklet for professionals, "What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused", to simplify the procedures for people. We are reviewing training needs and we have increased resources for social work. We have introduced a new three-year social work degree. We have run a national recruitment campaign, and the number of applications to become a social worker has risen by 6.5 per cent.
Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at last. We are impressed by the number of checklists, booklet and reviews, but that does not constitute action. We still have no idea of how we can audit what action has been taken by bodies on the ground.
Margaret Hodge: I dispute the contention by the hon. Gentleman that the actions we have taken are not action. Of 108 recommendations in Lord Laming's report, 83 have been fully or partly addressed. The
392
implied allegation in the Opposition motion that delayed publication of the Green Paper would stop us acting to protect children is plain wrong.
The Green Paper will contain further far-reaching proposals to continue and develop our programme of reform for children's services. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has done a superb job, together with other Ministers, in formulating the strategy for the future. I, for my part, am proud that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so committed to this issue that he has insisted on personally launching the Green Paper. This is unequivocally good news for children.
I am also pleased that I can use the extra time that we have to consult even more widely with, and listen even more carefully to, those at the front line who have the day-to-day experience of working with children. We shall put forward proposals that strongly reflect our vision and values for children and young people. They are that every child matters, and that every child must have the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential. We cannot allow children's life chances to be blighted by the age of five because of where they live or where they came from, and every child must be properly protected so that they are safe.
Tim Loughton rose—
Margaret Hodge: In addition, we believe that no child should be denied the chance to make the most of his or her life.
Those are the values that underpin my approach and that will inform our policies. They are the values on which we shall build a coalition of support so that every child can grow up healthy, safe and fulfilled.
This is a really serious issue, and every hon. Member should engage seriously with the issues involved. I want to work with everybody on these difficult issues. They should be above party politics.
I wish that I could be grateful that the Conservatives had recognised how key child protection is and that it was this recognition that had led them to have the debate this afternoon. But no: this debate was put on the Order Paper not because of the Conservative party's interest in children's issues, but because of Conservative Members' crude pursuit of party politics—[Interruption.]
Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I take the point of order, I inform the House that I am chairing the proceedings. I tell hon. Members when to sit down, and I do it rather nicely.
Mrs. Laing: My point of order is that the reason that Opposition called the debate is stated clearly in the motion. It is because we care about children. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate was well within the rules. That is why I allowed the motion to go on the Order Paper.
Margaret Hodge: It is not children who are at the heart of the Conservatives' concern. It is shoddy opportunism.
Where was the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s, when local authorities were pleading for proper resourcing? [Interruption.]
Tim Loughton rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I ask for calmness. There is no need for this shouting across the Chamber.
Margaret Hodge: Where were the Tories when beleaguered social workers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that there is no point in shouting across the Chamber.
Margaret Hodge: Where were the Tories—
DAVID MACLEAN rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the
Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 316.

Division No. 295]

[6:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cotter, Brian

Allan, Richard

Curry, rh David

Amess, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Ancram, rh Michael

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Djanogly, Jonathan

Baker, Norman

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Barker, Gregory

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Barrett, John

Evans, Nigel

Bellingham, Henry

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Flight, Howard

Boswell, Tim

Flook, Adrian

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Forth, rh Eric

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Francois, Mark

Brady, Graham

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brazier, Julian

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Breed, Colin

Gidley, Sandra

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Goodman, Paul

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Burnside, David

Grayling, Chris

Burstow, Paul

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John

Butterfill, John

Grieve, Dominic

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Gummer, rh John

Carmichael, Alistair

Hague, rh William

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hancock, Mike

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Chope, Christopher

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harvey, Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Collins, Tim

Heald, Oliver

Conway, Derek

Heath, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

394

Hendry, Charles

Randall, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Rendel, David

Holmes, Paul

Robathan, Andrew

Horam, John (Orpington)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Jack, rh Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jenkin, Bernard

Rosindell, Andrew

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ruffley, David

Keetch, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Sanders, Adrian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Selous, Andrew

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Shepherd, Richard

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Simmonds, Mark

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Lamb, Norman

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

Lansley, Andrew

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Soames, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Letwin, rh Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Spring, Richard

Lidington, David

Stanley, rh Sir John

Lilley, rh Peter

Steen, Anthony

Loughton, Tim

Stunell, Andrew

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

McIntosh. Miss Anne

Syms, Robert

Mackay, rh Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maclean, rh David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor Sir Teddy

Malins, Humfrey

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Thurso, John

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Maude, rh Francis

Trend, Michael

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

May, Mrs Theresa

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Mercer, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Walter, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Moore, Michael

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Wiggin, Bill

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Wilkinson, John

Öpik, Lembit

Willetts, David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Ottaway, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Page, Richard

Willis, Phil

Paice, James

Wilshire, David

Pickles, Eric

Young, rh Sir George

Portillo, rh Michael

Younger-Ross, Richard

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Angela Watkinson and

Pugh, Dr. John

Mr. Mark Field

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Battle, John

Ainger, Nick

Bayley, Hugh

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Begg, Miss Anne

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Benn, Hilary

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Danwen)

Bennett, Andrew

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Berry, Roger

Atherton, Ms Candy

Best, Harold

Atkins, Charlotte

Betts, Clive

Austin, John

Blackman, Liz

Bailey, Adrian

Blears, Ms Hazel

Baird, Vera

Blizzard, Bob

Banks, Tony

Boateng, rh Paul

Barnes, Harry

Borrow, David

395

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, rh George

Brennan, Kevin

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Gardiner, Barry

Browne, Desmond

Gerrard, Neil

Bryant, Chris

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gilroy, Linda

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burnham, Andy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cairns, David

Grogan, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hain, rh Peter

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Caplin, Ivor

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Casale, Roger

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Caton, Martin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hanson, David

Challen, Colin

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Chaytor, David

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clapham, Michael

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Healey, John

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clelland, David

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hesford, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Coleman, Iain

Hodge, Margaret

Colman, Tony

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Connarty, Michael

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Cousins Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cummings, John

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hutton, rh John

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Dalyell, Tam

Illsley, Eric

Darling, rh Alistair

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

David, Wayne

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davidson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jenkins, Brian

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Denham, rh John

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Doran, Frank

Jowell, rh Tessa

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Edwards, Huw

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Efford, Clive

Kemp, Fraser

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Khabra, Piara S.

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Kidney, David

Farrelly, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

King, Andy (Rugby)

Flint, Caroline

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Follett, Barbara

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Foster, rh Derek

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

396

Lammy, David

Rammell, Bill

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lepper, David

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

Leslie, Christopher

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Linton, Martin

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Love, Andrew

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Ruane, Chris

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McAvoy, Thomas

McCabe, Stephen

Salter, Martin

McCartney, rh Ian

Sarwar, Mohammad

McDonagh, Siobhain

Savidge, Malcolm

MacDonald, Calum

Sawford, Phil

MacDougall, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McFall, John

Sheerman, Barry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheridan, Jim

McKechin, Ann

Shipley, Ms Debra

McKenna, Rosemary

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNamara, Kevin

Singh, Marsha

McNulty, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

MacShane, Denis

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

McWalter, Tony

McWilliam, John

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mahmood, Khalid

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mallaber, Judy

Soley, Clive

Mandelson, rh Peter

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Southworth, Helen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Stevenson, George

Merron, Gillian

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Michael, rh Alun

Milburn, rh Alan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Miliband, David

Stinchcombe, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Moffatt, Laura

Stringer, Graham

Mole, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moran, Margaret

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morgan, Julie

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mudie, George

Timms, Stephen

Munn, Ms Meg

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Truswell, Paul

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

O'Hara, Edward

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Pearson, Ian

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Perham, Linda

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Picking, Anne

Wareing, Robert N.

Pickthall, Colin

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Plaskitt, James

Watts, David

Pollard, Kerry

White, Brian

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Wicks, Malcolm

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Wills, Michael

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Prosser, Gwyn

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Purchase, Ken

Woodward, Shaun

Purnell, James

Woolas, Phil

Quinn, Lawrie

Worthington, Tony

397

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Wyatt, Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Wright, David (Telford)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Joan Ryan

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order NO 31
(Questions on amenements):—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 168.

Division No. 296]

[7:16 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Ainger, Nick

Cooper, Yvette

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cousins, Jim

Alexander, Douglas

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cranston, Ross

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cummings, John

Atkins, Charlotte

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Austin, John

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bailey, Adrian

Darling, rh Alistair

Baird, Vera

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Banks, Tony

David, Wayne

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Battle, John

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Begg, Miss Anne

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Benn, Hilary

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bennett, Andrew

Denham, rh John

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Dismore, Andrew

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Best, Harold

Doran, Frank

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Blackman, Liz

Drew, David (Stroud)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blizzard, Bob

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Boateng, rh Paul

Efford, Clive

Borrow, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Bradshaw, Ben

Flint, Caroline

Brennan, Kevin

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Follett, Barbara

Foster, rh Derek

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Foulkes, rh George

Burgon, Colin

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Burnham, Andy

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Cairns, David

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Caplin, Ivor

Gilroy, Linda

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Challen, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chaytor, David

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Hain, rh Peter

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Coaker, Vernon

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Healey, John

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

398

Hendrick, Mark

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hepburn, Stephen

McWalter, Tony

Heppell, John

McWilliam, John

Hesford, Stephen

Mahmood, Khalid

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hinchliffe, David

Mallaber, Judy

Hodge, Margaret

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Merron, Gillian

Howells, Dr. Kim

Michael, rh Alun

Hoyle, Lindsay

Milburn, rh Alan

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Moffatt, Laura

Humble, Mrs Joan

Mole, Chris

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Moran, Margaret

Hutton, rh John

Morgan, Julie

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Morley, Elliot

Illsley, Eric

Mountford, Kali

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Mudie, George

Munn, Ms Meg

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jamieson, David

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jenkins, Brian

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

O'Hara, Edward

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pearson, Ian

Jowell, rh Tessa

Perham, Linda

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Picking, Anne

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pickthall, Colin

Keeble, Ms Sally

Plaskitt, James

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Kemp, Fraser

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Khabra, Piara S.

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kidney, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

King, Andy (Rugby)

Purnell, James

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Quinn, Lawrie

Rammell, Bill

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lammy, David

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Lepper, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Leslie, Christopher

Ross, Ernic (Dundee W)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ruane, Chris

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Love, Andrew

Salter, Martin

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Savidge, Malcolm

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Sawford, Phil

McAvoy, Thomas

Sedgemore, Brian

McCabe, Stephen

Sheerman, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sheridan, Jim

MacDonald, Calum

Shipley, Ms Debra

MacDougall, John

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

McFall, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Singh, Marsha

McKechin, Ann

Skinner, Dennis

McKenna, Rosemary

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

McNamara, Kevin

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

MacShane, Denis

399

Soley, Clive

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Southworth, Helen

Wareing, Robert N.

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Steinberg, Gerry

Watts, David

Stevenson, George

White, Brian

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wills, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wilson, Brian

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Winnick, David

Stringer, Graham

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Worthington, Tony

Timms, Stephen

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Tipping, Paddy

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Wright, David (Telford)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wyatt, Derek

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Francois, Mark

Allan, Richard

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Amess, David

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Baker, Norman

Gidley, Sandra

Barker, Gregory

Goodman, Paul

Baron, John (Billericay)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Barrett, John

Grayling, Chris

Bellingham, Henry

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Greenway, John

Blunt, Crispin

Grieve, Dominic

Boswell, Tim

Gummer, rh John

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hague, rh William

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Hammond, Philip

Hancock, Mike

Brady, Graham

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Brazier, Julian

Harvey, Nick

Breed, Colin

Hawkins, Nick

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Heald, Oliver

Browning, Mrs Angela

Heath, David

Burnside, David

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Burstow, Paul

Hendry, Charles

Burt, Alistair

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Butterfill, John

Hogg, rh Douglas

Carmichael, Alistair

Holmes, Paul

Cash, William

Horam, John (Orpington)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Hunter, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Jack, rh Michael

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Collins, Tim

Keetch, Paul

Conway, Derek

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Cotter, Brian

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Curry, rh David

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lamb, Norman

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Lansley, Andrew

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Evans, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Fabricant, Michael

Letwin, rh Oliver

Fallon, Michael

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Flight, Howard

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Flook, Adrian

Lidington, David

Forth, rh Eric

Lilley, rh Peter

Foster, Don (Bath)

Loughton, Tim

400

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Shepherd, Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Simmonds, Mark

Mackay, rh Andrew

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Maclean, rh David

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

McLoughlin, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Soames, Nicholas

Maude, rh Francis

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

May, Mrs Theresa

Stanley, rh Sir John

Mercer, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Stunell, Andrew

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Moore, Michael

Syms, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Ottaway, Richard

Thurso, John

Page, Richard

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Paice, James

Trend, Michael

Pickles Eric

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Portillo, rh Michael

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Waterson, Nigel

Pugh, Dr. John

Whittingdale, John

Randall, John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Wiggin, Bill

Wilkinson, John

Rendel, David

Willetts, David

Robathan, Andrew

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis, Phil

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Wilshire, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Young, rh Sir George

Rosindell, Andrew

Younger-Ross, Richard

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Sanders, Adrian

Tellers for the Noes:

Selous, Andrew

Angela Watkinson and

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Mr. Mark Field

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to children's services as evidenced by the appointment of the Minister of State for Children; congratulates the Government on its Quality Protects initiative, which provided 885 million to improve children's social services; supports the action the Government is taking to legislate to establish an independent inspectorate to inspect local authority children's services and social care provided by the private and voluntary sector; notes that the Government, local authorities and other statutory bodies are already taking further action to improve services for children, in the light of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report; congratulates the Government and local services on the announcement of the 35 Children's Trusts Pathfinders on 10th July; and looks forward to the publication of the Green Paper on children in the autumn.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
    That the Special Grant Report (No. 125) (HC 776) on the Preserved Rights Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 10 September, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the Special Grant Report (No. 124) (HC 777) on the Delayed Discharges Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
      Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 10 September, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must have been almost embarrassed to have announced that to the House. Is not this the ultimate illustration of the absurdity of deferred Divisions? Here we have a motion before the House which we have objected to, and you have now told us that Members of the House will have to wait until 10 September to write down their vote on a ballot paper, in a Division Lobby, conveniently immediately after Prime Minister's questions, and that is when the matter will be resolved. History will record that this was the ultimate absurdity of deferred Divisions.
      Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Standing Orders of the House.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
        That the Special Grant Report (No. 123) (HC 778) on the Social Services (High Performers No. 2) Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
        Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday10 September, pursuant to Orders [June 28 2001 and 29 October 2002].
        Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We debated those three motions Upstairs in Committee this week. However, you have informed the House, because of Standing Orders over which you have no control, that we cannot determine them until some time in September, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said. Is that not ridiculous? It also shows the Government's contempt for the House.
        402
        There is a motion on the Order Paper not to defer a Division, because that might have been convenient for the Government. However, as dividing on the motion would have kept Labour Members here for a short time to vote, they were not prepared to waive the deferred Division. Do you think that that should go to the Procedure Committee for consideration?
        Mr. Speaker: I would not get involved in how the Government conduct themselves. However, there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman writing to the Procedure Committee on that matter.

  PETITIONS

    Pharmacy Services
    7.33 pm
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: The petition "Save our Pharmacy Services", which I have the honour to present, is signed by 2,000 petitioners.
    The petition declares:
    That the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will precipitate chaotic changes to the distribution of pharmaceutical services; lead to less convenient access for many patients, particular the elderly and those without transport and have a detrimental impact on the contribution made to primary care services by community pharmacies.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for the unrestricted opening of pharmacies.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Fair Trade
    7.34 pm
    Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition on behalf of several hundred of my constituents from the towns of Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard, Houghton Regis and the surrounding villages concerning fair and free trade for the less developed world.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of the constituents of South West Bedfordshire states that fairer trade rules are needed to increase what the poor can earn for themselves through trade.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Government, as the UK prepares for September's World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Mexico, to ask that they ensure that the UK Government supports the demands of the Trade Justice Movement.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Accident Group
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
7.35 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: First, may I say what an honour it is, Mr. Speaker, that you should choose to remain in the Chair for this Adjournment debate? May I take the opportunity to wish you and your wife a pleasant and relaxing summer break from your arduous duties?
I wish to raise the issue of the Accident Group, a personal injury firm that collapsed overnight on 30 May, sacking 2,700 people, many of whom were told by text message. The majority were left without salaries, and huge questions remain to be answered about the way in which the firm functioned. Why did directors continue to spend frivolously when they knew that the firm was in serious financial difficulty? It owed six months' national insurance payments. Why was there a deliberate board-level change in policy last year, which meant that the firm held on to millions of pounds that should have been paid back to the banks? Why did the company's sales reps deliberately target vulnerable, poverty-stricken people and entice them to fabricate claims, knowing that they were false? Why as yet is there no regulation of these so-called claims farmers, and why has no investigation been launched by the Department of Trade and Industry?
The Accident Group, which is known by the acronym TAG, was started by Mr. Mark Langford as a small personal injury claims firm in 1993. In 1999, after the Access to Justice Act 1999 created a market following the loss of legal aid, the company took off. In the new era of no win, no fee, TAG was responsible for the catch phrase, "Where there's blame, there's a claim," and stormed on to the scene, conquering 25 per cent. of the personal injury market in less than two years. The company claimed to be one of the fastest growing UK businesses, and reported an increase in turnover of 179 per cent. last year to £243 million. Based in Manchester, and part of the Amulet Group, the firm worked by asking the claimant to take out a bank loan to pay for a post-event insurance policy. That bank loan would pay for TAG's fees, and would be paid back to the bank from the damages won by the claimant in a case at least that was the theory.
If the claimant lost the case, the insurance policy would pay out, and the loan would be paid back anyway, leading the claimant to walk away and pay nothing—hence the claim, "No win, no fee". Claimants were sought by telesales, door-to-door canvassing, secondary selling—a claimant would be asked if they had a relative or friend who wanted to claim, or whether they wanted to make another claim themselves—and television and radio advertising. Teams of salesman even used to trawl for claimants on the streets in the centre of my own city of Liverpool. As well as a basic salary of £1,300 a calendar month, reps were paid £50 a claim for 33 per cent. of the claims that they wrote up. Until last August, that commission was paid regardless of whether a case was taken up or not. A salesman would find a claimant and get them to sign a form stating the nature of the injury and the cause of the accident. The details would then go back to the office,
404
where another part of the company called Accident Investigations Ltd., or AIL, would investigate the claim further to see if it had a chance of winning. Once AIL had decided to go ahead with the claim, it would be activated—a credit agreement would be signed by the claimant who would take out a bank loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland, which would cover TAG's £995 fees, AIL's £320 investigation fee, any medical fees—on average, about about £400—and other disbursements.
Once the loan had been taken out, the case would be passed to an independent vetting firm of solicitors, a Manchester-based firm called Rowe Cohen. The firm would in turn pass the case to one of a panel of 600 or 700 solicitors for a vetting fee of about £50 plus VAT. That solicitor would then take the case on for the claimant and deal directly with him or her. If the case succeeded in court or was settled for an agreed amount, the bank loan and the solicitor's fees would be paid out of the damages and the claimant would get whatever was left—in many cases, not very much. If the case failed after a court hearing, the insurance policy would pay out and the fees of all those involved in the case except the solicitors would be paid, and the bank loan would be paid back from that.
Sometimes claimants could not be contacted by the solicitor, or would not want to go ahead with the case, or it was found that the amount winnable in damages would not cover the costs of taking the case, or that the case was fraudulent. In an agreement drawn up between TAG, the insurance underwriters and the banks, if that happened after the loan had been activated and the case was less than nine months old and had had less than £55 of disbursements spent on it, it could be voided. That meant that TAG would pay back its £999 fee, AIL would pay back its £320 fee, the insurance company would pay back its premium, and the entire bank loan would be paid back as though nothing had ever happened. Everyone would go back to zero and the case would be binned. Seemingly, everyone was a winner, or at least not a loser.
However, I must give credit to BBC Radio—a much-maligned part of our media, but I have great respect for it, and for no programme more than "You and Yours", which investigated the company and revealed several anomalies. Panel firms of solicitors would pay, as I said, £50 to take on a case on the basis of information provided by TAG, yet once taken on, the standard of cases passing through the vetting solicitors Rowe Cohen was found to be so bad that one panel firm said to the programme's researchers that out of 1,200 cases offered by TAG, only 150 were of sufficient standard to be pursued. The rest were exaggerated, embellished or simply fraudulent. That raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the procedures of Rowe Cohen.
TAG sales representatives were told to get four claims a day, but because of the commission basis were encouraged to get as many as they could. Sources in the company revealed that as the company grew, the reps became less and less concerned with the validity of the claims, and in numerous cases not only knew the claims to be fraudulent, but set up the situation for the fraudulent claims to be made. I emphasise that not all TAG sales reps were unscrupulous—not at all. Indeed, some claim that they raised their concerns about methods with the company, but were ignored.

405
We must be aware of the structure above the reps. Managing the sales rep was a supervisor. Above him or her was a first line manager, then an area manager, then a regional manager, then a divisional manager, and ultimately the cost centre manager. They were all paid commission on a sliding scaled based on the reps' performance at the bottom of the heap. It was like an inverted form of pyramid selling. Some reps would knock on doors after a bus crash and recruit claimants by getting them to sign forms and filling in the details later.
One man said that a visit from a TAG rep resulted in a claim for industrial deafness while working at the Ford Motor Company, another claim for vibration white finger caused by operating a kango hammer while working for Cruden, and a third claim for injuries after being involved in a bus crash, but the man remarked that he had never worked for Ford or Cruden, and had never travelled on a crashing bus. The rep had told him—a vulnerable single father of four—that he would get his money anyway. I should point out that Arriva and two other bus companies are investigating 400 such allegedly fraudulent claims.
Other reps would wait for vulnerable people outside jobcentres, then lead them round a corner before talking them into claiming that they had tripped over a paving stone, conveniently photographing them at the scene as part of the claim. One rep would use a series of five potholes successively, enticing cars full of passengers to them, then persuading the driver to claim, falsely, that he had driven over the pothole. The driver and passengers would all be written up for non-existent whiplash injuries.
Cleaners were the easiest, one rep said, because any woman who worked as a cleaner could be convinced that she had a work-related injury. People working as security guards and office workers were also easily persuaded. Effectively, anybody who worked could fall into the scam. One lady alleged that she had been approached in the street and that a fraudulent claim was written up in her name despite her asking otherwise—and the rep still received the commission.
One of the reps has gone on record as saying that he used to stand outside Liverpool prison in my constituency waiting for prisoners to be released, after which he would talk them into claiming that they had a bad back that had been caused by sleeping on lumpy mattresses. I did not know that it was possible to sue the Prison Service for that. Hundreds of such claims went through the system. No claims ever reached the prison, but the point is that the reps were paid their commission. The rep also talked about persuading a woman who broke her leg on an ice rink to sue on the basis that the signs saying "Danger—Slippery Surface" were not visible enough. It was not seen as relevant that the woman was wearing ice skates at the time.
Much of the documentation that has become available reveals that a large number of claims submitted to the company were false and known to be so by the reps. However, until last August, when the rules changed, they retained their commission. The reps' explanation is simple. They were under enormous pressure from the company to hit claims targets. They say that four claims a day was their standard target. As
406
I mentioned, when a case was no longer active, it could be voided and the moneys taken out and paid back. On average, in 2001–02, 15,000 cases a month were activated. Loan amounts could vary, but they included that standard fee of £995 for TAG and £320 for AIL. A loan of about £1,500 was the norm.
For months, out of 15,000 cases activated in a month, 2,500 to 3,000 cases were voided—a rate of about 13 or 15 per cent. Consequently, the moneys were paid back. For TAG alone, the total would be £2.5 million to £3 million a month, and for AIL, which was wholly owned by TAG, it would equal about another £1 million. That was quite normal in the business.
In December 2002, that rate dropped overnight to 300 voided cases a month. That meant that only £300,000 was being paid back to the bank. The figures show that that went on for some time. Indeed, it continued from December 2002 until about the following April, when the number of voided cases suddenly leapt back up to 2,900. I am told that that came out of a row between a TAG director, Maria Berry, and Anthony Denison of Rowe Cohen, which made it clear that there was a problem for the company. In May 2003, the figure dropped back to 258.
Then came the magical date of 30 May this year. There had been a deliberate change in policy at boardroom level, which meant that staff were being ordered not to void cases, as keeping cases alive for longer meant that the money would not have to be paid back to the bank, despite the company knowing that the case was dead. If the case was kept alive for longer than nine months, according to the agreement drawn up between the banks, TAG and the underwriters, when it failed, the underwriters would have to pay out on the insurance policy to refund the bank loan. That meant that TAG would keep the money from the bank loan.
When the void rates dropped, staff questioned what was going on and were told by the directors, "Needs must: this is the way in which we must proceed." On the day before the company went into administration, one staff member was told to void 9,000 cases in one day. However, as the firm's accounts were frozen the very next morning, it still is not known, as far as I am aware, whether the money—approximately £9 million—was paid back to the bank.
Last autumn, the new insurance underwriters insisted that the rules should change. That meant that sales reps were paid only when a case was activated, which improved the quality of the cases taken on. However, it was too late, as the cases written up in 2001–02 had done serious damage to the company. So many cases had failed and the insurance premiums were increasing at such a rate that TAG's fees could not cover them. The outcome was inevitable.
Two meetings of TAG workers were held in Manchester and Liverpool. I mention this point en passant, as I think that it is important that we get it on record, as 2,700 people lost their jobs. It emerged that former members of staff were having difficulty in claiming jobseeker's allowance and were being told by jobcentres that not enough class 1 national insurance payments had been made on their behalf. Examination of wage slips showed that national insurance had been taken from salaries, and sources within the company

407
confirmed that no national insurance payments had been made to the Contributions Agency after December.
It is important to note that the Inland Revenue says that payment of tax can be deferred, with agreement, but the Contributions Agency says that national insurance "cannot under any circumstances" be deferred. Further inquiries revealed that TAG owes a grand total of £11.1 million in national insurance. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the directors of the company will be personally liable for that money. Remember, too, that the workers will be out of pocket. Not only have they lost their jobs and salaries, but for much of 2003 even the promised commission has not materialised. On 30 May, most of the work force were alerted that their May salaries would not be paid. Some were e-mailed; many were texted. What a way to lose a job in the 21st century.
The last national insurance contributions were paid in December 2002, but the directors of the company continued to spend. Sources within the accounts department say that £420,000 was spent on a Christmas party for the staff that month. The directors went to Barbados with their families at a cost of £42,000. In March, a number of directors went to Barcelona to watch Manchester United play—on the company, of course—and in April the firm spent £70,000 on a new public address system to pipe soft music around the buildings. The executive car fleet contained one £225,000 Bentley, two Ferraris, one Aston Martin V8 Vantage, one £54,000 Range Rover, a Mercedes SLK and, for the poor relations, a Beetle for their exclusive use.
Former accounts staff say that directors were warned repeatedly that they were spending too much, but those warnings were ignored. The staff believe that the company was being mismanaged and trading improperly. Certainly, evidence from former workers suggests that the directors knew that the firm was in serious financial difficulty, yet continued to spend. At the beginning of 2003–1o and behold—the directors began to buy their own cars from the company; it would be interesting to know if that was at a very reduced rate. Staff were told to sit on invoices and not to pay anyone until at least three letters of complaint were received, or the creditor went as far as threatening a county court judgment. Mysteriously, bits of furniture started to be removed without warning or explanation, and problems over unpaid commission began to emerge.
The Accident Group went down owing millions of pounds. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the firm of administrators, is trying to untangle the mess. There are still approximately 250,000 ongoing cases, some of which are undoubtedly fraudulent, but many of which are genuine. They have been taken up by a firm called Lawcall. The Department of Trade and Industry has said that it is in touch with the administrators, that it will consider the merits of an investigation based on the information that it receives, and that the administrators have agreed to send it a copy of their report once it is complete. Meanwhile, Mr. Langford still retains assets in excess of £40 million, including a £3.5 million home in Cheshire. The sad outcome of the story is that there is still no regulation for claims farmers such as the Accident Group.
408
I should like the Minister to respond to one or two brief questions. Is there any way in which the DTI or its sister Departments can help those employees? Will the directors be held to account? Given the advice that employees receive in Europe, can he confirm that there, this could not have happened without dialogue, notification or consultation with the work force? Are the Government thinking along the lines of providing an appropriate regulatory regime for claims farmers to preempt the chances of such a travesty ever happening again?
7.54 pm
Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on raising this subject. It is an enormous scandal for a company to operate, and cease to operate, in such a way. The company was based in my constituency and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who also took an interest in pursuing the issues.
We must establish whether the company deliberately chose to withhold national insurance payments. That is tantamount to fraud. If that genuinely happened, we should ask serious questions about whether criminal proceedings are possible against those responsible, because they have robbed their employees. It is as simple and crude as that.
When the company went down, I asked officials in the Department of Trade and Industry to take a close interest in the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say exactly how the Department has stewarded the process. It is important to note that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the receivers in the case, have asked for the industrial tribunal process to be deferred. That may be in the interests of the receivers and the asset base, but it is not in the interests of the employees. Will my hon. Friend look into that to ensure that the employees are given every protection? They have received no protection or consideration from the company.
7.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I begin by expressing my good wishes for your recess, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it will be a well-earned rest.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on securing the debate. I thank him for detailing the circumstances that surrounded the announcement of the redundancy of the former employees of the Accident Group, and the company's operation. I appreciate the significance of the closure for Liverpool, Walton, where First Advance Ltd., part of the group, was based. I also acknowledge the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford—I am sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd); the reference to Manchester United threw me. I acknowledge his anxieties about the redundancies. I shall endeavour to answer the points that have been made, but the issues are serious and I want to respond to some of them in due course. I hope that my hon. Friends accept my sincerity.
I have every sympathy with the staff who worked for the companies in the Accident Group and lost their jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton

409
said, it appears that news of the administration order and the likely loss of jobs was sent by text messages and e-mails to staff before the appointment of the administrators. They planned to hold meetings at the various work sites to let staff know what was happening. However, probably as a consequence of the text messages and the e-mails, few employees turned up for work. Several members of staff received notice of the proceedings through a voicemail message, which had been prepared for those who were off site and not expected in the office.
It is regrettable that staff did not receive information at the planned meetings, at which they would also have been given information about their redundancy. Whenever redundancies have to be made, it is in everyone's interests that they be handled sensitively. Too often we hear of employees discovering out of the blue—sometimes even over the radio—that they are to be dismissed. People deserve better treatment.
However, as my hon. Friend said, the administrators wrote to the staff on 30 May 2003, the day of their appointment, to explain about the administration order, the need for the redundancies and the statutory assistance available to employees from the redundancy payments section of the Insolvency Service.
My hon. Friend asked what the Government were doing for the former employees of the Accident Group. Former workers may be eligible for payments of unpaid wages, holiday pay, payment in lieu of notice and redundancy pay from the national insurance fund. All those payments are subject to statutory limits. I assure hon. Members that the redundancy payments office in Birmingham is working hard to ensure that all workers receive the full statutory amount to which they are entitled as speedily as possible. Claim forms have been issued to former employees, and most have been returned to the Birmingham redundancy payments office via the administrators.
The administrators have provided details of the group and confirmation and information about all individual former employees. By last weekend more than 1,000 employees should have received their payments. The Birmingham office aims to arrange payment for a similar number this week.
I appreciate that the limits on payments in the statute generally mean that payments do not fully cover the total amount that employees are owed by their former employers. However, my hon. Friend may be pleased to note that this Government have regularly reviewed and increased the statutory limits, most recently in February this year to £260 a week for a maximum of eight weeks. There might be some staff who have not yet lodged a claim with the redundancy payments office. Detailed information about who is entitled to payments and what and how much they are likely to be entitled to can be found on the Insolvency Service website at www.insolvency.gov.uk under "Information about redundancy matters". Alternatively, anyone who has been made redundant and needs advice or information about their entitlements or their claim can phone the redundancy payments telephone helpline on 0845 145 0004. All calls to the helpline are charged at local rates.
410
The administrators have a duty under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of the company's directors. The report is due approximately six months after the date of the insolvency. The Secretary of State then has a discretionary power to apply to the court for a disqualification order to be made against some or all of the directors. If such an order were to be obtained, it would run for between two and 15 years, and contravention can result not only in criminal sanctions but in the director becoming personally liable for the debts of any new company to which they are subsequently appointed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton raised a point about Europe. Looking further ahead, last week we announced proposals for implementing the information and consultation directive. This is designed to promote ongoing dialogue with employees on business issues that affect them. I am pleased that we were able to agree with the CBI and the TUC a framework for implementing the directive in the UK. We hope that the new legislation will help to deliver a "no surprises" culture that will benefit not only employees but the businesses for which they work. My hon. Friend is right to say that implementation of the directive would mean that such a case could no longer arise.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the activities of the Accident Group and related companies, and that there have been calls for a code of conduct for that type of business. The Government are aware of the concerns about the activities of such companies, especially in relation to some companies' marketing methods. However, provided that they and similar intermediaries act responsibly and with probity, they can expand access for people with good claims, and provide helpful claims management services to solicitors.
Any improper, misleading or dishonest conduct towards consumers—or, indeed, in respect of any other aspect of a company's business—would of course be of great concern. The marketing and sales activities need to be performed to the highest possible standards. The maximum effort needs to be made to ensure that consumers understand the nature of any agreement that they might be asked to enter into, what liabilities they might have under that agreement, and what, if anything, it will cost them.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is working with a range of organisations including the Law Society, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the General Insurance Standards Council, consumer groups and other organisations, including claims management companies, to encourage high and common standards in accident compensation, including a voluntary code of practice. There is already considerable activity in the personal injury industry to improve and set standards and to draw up codes of practice for intermediaries. There are a number of initiatives at various stages of development, demonstrating the clear desire on the part of most intermediaries to bring about a step change in behaviour.
The Government favour a voluntary approach and a degree of industry self-regulation, rather than new formal regulation. There is already regulation of most elements in the package of legal and financial services

411
provided by claims management companies—for example, by the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the General Insurance Standards Council and, from 2005, the Financial Services Authority. However, it is clear that there is a regulatory maze in relation to legal services, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs has already announced plans to review the legal services regulatory framework. The scope of this review and the mechanism for carrying it forward will be announced in the summer.
Job losses are always a matter of great regret, and the Government were sorry to learn of the closure of the Accident Group. It is particularly unfortunate when redundancies occur suddenly and without prior consultation. Our proposals for implementing the information and consultation directive will do much to help to end that sort of business culture. However, as I have explained to the House, a range of measures both practical and legislative are in place to assist employees who are made redundant. They cannot, of course. completely make up for employees' loss of a job through no fault of their own. However, I am satisfied that those measures represent an appropriate response by the Government to what is bound to be a regrettable situation for all those concerned.
I undertake to look at all the issues that have arisen from the closure of the company, and at all the surrounding issues that need to be dealt with. I shall get back to my hon. Friend in due course, and I shall meet him when I can, to ensure that such an occurrence does not happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 376, Noes 52.

  Division No. 292]

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Amess, David

  Collins, Tim

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Conway, Derek

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barker, Gregory

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Curry, rh David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  David, Wayne

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Hilary

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blackman, Liz

  Denham, rh John

  Blair, rh Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blizzard, Bob

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Borrow, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Boswell, Tim

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brady, Graham

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Evans, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burt, Alistair

  Flight, Howard

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flook, Adrian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Casale, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Cash, William

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Challen, Colin

  Francois, Mark

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  413

  Gilroy, Linda

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Goodman, Paul

  Leigh, Edward

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Lepper, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gummer, rh John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Hain, rh Peter

  Lidington, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hammond, Philip

  Loughton, Tim

  Hanson, David

  Love, Andrew

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Healey, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hendry, Charles

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hepburn, Stephen

  MacDougall, John

  Heppell, John

  McFall, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hodge, Margaret

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  McWilliam, John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Maples, John

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hutton, rh John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mercer, Patrick

  Jack, rh Michael

  Merron, Gillian

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Miliband, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mole, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moran, Margaret

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kidney, David

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  O'Hara, Edward

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Olner, Bill

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Lammy, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Perham, Linda

  414

  Picking, Anne

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Plaskitt, James

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Spring, Richard

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Prescott, rh John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Purchase, Ken

  Syms, Robert

  Purnell, James

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Trend, Michael

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ruffley, David

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Walter, Robert

  Ward, Claire

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Salter, Martin

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Watkinson, Angela

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Singh, Marsha

  Woodward, Shaun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Young, rh Sir George

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barrett, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Breed, Colin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hancock, Mike

  Burnett, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Burstow, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Heath, David

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Holmes, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Keetch, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Doughty, Sue

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  McDonnell, John

  415

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Sanders, Adrian

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

  Moore, Michael

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Rendel, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Weir, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Salmond, Alex

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews for Partners) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 52.

  Division No. 293]

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bailey, Adrian

  David, Wayne

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Denham, rh John

  Benn, Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blair, rh Tony

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, rh George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  416

  Hesford, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mole, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, rh John

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purnell, James

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lammy, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Salter, Martin

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Stephen

  Shepherd, Richard

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDougall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  MacShane, Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Southworth, Helen

  McWalter, Tony

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  417

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Ward, Claire

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Watts, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Truswell, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Barrett, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Breed, Colin

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Burnett, John

  Cotter, Brian

  418

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Doughty, Sue

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hancock, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Salmond, Alex

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heath, David

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

  Holmes, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Thurso, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  McDonnell, John

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Weir, Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Moore, Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Antisocial Behaviour
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Mr. Graham Allen: Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for us to remove our jackets?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be in order to remove jackets in this Chamber.
Mr. Allen: At my surgery last Saturday, I was visited by a middle-aged man whom I shall call Mr. Smith. He told me about his elderly parents, both of whom suffer ill health. They have a family living next door to them. The father of that family is in prison, the mother is a drug dealer and the teenage children live by the motto, "No one tells us what to do." The elderly couple suffer music, sometimes until dawn. They have had their fence burned and demolished, they are attacked by their neighbours' dog, they have been personally abused and assaulted and they have six crime numbers arising from police visits next door. They have endured that for two years without relief, despite the efforts of local services to help them. I dedicate this debate to them and to the many others who need our Government to take action on their behalf.
We must start from a position of honesty and say that we are still a long way from defeating antisocial behaviour. It is not foremost a question of lawyers or even Ministers, although we need both. It is a question of normal law-abiding people—our constituents—who are being driven crazy by bad neighbours, kids with no values, verbal and mental intimidation and a daily degraded quality of life. We must do something about that. Technical and legal reasons for standing back and letting people suffer are no longer acceptable.
To their great credit, the Labour Government in 1998 showed their awareness of that serious problem and decided on urgent action. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provided for local authorities or the police to apply to a magistrates court for an antisocial behaviour order if someone over 10 years of age had acted
"in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household",
if deemed necessary to protect other individuals from further such behaviour in a local authority area. ASBOs may prohibit any form of activity for a specific period or indefinitely until discharged by the court. The Government and, no doubt, previous Governments have treated the issue seriously, but the problem is massive and our attempts to pin it down must be constant and permanent.
68WH
ASBOs are just one part of the armoury, not a panacea. That said, after six years in government, we should be doing better than the several hundred ASBOs that are imposed each year. ASBOs should be running into thousands per year and should be a permanent part of the armoury of local authorities and police against that small minority who make everyone else's life a misery.
ASBOs are a sophisticated and effective tool for tackling antisocial behaviour, but they have had teething problems and need further work. They are still dependent on witnesses, who are easily intimidated. In white, working class areas and tough outer-city estates of the sort that I am familiar with, as are the Minister and other hon. Members, witnesses are easily intimated, particularly when the antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by younger people, often against older and more established residents.
Bringing a case to court requires immense resources and time from local authority, police, probation and housing officers. They do incredible work, but must set aside a vast amount of time to make an ASBO stick. Often, bail is all too easily granted to ASBO offenders, not least because of the lack of secure places.
Many of the problems might have been avoided had there been proper pre-legislative scrutiny of the whole concept. We could have asked those whom we are now asking to operate ASBOs how ASBOs might work best. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider taking the quite imaginative step of having post-legislative scrutiny of ASBOs and of commissioning a parliamentary forum, including colleagues who are present this morning, to take evidence from practitioners on how to make ASBOs better.
The Minister may not agree with my main contention about the confusion surrounding the definition of civil and criminal burdens of proof, but many people may be confused, even if the Minister and the judges are clear about the matter. Perhaps one way to resolve the confusion and to make ASBOs work even better is to have a dialogue in a parliamentary forum or in another forum that the Minister considers appropriate.
I make my comments entirely from a constructive position. I hope that they do not come over as destructive in any sense. My comments follow a long line of efforts by Nottingham to improve ASBOs. I pay tribute to the police in the city and to local councillors and officers of Nottingham city council for their great efforts over many years to promote changes in ASBOs. Many of those changes have been accepted and implemented.
In that context, I also thank a number of Ministers: primarily, Lord Irvine, the former Lord Chancellor; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who used to occupy the position that the Minister now occupies; and our former, lamented colleague David Lock. All those people worked as a team with me and other colleagues from Nottingham to improve ASBOs.
The widespread teamwork that we have brought to bear on the matter was summed up for me when one of our local police inspectors, Jeff Whitmore, whom I will quote later, cornered my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I will never forget the

69WH
picture of Jeff talking and my right hon. Friend writing. The outcome, to my right hon. Friend's great credit, was a considerable tightening of the guidance on ASBOs. We have a good, strong, positive record when it comes to improving ASBOs. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in that context.
Nottingham has not given up and today I want to focus on one key ASBO problem. The potential strength, but also one of the weaknesses, of ASBOs stems from their unusual legal status. They draw on both civil and criminal law. ASBOs are regarded as civil proceedings, but there are two problems. First, to obtain an ASBO can require more than a civil level of proof. Secondly, if the order is breached, proving the breach requires a criminal level of proof, which is "beyond all reasonable doubt". A civil level of proof refers to "the balance of probability".
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the criminal level of proof is right, given that a young person could face a five-year prison sentence, or another strong sentence?
Mr. Allen: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will tackle some of those points later. I will make a couple of points that might help her to understand where I am coming from.
In October 2002, the House of Lords, in the McCann case, determined the standard of proof. Much as I hate to do this, for the record I will quote certain parts of that judgment. It was stated that
"given the seriousness of matters involved, at least some reference to the heightened civil standard would usually be necessary.
For essentially practical reasons, the judge in the McCann case decided to apply the criminal standard. The Court of Appeal said that would usually be the right course to adopt. Lord Bingham of Cornhill had observed that the heightened civil standard and the criminal standard were virtually indistinguishable. Pragmatism dictated that the task of magistrates should be made more straightforward by ruling that they must, in all cases under section 1 of the 1998 Act apply the criminal standard."
There are other quotes. There is, in my opinion, a degree of confusion among practitioners that it would be helpful to have resolved one way or another.
No local council will risk public money and days of officers' time gambling on further interpretation of such guidelines. If in doubt, it will have to let those suffering antisocial behaviour stew. When I say "stew", I do not mean for a day or two, or a couple of weeks. The case to which I referred earlier has been going on for months and years. I am not making a straightforward crossover and saying that, if we changed the law today, that case would be dealt with. It is not as simple as that, but people are in such positions for months, and possibly years, suffering and often unable to move.
One problem for the Law Lords is that they have cases but not constituents. That is one of the problems with their lordships in general, and perhaps with the Law Lords in particular. I suggest to the Minister that, as we establish a new supreme court, the senior judiciary must address that problem through training and outreach. As an interim measure, I intend to copy this speech to their lordships the Law Lords and invite them to meet Mr.
70WH
and Mrs. Smith and many other families desperate for relief. I think that that sort of grounding would be no bad thing for their lordships when they make decisions on matters that appear to be legal technicalities, but make ordinary people's lives unbearable.
There are times when it is difficult to prove harassment, alarm and distress to that high standard to which I referred. The public may not come forward to give evidence, or harassment may have to be interpreted from the actions of a class of people, such as in the case of begging—a big problem in Nottingham—where the public complain about the actions of a class but not individuals. Beggars cause distress, but it is difficult to prove the standard required for an ASBO.
In a recent case in Preston, the police attempted to impose an ASBO on a prostitute, who had prostitution convictions. The magistrates court refused to grant that on the ground that it could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she had caused harassment, alarm or distress. Meanwhile, the problems of used condoms and syringes being left lying around, sex acts in doorways and women being afraid to walk the streets in the area continue, as they do in my city.
All the immense local effort to bolster witnesses, undertake surveillance, produce reports and initiate the case is often wasted, with all the resulting demoralisation that that entails, and glee for the offenders. To prevent that, to enhance the reputation of ASBOs and to increase their usage, the standard of proof required to obtain an order must be clarified, either by the Minister's remarks and getting those across to all who wish to use ASBOs more effectively, or by cleaning up the statute so that we are clear that it is a civil offence requiring a civil level of proof.
I tabled an amendment to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill in Committee, although I was not on the Committee, hoping at the very least that that matter could be openly debated with the then Minister, but it was blocked by the Government. Will the current Minister take a fresh look at it and, if convinced, introduce a similar amendment while the Bill is in the Lords? That is still possible. As I am sure hon. Members will point out, rafts of new amendments have been introduced to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. I am sure that, if the Minister wishes to look at the matter seriously, as I know she will, it will be possible to table a simple amendment to ensure that the civil burden of proof is the level required, and to make that absolutely clear to everyone.
I would now like to call witnesses. The deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, Peter Ditchett, remarks:
"We feel that great progress has been made with ASBOs but that more can be done, particularly on the burden of proof."
Another witness is Christine Oliver, the solicitor for Nottingham city council who has responsibility for moving cases forward:
"We would welcome further changes to allow ASBOs to be granted on evidence proved on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. We believe this would allow more applications to be made in both the magistrate's court and county court with broader use of anti-social behaviour orders."
It is not that orders are refused by the courts, but that a vast reservoir of potential orders are never sought because people think that some hurdles are too high. I referred earlier to my next witness, Inspector Jeff Whitmore, who stated:

71WH
"We do need the entire burden of proof to be at the civil level to enable all forms of evidence to be submitted and the decision to be made on the balance of probabilities. This as you are aware, will make it far easier for us and the Council to make full use of the legislation."
According to Inspector Whitmore, it is necessary to apply the intention that the Home Secretary has stated in various Second Reading debates and to use antisocial behaviour orders in a way that will help our constituents.
My last witness is the former leader of Nottingham city council, Councillor Graham Chapman, who stated:
"We owe it to the vast majority of law abiding good neighbours to keep the pressure up on the tiny minority of anti-social people by making the burden of proof such that we can actively and speedily take action against them."
My case is not that ASBOs are never granted, but that we need to make them more readily available to the people I have quoted. None is a Rachman. None is trying to kick someone out of a house so that it can be sold. They are all dedicated public servants who wish to use the law as we intended it to be used.
I have been speaking about granting an ASBO, but I shall now deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) about breaching an ASBO. I acknowledge openly and honestly to everyone in the Chamber and outside that I am on thin ice. The balance that we are always desperate to achieve in a free society is maintaining good order and decent living conditions for the vast majority of people while in no way compromising individual liberties.
I concur with remarks by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the balance is tilted in favour of the antisocial person who may hide behind his rights and against the vast majority of law-abiding people in our constituencies. I know that this is a very delicate matter, but, having said that, I shall put on my big clogs and stamp all over it to see what happens and whether there is any room to move forward. I hope that my colleagues will forgive me if I speak bluntly on these matters.
Mrs. Brooke: Is it ever right to risk convicting an innocent young person, or any innocent person? In these circumstances, the risk is so high. Such a conviction would certainly destroy that person's life.
Mr. Allen: There is no intention to convict innocent people, although I admit that innocent people are sometimes convicted under any legal system or system of justice. We should take every possible precaution to prevent that from happening. However, I am equally concerned about the 99 out of 100 innocent people who suffer in their homes because we are unable to find a remedy that will allow them to enjoy their life, privacy and home without being subjected to the antisocial behaviour of young people, bad neighbours or others. It is a question not of innocence or guilt, but of getting the balance right. I am suggesting that perhaps we should tilt the balance a little more in favour of the people who suffer, year after year. Rather than for ever considering the issue in the context of clients who may be represented in court, perhaps we should think of the citizens who have a right to enjoy free association and social life in the way we would all want to enjoy them.
72WH
Breaching of many types of orders is a criminal offence. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rightly said that someone can go to prison for five years in certain circumstances. To digress slightly, however, we must explore, if only to reject, the concept of what I call automaticity. Where an order is breached, might it, under carefully defined circumstances, involve an automatic penalty? At present, we need two trials before a penalty is imposed. We need a trial to establish the order and another if it has been breached. We must consider that carefully, as police, probation and housing officers must go through the time-consuming process of preparing and supporting witnesses for court appearances. Automaticity should apply, especially when the original granting of the order required a criminal or quasi-criminal level of proof, although it may not apply in other circumstances. I will leave that thought with the Minister, and I hope that colleagues will take it seriously rather than merely being outraged, saying that we are going to lock up thousands of innocent people. It deserves to be explored, if only for us to reject it collectively around the table.
There is less confusion over ASBOs. We certainly require a criminal level of proof to determine whether they have been breached. To convict someone who has broken their antisocial behaviour order by reappearing in an area from which they were barred, or intimidating families whom they were banned from approaching, the same level of proof is required—as I understand it, although I am not a lawyer—as for murder, rape or any of the most serious offences. That proof must be beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond all reasonable possibilities. It may well be the law, but we are here not merely to create or to rubber-stamp the law, but to try to support those suffering in our constituencies. I ask hon. Members to think about the issue not as lawyers, but as Members of Parliament whose constituents need action and alternatives to the existing policy. We should not find more reasons to say, "No, we are going to make it difficult for you. We will allow a process to take place that makes it difficult for you to get those necessary orders."
I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that, normally, by the time we reach that stage, the people are not first-time offenders. They have a track record locally and are at the end of the line. When police, probation and housing resources of that magnitude are committed, it is because the offenders are not casual people whom we are picking up in the streets, but long-term, repeat offenders, many of whom we know through the experiences of our constituents. We are not randomly picking up people off the street and locking them up because we do not like them. Those people have come a long way down the road of antisocial behaviour.
Those are the points that I would like the Minister to clarify. I have been specific, but there is a lot more we can do about antisocial behaviour orders. The Minister will rightly point out the vast amount that the Government have done over recent years, and that effort is genuinely appreciated on the estates in my constituency. The recent developments with the Anti-social Behaviour Bill are welcome. I applaud and pay tribute to those efforts, but they must continue. There are concerns, but whether they are justified is almost beside the point. We need to resolve them whether or not they have any basis. I hope that, in their third and fourth

73WH
terms, the Labour Government will introduce not only a tax on antisocial behaviour, but a serious and solid campaign to promote social behaviour among young people. I have had discussions on the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I have had conversations on an all-party basis—Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members must be part of getting the process moving—on ensuring that the national curriculum from the age of five reflects social behaviour.
The concepts of emotional intelligence, personal development and self-discipline must be included to give those young people values. That may sound like the nanny state, which may offend middle class people, but there are many kids in my constituency who do not get it at home. It is vital that youngsters learn how to respect each other and how to operate socially. That concept of social behaviour is probably more valuable than any academic or paper qualification that one can obtain after 11 years of schooling and university. To be a decent human being able to interact with one's peers is the greatest gift our education system could give to young people, particularly if they are from a background where they are not getting that encouragement.
Without being prescriptive, I hope that colleagues from all parties will join us and help the Secretary of State for Education and Skills understand how that is an important basis for education. I would also include things such as parenting skills for people who are not yet parents. Children will one day become parents and need to understand what it is like to be a parent and what the responsibilities are. As someone who became a father at a late age, I can say that it is one of the most daunting things that has ever happened to me. I do not have a clue how I would cope if I were a single mum living with a little child in one of the tough estates in my constituency.
Building in an understanding of how to do those things at school level would be a great gift to our fellow citizens. It is also a matter of engaging young people in opportunities for worthwhile activities and setting personal standards that allow them to make something better of their lives. That means proper support for youth clubs, sporting associations, libraries, centres for training and education, leisure, drama and the arts. It means ending the sale of school playing fields, not having children rotating around parks, and allowing caretakers back on sites so that they can look after them. It means more support for local schools that have to cope with damaged and disturbed children to give them the discipline and social skills that they do not have in their home lives.
I hope that our Government will continue the great work that has been started. I hope that they will enjoy the support and the encouragement of other parties in the House. I hope that the Government will continue their twin-track approach of swift penalties for antisocial behaviour and helping those people in our communities who are tackling such problems by cleaving away much of the legal verbiage that surrounds such matters and allowing dedicated public service professionals such as councillors, Members of Parliament and others to make life better for their constituents. As well as swift penalties for antisocial
74WH
behaviour, there is a raft of things we need to do, leading to swift rewards for improvement. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is advisable for me to remind hon. Members, in case they have not realised, that it is customary in these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three-winding up speeches 30 minutes before termination, which means that we have 31 minutes left for those hon. Members who want to contribute. I ask them to keep that in mind when they make their contributions, or accept and respond to interventions.
9.59 am
Siobhain McDonagh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. The antisocial behaviour of a few people has a disproportionate impact on the lives of many of our constituents, and I welcome the opportunity once again to raise their concerns with Ministers.
I recently carried out a detailed survey of my constituents' views on antisocial behaviour, because I was on the Committee that considered the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and wanted their help in getting it right. I promised them that I would use the findings to help with my campaigning, and that I would try my best to make the Government bear them in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not think that I am deliberately stalking her, but as she knows after meeting some of my constituents in the House last week, the issue clearly touches a nerve in Mitcham and Morden, and that is borne out by the response to my survey.
Out of about 1,000 questionnaires that I sent out, more than 600 were posted back, an almost unprecedented return rate for a postal survey. I could not get into my office one morning because of the amount of post piled up behind the door, and the results were almost as astonishing. On almost every question, more than 90 per cent. of respondents supported the toughest measures, which include banning the sale of spray paints to under-18s, giving the police powers to move on intimidating gangs of young people and imposing fixed-penalty fines for graffiti on the over-10s. They also want antisocial behaviour notices to apply to troublemakers aged 16 and 17, and possibly to those who are even younger.
My constituents support what the Government are doing, but when one reads their comments one senses their frustration and need for reassurance. They think that we mean well and do not think that we are doing things wrong, but they need reassurance that new laws will be firmly policed, and that there will be a strong chance of the perpetrators being punished. One couple told me:
"Unfortunately, the reported number of prosecutions for any of these offences is extremely low and, in some cases, non-existent. I believe it is pointless to introduce further legislation which will not be enforced."
Another constituent said:
"Although I believe that the measures contained in your proposed Bill will help, the most effective deterrent is the probability of being caught and punished".

75WH
Whether it is fair or not, my survey revealed that although people believe that the Government are sincere in their intentions and support our proposals, they are sceptical about our ability to deliver.
Even though crime is falling and many of our measures are having an impact, people hear stories about criminals basically getting away with it, and that erodes their trust and belief in the system. They hear stories about the only antisocial behaviour order imposed in Merton—it cost £20,000—on which the courts were extremely lenient when it was breached. No wonder our constituents think that the criminals are taking the mickey out of us.
In contrast, acceptable behaviour contracts cost about £20 each and have an 85 per cent. success rate. It is no wonder that Merton council's partnership against crime prefers to use acceptable behaviour contracts rather than the flagship ASBOs, which are 1,000 times more expensive and have a track record of, "Tried it once, it didn't work."
Sergeant Reeves, the community sergeant at Mitcham police station, and the ASBO and ABC co-ordinator for Merton, has admitted to me that his work has been hampered because until recently there were no standardised procedures for obtaining ASBOs. He said that he was "making it up as he went along". Fortunately, he is now following the guidelines from Coventry police force that were sent to him by the Met, but it is astonishing that good practice in one area takes so long to filter through to others.
Sergeant Reeves is frustrated because the system seems so bureaucratic and inflexible. He told me that it was an "interminable set of meetings". He has to deal with witnesses, housing officers, council staff, registered social landlords and—this often happens last—the victims. Even then, there is no guarantee that the courts will fulfil their side of the bargain. Steve Brennan of Merton partnership against crime has urged me to use this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell magistrates in the strongest possible terms that ASBOs are not punitive in themselves. MPAC is about to try to obtain its second ASBO, and it does not want a dispiriting experience. It is not applying for an ASBO on a whim, but at the same time ASBOs are not punishments; they are pieces of paper that do no more than commit individuals to behave themselves. Nevertheless, MPAC still felt that for its first ASBO it would need counsel's advice, and a raft of police, housing officers, witnesses and others in the court. What a lot of hassle for a piece of paper—particularly as it is virtually impossible to get people to attend court to tell on their neighbours, especially if they are the neighbours from hell.
As Steve Brennan told me:
"When people dominate an area through fear, not many people are going to testify against them."
The rules of evidence may be a nuisance but, says Sergeant Reeves, so is the lack of flexibility. He believes that the two-year minimum for ASBOs is sometimes too long. That makes magistrates less inclined to grant them, and the authorities less inclined to seek them. A shorter, more focused period might work better.
Then there is the difficulty of what to do if one manages to serve an ASBO, and it is breached. To be fair, neither MPAC nor the local police blame
76WH
magistrates alone for the failure to take strong action when Merton's only ASBO was breached. They certainly want magistrates to treat breaches more seriously, and to remember that it is possible to impose heavy fines or a five-year prison term, but they also blame other parts of the system. The need to work to a criminal level of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—rather than the balance of probabilities is a disincentive. Merton's first ASBO breach ended frustratingly because social services persuaded magistrates not to take tough action.
I sympathise with constituents who feel that some authorities believe that the perpetrators, rather than the communities that they terrorise, are the victims. We must send out a strong message that that is not so.
It is not all bad news. The introduction of antisocial behaviour orders and parenting orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a tremendous step forward. It has encouraged local authorities such as Merton to deliver a joined-up response to antisocial behaviour. There have also been outstanding successes such as the neighbourhood warden scheme in my constituency, which on one estate led to a 47 per cent. decrease in the number of call-outs about disorder.
If we are serious, we need to demonstrate to our constituents that, at all levels of criminality, our policies have an impact. That includes improving the framework of antisocial behaviour orders, which not only serve as a deterrent, but, just as importantly, help to reassure people that something is being done. We have to listen to our constituents, one of whom wrote to me:
"I have spoken to various people about this survey who have expressed strong views about the police being asked to enforce measures in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill … Basically there are a few people in this borough who make life miserable for the rest of us by their behaviour. I feel the only answer is a strong punitive course of action."
ASBOs are an important and useful additional tool for the police and local authorities. Our constituents want the reassurance that they can and will be used, and that they will be effective. On behalf of my constituents, I ask for that reassurance.
10.8 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on having secured the debate. We have worked closely, along with the Nottingham press, on legislation concerning fireworks. They, too, are used by yobs to terrify communities. I hope that, with the help of those in another place, progress will be made towards ending that problem.
Antisocial behaviour is a major problem in every constituency. I have not run a survey, but the evidence of my surgeries is that the problem is serious and growing. I have heard it suggested that people act in such a fashion for a number of reasons, including poor housing conditions, lack of facilities for young people, peer pressure and under-age drinking. The community should address under-age drinking, as unscrupulous retailers and off-licences allow young people to buy alcoholic beverages. That contributes greatly to the problem.
We also have gang wars—people from either side of a community deciding to have a good dust-up. The police must deal with that more effectively. The drug culture is

77WH
a major problem. A feeling of belonging, of being part of a team or group, sometimes provides impetus for becoming involved in antisocial behaviour. Parents are often completely helpless and unable to deal with their children's problems.
We must examine how we deal with such problems, their causes and the reasons why people of all ages are often frustrated and angry at what they see as the inactivity of the police, the councils and us politicians. It has been said that aggressive neighbours, loud music, drug dealing and rowdy children all contribute to the hell that people suffer in such communities. The elderly especially feel trapped in their homes; they are frightened to open the blinds or to look out of their windows. However, the problem is not confined to them, and many people tell us of their experiences.
Damage to property is another major issue, but challenges to such behaviour often rebound on the individuals who make them. A constituent of mine heard a noise at 3 o'clock in the morning, went to his window and saw two youths breaking into a neighbour's car. He went to the front door and chased them off, but within half an hour of getting back into bed, a brick was thrown through his front window. That behaviour is totally unacceptable but very difficult to deal with.
The problem is nationwide, and it is important that we examine how we are dealing with it. I hope to signal briefly how that might be done. Antisocial behaviour orders are a powerful weapon, and I trust that all hon. Members recognise their value. If they are not working as effectively as they should, the Minister will need to see whether we can learn from the experience of others, and make the changes necessary to ensure that they are effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North highlighted the standard of proof necessary to obtain an antisocial behaviour order. I understand his concerns, but I suggest that changes could be made that would strengthen such orders. Criminal justice in Scotland is devolved. I want to consider the tackling of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. Section 83 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 requires Scottish local authorities to have an antisocial behaviour strategy. I am proud to say that, over the past two years, South Lanarkshire council has worked effectively to deal with the problems experienced by its constituents. It created an antisocial behaviour unit, staffed by four ex-policemen and led by John McKenzie.
Whenever I come across a major problem in my surgery, I contact John. The unit visits the locality, and talks to the individuals. The fact that the unit is in the area often quietens the problems that residents are experiencing. If it does not, the unit gets everyone in the neighbourhood to fill in a diary of the events that are causing the problem. The unit then visits the individuals who are causing the problem. I have found that approach to be very effective.
If no notice is taken of the unit's visit, the council will evict people. South Lanarkshire council employs three solicitors to ensure that its case for eviction is strong, that it is taken through the courts as quickly as possible and that it is dealt with effectively. Hon. Members cannot imagine how the community responds to such
78WH
action. When successful, it sends out the signal to those who are causing the disruption that their behaviour is unacceptable.
Mr. Allen: When my hon. Friend speaks on these matters, we all listen, not least because of his great experience in promoting the Fireworks Bill. I thank him for his tribute to the local newspaper campaign in Nottingham.
I am very interested in the Scottish dimension. I am one of those MPs who believe that the presence here of our Scottish and Welsh colleagues, unlike other colleagues whom we could talk about, adds to the richness of our British Parliament. Will my hon. Friend tell us about the tenancy agreement that he mentioned in relation to antisocial behaviour? He may not know the answer off the top of his head, but is the council empowered to evict people using a slightly faster-track process than the one that many English councils have? The process used by English councils is almost as protracted as the antisocial behaviour order process itself. Some of us would view such a capacity, if Scottish councils have it, with great envy and jealousy.
Mr. Tynan: We obviously do not have a perfect system either, but I believe that we have the correct way of ensuring that we are dealing seriously with the problem. The council cannot evict: eviction requires a court order. We do, however, have a dedicated unit that can examine the problems, identify the culprits and the antisocial behaviour, and pass that information to the council. The council then examines it to see whether there is a strong enough case. I should add that members of the antisocial behaviour unit will be the witnesses in the case, not the individual neighbours who feel threatened. That has been successful in several cases, and it sends a very strong signal. I will be delighted to talk in depth to my hon. Friend about that, as I am sure will the council.
Problems with the system remain, and I suspect that England and Wales, not just Scotland, experience many of them. Consideration needs to be given to the legal process and fast-tracking, because the major problem with antisocial behaviour is that people become frustrated if it is not dealt with quickly enough. They feel let down after having been through the whole process, which is why the antisocial behaviour unit has been so successful.
A weakness remains in other areas, which the Minister could address if we changed the system slightly. Interim orders give provision for tackling the problem, but current delays of up to a year are unacceptable. An application that takes that long to pass through the court sends completely the wrong signals. The other problem is that an application is usually made with the help of legal aid, which makes it very expensive for the council to pursue the case.
The Scottish Executive recently proposed how to strengthen the system in Scotland. We can learn from each other. I am a United Kingdom MP and I will vote on UK matters, which I hope people will recognise is important. I also hope, however, that the Minister is closely following the Scottish experience and considering whether it can be applied in England and Wales. I also hope that the Executive will closely follow

79WH
our discussion today. Many of our problems are the same as Scotland's, and I hope that the ideas that may be piloted, such as fast-tracking antisocial behaviour orders through the courts in less than a month, could be applied widely.
Antisocial behaviour orders are a useful tool for tackling the nuisance behaviour that blights so many of our communities. As such, I believe that the Government can have notable success with them. Weaknesses and teething troubles remain, but I hope that in response to the debate the Minister will commit herself to considering a package of measures that might make the orders more effective in confronting people who engage in antisocial behaviour. I hope that best practice can be examined and implemented. If it is, I believe that it will make a major difference to the people we represent.
10.18 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I might not agree with everything that he said, but it would be helpful if the Minister provided the clarification that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. It is worth establishing where the confusion that undoubtedly exists lies, and how it arose.
I very much welcomed the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As hon. Members will know, I am committed to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I sincerely believe that we need local solutions for local problems. I will not bore the Chamber with my many views on that, but I am passionate about a problem-solving approach.
Interestingly, The Guardian published a large article on Saturday, as it did on three other days last week, about the war on crime. The article discussed some of the Government's policies. It concluded that there was a shift from preventative measures towards punishment. The Guardian was complimentary about the measures that were first introduced, and specifically mentioned the Crime and Disorder Act. It is important to remember that local initiatives need funding, and local priorities need to be determined locally. That is fair. Although I am in favour of certain targets, it is important that all targets mean something to the people who implement them. That sets the background for what I would like to say.
I want to put it firmly on the record that I am committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. I have been involved in a great deal of work with young people and I am committed to the idea that we must all have respect for and value one another. However, as I have said many times, we need to intervene early enough. One of my greatest fears is that young people will get on to the conveyer belt of crime, and we must try to prevent that. That does not mean that I am not protective of other people, but prevention must be high among our priorities.
I can rattle off a number of excellent Government initiatives, which I praise. I meet many people at my surgeries, and my concern is that people in my part of the world want direct draconian measures to be put in place for relatively minor situations. For example, one of my constituents is continually having his fence damaged. That is an enormous problem for him, but going straight to issuing an ASBO is not the solution. It is a difficult situation.
80WH
I want to highlight particular problems in my constituency. In the borough of Poole, there are no street wardens or neighbourhood wardens. In the eastern half of the Dorset county council area, there are no community support officers. Whatever measures are put in place, it is difficult to implement them without people on the ground or a deterrent. Dorset is probably the safest part of the country, so it is not surprising that we do not see police around in large numbers. Many people can go weeks without seeing a police officer. In areas such as my constituency, we need civilian support, particularly as a lot of disorder—if I can call it that—is lower-level antisocial behaviour.
I always think that we have to appreciate that ASBOs are just one weapon in the armoury, not an end in themselves. I always get distressed when I see authorities almost competing with each other to see who has the greatest number of ASBOs. That does not mean that an authority is more efficient and effective at controlling antisocial behaviour. I know that I have quoted the following example before, but it was quoted in the White Paper that preceded the Police Reform Bill:
"In Wrexham, for example, just one order has been made, but the real measure of success is the 1,500 or so incidents that have been resolved through partnership working before an ASBO had to be used."
We must put the issue into perspective. I am in favour of a staged approach with early intervention and warnings. I am exceedingly pleased that it was the Liberal Democrat council in Islington that came up with the idea of acceptable behaviour contracts. They were, of course, a by-product of ASBOs, so everybody can take some credit.
An ASBO must be accompanied by measures to change behaviour. It seems pointless to say, "Stop, stop, stop," particularly with young people. All measures must be monitored and evaluated to see what works in a particular area.
We sometimes ask what on earth antisocial behaviour is because it is such a diverse, catch-all term. Many hon. Members have given examples related to housing, but we also face quite different issues. I am sure that my area does not have as many problems as inner-city areas represented by other hon. Members, but what I see still makes me angry. My local crime and disorder reduction partnership should he in there sorting things out and at least imposing acceptable behaviour contracts, because many neighbours are experiencing great distress, as we have heard.
In my area, there are problems with alcohol. It is a fairly affluent area. Fireworks are a huge problem, because there is plenty of money to buy them. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing his private Member's Bill. It is always a huge success for an hon. Member to introduce such a Bill, but that is particularly true when the Bill is wanted so much throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman deserves the greatest credit for introducing the Fireworks Bill, which I supported every inch of the way. In that respect, I would not like to think that I was described as being soft on antisocial behaviour.
We need effective measures, and I favour antisocial behaviour orders as a weapon of last resort. Of course, they must sometimes be used earlier, and that seems to

81WH
happen more and more in cases of really bad behaviour. I favour ASBOs over dispersal orders, which I oppose in their current form. ASBOs are targeted at an individual, and specific misbehaviour must be proved. A dispersal order applies to a group, and its use can be triggered by people's mere presence in an area rather than by their behaviour. Leaving aside the human rights issues, such orders can have perverse consequences. Moving young people on makes them think, "No one wants us round here." As a result, they may go off and do even worse things in another area. I therefore have sound reasons for opposing dispersal orders. I would prefer us to use a range of other supportive, positive and diversionary measures as part of a package to tackle antisocial behaviour.
It is interesting that the Government undertook a complete evaluation of ASBOs. I read their report when it came out in January 2002, and it contained many lessons. The conclusion states:
"The overall opinion in the areas visited was generally positive. When used effectively, ASBOs have been successful in curbing unruly behaviour, have helped rebuild the quality of life in communities and cemented good relationships both between partner agencies and between these agencies and the community."
Of course, there were reservations about delays, excessive bureaucracy and, sometimes, the fact that partnership working was not too good. However, we can work on all those things.
Many changes were made after the evaluation, as the Government responded to earlier difficulties with ASBOs, and we now have interim ASBOs. We also have post-conviction orders, although I was rather wary of them, because it seemed that we were giving people two punishments for the same offence. However, my local police have greatly welcomed them. ASBOs have been extended to housing associations and the British Transport police, and other extensions are included in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is coming on stream. I repeat that I would be much happier if all the agencies that could apply for ASBOs were tied into the local partnership, because the wider picture—the quality of the local environment—will not be considered unless everyone works together.
I want to give a quote from the White Paper that preceded the Police Reform Bill to highlight the important point about the debate:
"In the light of these findings, the Home Office will streamline the procedures involved in obtaining an ASBO and develop a national procedure for obtaining, deploying and targeting ASBOs, backed up by the most suitable step by step warning system".
We want to know how good practice is being spread. What plans are in place to evaluate the effects of the changes introduced by what is now the Police Reform Act 2002? We need to consider such issues all the time, because it is not worth having a weapon that is not working particularly well.
To conduct an evaluation, I got my researcher to ring a few councils to see how they were getting on with the new measures. I shall be brief and refer to the councils by their initials, so that I do not embarrass them, but their comments were interesting. Council I has so far issued two ASBOs using the new powers in the 2002 Act; one was post-conviction, the other an interim ASBO. That
82WH
council welcomes the new powers, which have greatly facilitated the use of ASBOs. The multi-agency approach is important, but the main reason that council I has not used many is because of the success of acceptable behaviour contracts and the successful work with multiple agencies.
Council H was rather interesting—it was referred to in one of our debates on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. For various reasons, it has to date not issued any ASBOs, notably because it does not have a dedicated antisocial behaviour unit co-ordinator. I thought that councils had to have one; at least I recall reading that in some guidance. However, that council did not have its own housing stock, so there was a less pressing need locally. Again, it is deceptive to quote only the numbers. When, or indeed if, that council establishes a dedicated antisocial behaviour co-ordinator post, it will definitely use ASBOs more extensively.
Mr. Allen: Did the hon. Lady telephone Nottingham city council? After the Liberal Democrats' vote in Parliament against the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, the Liberal group on Nottingham city council split, and half of them became independent. Did she speak to them?
Mrs. Brooke: I certainly would have done so, had they contacted me. They would undoubtedly have understood why we voted against that Bill at that stage in the process. We are opposed to the dispersal orders, but we have never opposed ASBOs.
Briefly, council S is an interesting case. It has implemented 22 ASBOs, plus five interim ASBOs, and used acceptable behaviour contracts extensively—it had 136 in 2002–03. It has a strong multi-agency group that meets to discuss each ASBO and has not lost one yet. Each application is a rock solid case, and that sends an important message. I apologise for taking time on that, but those were quite interesting comments.
Hon. Members have referred to witnesses, and in the evaluation there is a lot of advice about witness protection and alternative ways of getting the evidence presented. What is the Minister doing to spread best practice on supporting witnesses?
This debate is about the level of proof, and I thought that I had got my head around that, but then I listened to the Minister's reply during questions on Monday. There is one issue on which I am not clear, so I would be grateful if she clarified matters. As I see the matter, there are two tests—that the individual concerned has acted in a certain manner, and that the ASBO is necessary to protect persons in that local government area from further antisocial acts. It has been suggested that the burden of proof on the first test should be to the higher civil or criminal standard, whereas the second aspect is an evaluation. However, the Minister said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that
"the orders are civil orders, and that the civil standard of evidence is therefore admissible."—[Official Report, 14 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 12.]
As a non-lawyer, I am now confused and would be grateful for clarification on that point.
As for a breach, I am clear what the burden of proof should be, and I would not favour an automatic penalty—young people often go off the rails for all sorts of family reasons—because the worst scenario horrifies me.

83WH
I welcome much that the Government are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour, but we need to get the right balance between prevention and punishment. We should involve young people in solutions in the community. For example, when there is a breach, a community sentence is much better than a prison sentence, especially for a younger person. Why not let other young people determine that community sentence and what it should involve?
10.34 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I will deal first with the points that have arisen this morning. It is clear that great concern remains. Several MPs have made powerful contributions to the debate about the level of antisocial behaviour.
I disagree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that the judiciary is unaware of antisocial behaviour or is cocooned away from it. Antisocial behaviour takes place in the area where I live. I suspect that it also takes place in the areas where judges live, around London or outside it, and affects them in the same way as it affects people elsewhere, although not necessarily to the same degree as it affects the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In many areas of the law, most judges' or barristers' professional careers are spent listening day after day to examples of antisocial behaviour that would make one's hair stand on end. Therefore, I do not think that the problem is that the judiciary is out of touch.
The hon. Gentleman raised a specific and highly pertinent issue. As he knows, the Conservative party was prepared to welcome ASBOs, although we had some grave reservations about how they would work in practice. Is the problem with ASBOs that the test for obtaining them in court is too high? That is the specific matter that he raised, and I will deal with it before making general comments.
I must say bluntly to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that the Government have any leeway on the matter. They incorporated the European convention on human rights into our law. I do not see how the nature of ASBOs can be reconciled with their being obtained, either initially or for their breach, on anything other than an elevated standard of proof. I do not blame the Human Rights Act 1998 for that elevated standard, but even before it, it had long been the practice that a standard of proof other than the balance of probabilities had to be used in civil court proceedings where the judge made decisions of grave importance to a person's reputation, or made findings against a person that were tantamount to a criminal offence. The hon. Gentleman understands that. He cited the McCann case, in which Lord Steyn made it clear in the House of Lords that, in cases relating to whether an ASBO should be imposed, there had to be a heightened civil standard because of the seriousness of the matters involved. Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), as I understand it, the heightened civil standard relates to the acts committed by the person concerned, which give rise to the ASBO being granted.
The House of Lords said in the McCann case that the heightened civil standard and the criminal standard of proof are virtually indistinguishable, which is true and
84WH
was stated previously by Lord Bingham. In those circumstances, therefore, it would be sensible for magistrates to apply the criminal standard of proof, which would be simpler than engaging in a convoluted exercise and would be the best way to proceed.
Vera Baird: Surely there is nothing in article 6 to oblige the British courts to adopt the criminal standard of proof in civil proceedings.
Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree, but I am bound to say that it would be contrary to evolving civil practice to deal with a matter of such seriousness on the balance of probabilities irrespective of the Human Rights Act. I think that, although there is nothing to specify it, it would be left open to a challenge because of its nature.
That picks up on the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She said that the ASBO is only a piece of paper. The trouble is that it is not only a piece of paper. If it were only a piece of paper, matters might be rather different. The piece of paper frequently has written on it requirements for observance that are a curtailment of individual liberties. I think of the first ASBO granted in my own constituency after quite a lot of pressure from me, apart from anyone else.
The ASBO was issued to a tearaway 16-year-old girl who terrorised the local inhabitants of Burnham in my constituency. She moved in on an 80-year old and lived in his flat, milking his bank account of some £10,000 in circumstances that gave rise to possible duress. Her misbehaviour and violence were such that when she was arrested by the police they hardly ever took her to the police station: they tended to take her to the casualty department of the local hospital because of the damage she did inside police vans. The ASBO provided for restrictions on where she could go within the locality. That is not just a piece of paper. It may be proportionate, and civil injunctions may be granted in such a way, but it imposed a number of clear and important conditions.
Vera Baird: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman has only a short time, so he is being generous in giving way. He has got to the crux of the issue. The civil standard of proof is applied in cases where no quasi-criminal act is alleged and the penalties for such a breach can follow. Applying the civil standard of proof, one can make injunctions and restrictions on freedom just as hard as one would if one adopted voluntarily the criminal standard of proof. What on earth is the point of making it harder for people to get antisocial behaviour orders? My point applies to issues such as access to children where allegations of domestic violence have been made. Those cases have to be judged on the criminal standard and make a just outcome much more difficult to achieve.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point. It is also right that one cannot get a civil injunction on the balance of probabilities against someone under 18. That is part of the difficulty and one of the problems that ASBOs were designed to address.

85WH
Protection of the rights of minors is important. The hon. and learned Lady may be right, but I do not share her confidence about the Human Rights Act compatibility.
Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we are bound by the evolution of civil law. I believe that statute law and parliamentary sovereignty—if one believes in that myth—would allow this place to make its view clear and influence the direction of law. People will not be impressed to hear someone citing the evolution of civil law. If the European convention can overturn the provisions, let us put that to the test. The Government should be on the right side of the argument by not allowing Europe to do that.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting point. Parliament could decide that such orders should be granted on the balance of probabilities. My next question is whether that would make such a difference. We need to consider that important matter. The principal difficulty in obtaining ASBOs is that one is collating a large number of acts, often using hearsay evidence—it is worth bearing it in mind that hearsay evidence can be used—to present a picture to the court of the unpleasant activities of a person, which may not be enough evidence to prosecute them for those acts. Even if that picture were being painted only on the balance of probabilities, it would still require bringing the witnesses to court to support those assertions.
My impression of ASBOs—we warned the Government about this—is that the difficulty being experienced is that they involve a labour-intensive and bureaucratic process that can go wrong because witnesses do not turn up because they feel intimidated, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said. However, they will feel just as intimidated whether they are coming to give evidence to satisfy a court on the balance of probabilities, or whether they are coming to give evidence to satisfy the court, so that it is sure that someone has done something. I see the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) grimace and I appreciate the point that she is silently trying to communicate to me. There are grey areas in cases, where the court may feel that there has been sufficient evidence to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities but not to make it sure. That might include cases where some key witnesses fail to turn up, but others are present. I should be very interested in a little survey of how ASBOs are failing in reality, because I am by no means persuaded that they are failing once they get to court with witnesses. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister on that. I think that the problem has simply been that they have turned out to be far more bureaucratic and cumbersome to obtain than the Government envisaged. I do not think that changing the test of the standard of proof would make a difference.
if I had more time, I would tell the Chamber about another point that has clearly emerged: it is all very well having ASBOs, but unless we have the means of enforcement, we will not go far. I believe that the principal problem is a lack of adequate policing. Various examples have been cited of huge improvements brought to areas by neighbourhood initiatives. I am sure that that is right, involving people
86WH
out on the street. We need to concentrate on that, as well as on obtaining orders against individuals. Without that, the orders are nothing but bits of paper that turn out in practice to do little for the local community.
A couple of weeks ago, I woke up and went outside to find that the front door area of my house had been graffitied. That was extremely irritating. I have no idea who did it and have not the slightest means of apprehending them. I did not even complain to the police. It was clear that it had taken place fairly liberally down my street. That is the sort of event that puts people in fear and makes them feel that an area is deteriorating. Unless there is some way of seeing a police officer out on the streets, which in my part of London does not happen frequently, we will not be able to start to make an impact on such problems.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments and, specifically, I should like an update from her on how many ASBOs have been granted or obtained. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North understands that, although I am deeply sympathetic to his points and his wish for something to he done, I have a question mark over whether changing the standard of proof would deliver what he wants.
10.48 am
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): In the fairly short time available, I shall try to deal with the points that hon. Members have made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate on an issue that resonates throughout the country in every constituency. We all know the depth of misery and anguish that many of our constituents have experienced. Hearing the tale of his constituents, to whom he has dedicated the debate, sets the scene for all of us.
My hon. Friend made interesting suggestions on how he feels about the position. I shall respond to the particular issues that he raised. He suggested that we could have post-legislative scrutiny of how well the powers are working. Although I am not necessarily attracted to that specific idea, as to how the powers have evolved, there is constant scrutiny of where they are working and where there are difficulties—hurdles and barriers—as we try to build knowledge about how to make the orders even more effective in practice.
Hon. Members may know that we have recently established the antisocial behaviour unit in the Home Office, which is a new development. It will receive £75 million in funding over the next three years, ensure that the powers are implemented in local areas and provide a central resource for practitioners, who may be experiencing some difficulties in relation to evidence, proof or practice. It will draw together the good guidelines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and ensure that people are not reinventing the wheel when they use the powers in their communities. The unit will provide us with a system of measuring and evaluating how well the powers are working.
I certainly do not feel that my hon. Friend, who has a tremendous track record in this area, is putting me under undue pressure and I was delighted to meet her constituents in the House last week. They reaffirmed just

87WH
how right the Government are to make tackling antisocial behaviour a top political priority, because it is clearly a priority for people in her community. I am concerned that Mitcham and Morden has found it difficult to obtain ASBOs. We now have a support group of experienced practitioners and we can put those people in touch with Mitcham and Morden to provide advice, support and the means of tackling some of the hurdles.
On the cost of ASBOs, it is fair to say that, initially, they were expensive, because people did not really have a full grasp of the range of evidence that it was necessary to collect. I understand that the average cost of obtaining an order is now about £1,000, which makes an order a fairly cost-effective remedy. When people seek more orders, they have standardised documentation and are not starting from scratch. The cost gets cheaper the more orders are used.
I understand that the latest figure for the number of ASBOs granted is 1,112. More than 200 orders were granted between the judgment in the House of Lords case last October and this March. Clearly, there is no evidence that that judgment has had a practical impact and is preventing orders from being granted. Although I have listened to what hon. Members have said about the burden of proof, and although it is a fascinating discussion, the fact that the law is now clear and that magistrates are clear about what they need to find in such cases is not militating against the granting of orders.
There is a case for saying that the messages need to be clearer, that information for magistrates needs to be strengthened, that magistrates need more training from the Judicial Studies Board and that we need proper sentencing guidelines, so that magistrates know how seriously such matters are taken in their communities and what burden of proof they need to look for. However, at this stage, I have no evidence to indicate that orders are not being sought or granted because of the heightened burden of proof that is necessary.
Vera Baird: The Minister says that that is not causing a problem with ASBOs. I cannot comment on that, but the matter causes enormous problems in domestic violence cases.
The Government decided that ASBO proceedings should be civil. How do they feel about the judges disagreeing and deciding that proceedings should be criminal?
Ms Blears: I take issue with my hon. and learned Friend. The judges did not decide that the matter is criminal. The judgment makes it clear that we are talking about civil orders and civil proceedings. That brings me to one of the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). What I sought to say in my answer at Home Office questions was that the orders are civil. The burden of proof for the first limb of the application—whether there has been antisocial behaviour—is of a heightened civil level, equivalent to the criminal burden of proof. The second limb of the application is whether the order should be granted. Throughout the proceedings, because they are civil, hearsay evidence and professional witnesses are admissible. That enables us to do the very thing that the
88WH
orders were designed to do—ensure that local people are not necessarily put in the firing line in those difficult circumstances. We can continue to use civil evidence, such as hearsay, which has proved so vital in ensuring that orders are granted.
Mr. Allen: I think that the Minister is saying that there is not an issue of substance, but there is perhaps an issue of communication. Practitioners are undoubtedly not seeking orders. Once they seek them, they get them, but they do not seek them to the extent that I or perhaps the Minister would like It is a matter of clarity. Will she undertake to ensure that not only magistrates, but all practitioners receive her clear advice about judges' decisions in those cases? Then, they will seek and take out more antisocial behaviour orders.
Ms Blears: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is important that there is more communication on issues that apply to practitioners to give them the self-confidence to say, "We have a situation of antisocial behaviour, we have a whole range of tools at our disposal." The tools range from acceptable behaviour contracts to diversionary work. Where an antisocial behaviour order is the appropriate remedy, practitioners should feel confident in making the application and supporting the victim and witnesses throughout the process. That will ensure that they obtain the order and that it is enforced if it is subsequently breached. I accept that we must communicate more, and the antisocial behaviour unit will help us to do that.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on fireworks. He has done a sterling job with tenacity and determination, and I hope that the Fireworks Bill gets a fair wind in the other place. He mentioned the idea of having a dedicated antisocial behaviour unit at a local level. I have one in my constituency and there is an excellent one at Manchester city council. In those areas, the gaining of orders has continued apace. In my constituency, about 16 have been attached to convictions. That is one of the new powers brought in by the Police Reform Act 2002. Increasingly, orders on conviction are proving extremely attractive because there has been a trial. Witnesses do not have to go through the ordeal of a trial again to obtain an order. It can be attached to the conviction based on the evidence heard. That is proving an extremely useful weapon.
We now have the idea of interim orders so, when a situation arises, people can go to court straight away and secure urgent action. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South said that it takes up to a year to obtain orders. That concerns me, and the powers to obtain an interim order are therefore important. The powers to obtain orders in the county court and attach them to housing proceedings will also make them more effective. All those powers exemplify how the Government have learned from practical experience and recognised the difficulties that communities have had. We have responded by introducing those extra powers.
Despite the undoubted enthusiasm for tackling antisocial behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, I am disappointed that she and her party were unable to support the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. She will live to regret that

89WH
decision, and I think that her constituents would have wanted her to support its powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. I hope that she and her party will have a rethink as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
The hon. Lady asked about evaluation. At the moment, the new powers are being used well. A quarter of the 200 orders made in the past year have been made on conviction. The geographical extension of orders across England and Wales has been granted to prevent people from crossing borders to escape the strictures of their order. County court ASBOs were introduced only in April and some have already been granted. Practitioners are taking up the new powers extremely enthusiastically. We are not in a position where the House of Lords' legal judgment has militated against the granting of orders. Improving communication, spreading good practice, ensuring that we do not reinvent the wheel in every community and trying to get orders through quickly are all important.
ASBOs are one of the tools introduced by the Government. The decision to tackle those matters in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was bold and courageous. In response to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that we need adequate policing, we now have 132,268 police officers, which is a record. We have nearly 1,400 community support officers and 5,000 more police officers than when we came to power in 1997. That is the Government's record on policing.
We have taken bold and courageous steps to tackle antisocial behaviour. We believe that it is at the top of communities' priorities. We will continue to ensure that people are able to live free from fear in safe communities and to go about their lawful business without the prospect of being attacked and harassed in the way that far too many of our fellow citizens are today.

Teenage Pregnancy
11 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of great importance to my constituency. Teenage pregnancy is not an easy issue for Members of Parliament or the Government to tackle. There are all kinds of sensitivities around teenage pregnancies, particularly for families and individuals with deeply held religious beliefs, so we must tackle the subject with great care. I welcome the work of the social exclusion unit and the Government's programmes to tackle teenage pregnancy. There is no simple solution to reducing teenage pregnancy rates, but we must find solutions, however difficult that may be.
Teenage pregnancy is both a symptom and a cause of social exclusion, and tackling it may be one of the keys to breaking the terrible cycle of poverty trickling down the generations, which I often see in the area that I represent. In my constituency, we have a problem with teenage pregnancy, and a more worrying problem of teenage pregnancy among asylum seekers from countries of conflict who have been raped.
Younger girls from poorer areas are more likely to become pregnant. In a deprived environment, extra support is required for teenage parents to break the cycle of teen pregnancy. Teenage years should be the time when people begin to fulfil their potential and graduate to adulthood. How is that possible if they have the responsibility of bringing up kids?
Responding to a written question in July, the Department told me that the most recent Government data for 2001 show a 10 per cent. reduction in the under-18 conception rate and an 11 per cent. reduction in the under-16 rate since 1998. I agree with the Government that the signs are encouraging, but we need to do more. We must ensure that proper information and education about sex and relationships are available to young people, and that more support is available, especially for particularly vulnerable groups such as refugee women who have been sexually abused and are pregnant when they arrive in Britain.
Enfield's teenage pregnancy co-ordinator, Debbie Young, with whom I have worked closely in preparing for this debate, informed me that in 1999 the under-18 and under-16 conception rates decreased, but that since 2000 both have increased. There was a 14 per cent. increase in the under-18 conception rate between 2000 and 2001, and a 39 per cent. increase in the under-16 rate between 1999 and 2000. In addition, the proportion of conceptions leading to abortion increased to 60 per cent. in 2000 from an average of 52 per cent. in the two preceding years.
There is a desperate need for a young people's sexual health and contraception service in my constituency, which has the highest teenage conception rates in the borough of Enfield, as well as the highest levels of gonorrhoea and chlamydia. At present, one of the two weekly young people's sexual health and contraception sessions in Enfield is funded with a teenage pregnancy grant, but the local primary care trust is unable to provide mainstream funding to enable teenage pregnancy finance to be directed to new and innovative pilot projects in my constituency. Sexual health is a priority for Enfield PCT, but there is no national service.

91WH
framework for sexual health, and funding is not directed at such issues. The PCT argues that although non-recurrent extra funding has been provided, it is grossly inadequate and, because it is non-recurrent, it is impossible to establish new services to meet the demands and diverse needs of the community.
The strain is very obvious. The teenage parents support project in Enfield has had 204 referrals since it started in October 2002, but it has only one outreach caseworker, who works four days a week. Most of the young people seen are 15, 16 or 17 years old. That tells us that many children of school age are far from knowledgeable about sex and sexual health. The image often portrayed that teenagers are sexually active and well informed about the birds and the bees is far from the truth.
The editor of Exposure, a local magazine for young people, recently told me that the principal reason why young people do not access advice services is that they are not usually promoted in a way that is appealing to young people.
Dr. Rudi Vis: I agree with my hon. Friend that education is extremely important. I am originally from the Netherlands. One thing that is different there, besides education, is that parents, families and so on frown on teenage pregnancy. That is an important reason for the rate of teenage pregnancy being so low in the Netherlands.
Mr. Love: I shall come to the European experience a little later, but my hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that the rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, particularly the Netherlands, is much lower than in this country.
The editor of Exposure magazine told me:
"Remember that young people have been born and brought up in the information age. Commercial organisations promoting products and services to young people use very sophisticated ways of getting their messages across through film, music, pop-videos and glossy magazines. To stand any chance of getting noticed by young people, government backed promotions on sexual health must compete for attention against commercial communications. What the Government produces must be of an extremely high calibre and equally sophisticated."
He continued:
"The reason magazines like Exposure have any kind of impact on young people is that we are not talking down to them. It's young people themselves, encouraged and guided by adults that are given the freedom to write and produce the magazine to get important messages across to their peers."
Siobhan Phillander, a 16-year-old reporter for the magazine, confirmed that when she said:
"Since coming to Exposure I've made friends, I've written articles about TV shows, crime and teenage pregnancy. I've learnt to write. Before I couldn't be bothered to even write a letter! I've seen young people come in and say what they want to say and how they want to say it instead of being on the streets making mischief."
Responding to a written question in June, the Department confirmed that the teenage pregnancy strategy national campaign, which was launched in October last year, involved advertisements aimed at 13-year-old boys and girls in popular teenage magazines and on local independent radio stations. The Minister said that the early success of the campaign was
92WH
recognised in the first annual report of the independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy and that since October the free telephone advice line had advised more than 8 million young people and that, importantly, half of them were boys.
The Minister will be aware of the work of the Royal College of General. Practitioners, which is working closely with the teenage pregnancy unit to provide training and resources to support GPs in making their practices more teenage friendly. I urge him to reinforce that important work by including and engaging young people in it.
Involving young people, including their ideas, creativity and personal experiences, in national media campaigns is critical. There is a wealth of initiative and innovative ideas among young people in my area, but their opportunities to have any input to national campaigns to make them more relevant to them are limited. That is particularly relevant locally, where a high proportion of young people come from black and ethnic minority communities, many of which are not represented in national campaign material. I strongly urge the Minister to look carefully at that important issue and would welcome his feedback.
Last year, a UNICEF report told us that the UK had not made enough progress in tackling teenage pregnancy and that the UK had the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world. However, the House of Commons Library confirmed that the rate of teenage births has fallen over the past 30 years by almost 40 per cent. Does the Minister agree that we must find new ways to prevent teenage pregnancies and to help young mothers in teenage pregnancy blackspots? Furthermore, investment in new strategies must be directed specifically to tackle the unique issues in each area.
A local health visitor in my area told me about some cases in her current work load, which show her clients' diverse and complex histories:
"C is 16 years old and from Uganda. She witnessed her family members killed. She was raped and fled to England. C attended local family planning se ^vices to request a termination but this was not possible as the pregnancy was too advanced. She remains ambivalent about the pregnancy and at times feels hostile towards the baby. C requires support for all areas of her life, to be given appropriate advice and information and enabled to make informative choices. She is indeed a child in need herself."
Living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation can be extremely isolating for a teenager who has been raped and is an asylum seeker. She is often unable to access crucial advice services.
Such young women have experienced incredibly traumatic situations and require specific services, which current arrangements do not provide. Will the Minister examine new measures to help and protect that vulnerable group and to meet its specific needs? English is not the first language of many such women, and they can expect only one visit from a caseworker once the baby is born.
Does the Minister agree that extra clarity is needed on where the funding and additional support services will come from? Asylum seekers in the UK who are victims of rape are also victims of torture and should be treated accordingly. There is one outreach caseworker in Enfield, who works for four days a week with 204

93WH
pregnant teenagers. Does the Minister agree that that is not enough and that we must ensure that new money gets through to the cutting edge of service delivery to increase capacity in those crucial services?
One of the main concerns of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is that teenage parents should receive support and help, which will in turn help their children. Its 2001 report, "Improving Children's Health", found that much work on teenage pregnancy is focused on preventing pregnancies rather than supporting teenage parents. It believes that it is vital to support teenage parents to end the cycle of poverty and misery, which often occurs. It found that teenage mothers' babies are generally vulnerable and that the mothers are more likely to suffer post-natal depression. The NSPCC supports complementary services and a co-ordinated, cross-departmental approach, which the Minister might comment on today.
To sum up, the Government are clearly committed to tackling teenage pregnancy, which is reflected in the significant increase in expenditure from £5 million in 1999 to £21 million in 2002. I welcome their plans on educational advice and the approach adopted by the social exclusion unit, which is working across Departments. We have the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and many such women in my constituency are confused, isolated and afraid. We should be doing more to reach them. Teenage pregnancy is prevalent among the poorest sections of the community. Other risk factors include being in care, being excluded from school, having mental health problems and having experienced sexual abuse. We must try to prevent young people from becoming pregnant, but if they have a baby we should support them. We also need to learn from our partners in Europe, who have much lower teenage pregnancy rates.
The Government's target of reducing teenage conceptions by 50 per cent. by 2010 is ambitious. I share that ambition. We must consider in particular the way in which we respond locally to the needs of individuals. I hope that the Minister will use this debate as the basis for further discussions on the issue. Behind the statistics are the lives of children in their teens whose children risk having children in their teens. It is crucial that we tackle the issue coherently to ensure that the vicious cycle is broken once and for all, and that people from all backgrounds are enabled to achieve their potential.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for having raised this important issue. I shall do my best to explain the Government's response to the challenges that he set out.
My hon. Friend asked us to consider new ways of tackling a massive issue that has many implications in terms of health, social exclusion and education. As both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) have said, it is vital that in doing so we learn from examples of good practice in this country and elsewhere. I agree that it is a key issue in respect of social inclusion: a great deal of the problem is
94WH
associated with what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton described as the cycle of poverty. There are varied and complex reasons for the continued high rates of teenage conception. One is the limited aspirations of young people living in areas of high unemployment and deprivation, and another is ignorance. Education would certainly make a difference. A third, the nature of the message, was raised by the young people working on Exposure magazine, to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall return to that in a moment.
The Government's teenage pregnancy strategy was launched by the Prime Minister in 1999. It was the first ever attempt by Government to consider the issue on a cross-Government basis, to deal with the causes and to examine some solutions. As my hon. Friend said, we have had some success. Our latest data, from 2001, which he outlined, showed an encouraging 10 per cent. reduction in the under-18 conception rate since 1998 and a larger fall, of 11 per cent., in the under-16 rate. That is very welcome. It represents a fall from 47 per 1,000 in 1998 to 42 per 1,000 in 2001. However, it still a horrifying statistic: 42 in every 1,000 15 to 17-year-old girls become pregnant. That is the continuing challenge before us.
The fall has occurred in four out of five areas of the country. Enfield, as my hon. Friend said, is one of the exceptions. In that area, the under-18 conception rate has increased. The reasons should be examined carefully. The strategy on the ground is strong and has been widely praised. He described some of its features, not least the emphasis that Enfield has placed on the particular needs of asylum seekers and the partnership between agencies, including those concerned with health and housing. The Enfield example reminds us of the scale of the challenge.
I am interested in exploring whether the areas in which there has been no decline in recent years have any characteristics in common. There does not seem to be a single explanation. The Government are working with public health observatories in the Government office regions to try to identify factors that might explain the trends to get a clearer picture. We cannot be complacent.
There has been good progress in the past three years, but there is more to be done. Our commitment is reflected in the inclusion of the reduction target as a Government public service agreement target. It is also a PSA target for local government and one of the two cross-cutting indicators in the local government best value performance indicator set. We also recognise that prevention is critical, and some prevention targets are shared with Connexions. Its role in that regard is critical, and the Government have invested £98 million to support implementation of the strategy, by funding local work and the work led by the teenage pregnancy unit, including the national campaign.
My hon. Friend referred to the important work of the independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy. I pay tribute to the group, particularly in the light of the recent publication of its second annual report and its recommendations to the Government. We are considering those recommendations carefully, and will provide a response later in the year.
It is vital that we have effective, joined-up action, and that all the agencies work together. That requires effective work locally and nationally. We have recently

95WH
seen a significant change in responsibility, with the strategy moving from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Skills. That move was part of a wider change, and work in that area will be led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Children, with assistance from me and the Department for Education and Skills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton spoke of the excellent work being done in Haringey and Enfield by Exposure magazine. He made a number of powerful points about the need to get the message across in a language, and a tone and style, that are relevant to and can be understood by young people. We have also been running an advertising campaign through teenage magazines and local radio. Through that campaign, we seek to target 13 to 17-year-olds—both boys and girls—using a mixture of media to reach them.
We are advertising in teenage magazines and on local independent radio stations, with the aim of dispelling myths, raising awareness and giving accurate information. We want to use an approach that gets through, so humour is useful and the style is non-authoritarian. We have been assessing and evaluating how successful it has been.
The campaign has achieved high recognition: for example, more than 70 per cent. of young people know of it, which compares well with television advertising, which we have not been able to undertake. The campaign has a free helpline that provides advice and gives details of local services. That has helped a significant number of young people, half of them boys, who phoned as a result of the campaign. Our survey of callers showed a high level of satisfaction.
We are now looking into working with brand names and others associated with young people. We recently received the endorsement of a new girl band called Tommi, who played at a young people's sexual health conference last week. They are keen to support us by taking the message out to thousands of young people as they tour the country.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of how we can get the message to all parts of the community, but we must recognise that in boroughs such as Enfield there are particular issues for some black and ethnic minority communities. We also have to deal with those from other parts of the world, such as asylum seekers, some of whose pregnancies are a direct consequence of rape and torture. We need to do more to help such people, and I shall ask for further research to be undertaken, as my hon. Friend requested.
We have much to learn from local examples, and some work done by Enfield and Haringey councils with their asylum-seeking communities could contribute to the development of our national thinking. I undertake to consider that, and come back to my hon. Friend with more information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green raised the important example of the Netherlands. If we are to be really effective in our work, we need to engage with parents and the wider family. We need to consider how better to support parents in talking to their children about sex, relationships and the possible consequences. The research that I have seen shows that young people want their parents to be the main source of advice, but that talking about such
96WH
things causes incredible embarrassment in the family. We are working with Parentline Plus on a "time to talk" campaign to promote better communication in the parents' media, using outlets such as Best, Bella and relevant magazine agony aunts. We are looking at a range of ways in which parents can be engaged more.
My direct responsibility is to do with improving sex and relationship education in schools, which is critical. We have done have a lot of work and listened to young people about how they think sex is talked about in schools, and we clearly have a lot of progress to make on that. What is done is still regarded as too little, too late, with still too much focus on the biology and not enough on relationships. Not enough teachers have the confidence to deliver really effective sex and relationships education.
The Department for Education and Skills issued guidance in 2000 that set out the programme needed to address issues of information and knowledge for boys and girls in schools. Ofsted has reported good progress in schools in implementing the guidance, but has pointed out that a great deal more still needs to be done. I shall work closely with Ofsted to ensure that the reporting arrangements for personal, social and health education are as effective as possible, so that we can monitor progress. In part, there is a need for more specialist teachers who have greater confidence and a wider knowledge base. We are seeking to encourage such teachers and have launched a national personal, social and health education teaching certification programme, which is aimed at developing specialist teachers. About 750 teachers have voluntarily participated this year. We are also considering a similar programme for community nurses, which is being piloted and will be available nationwide from 2004.
As part of that, want to raise awareness of sexually transmitted infections and consider how to reach boys. I have seen some good examples of schools in London and elsewhere that have made a special effort to reach boys as part of their sex and relationships education, which have not only had potentially positive results in preventing teenage pregnancies, but supported boys who become teenage fathers. We want to ensure access to advice in all its senses.
We need services that all young people who need them can trust. Since the launch of the strategy, we have seen an improvement in the number of services that are available to young people. There are all sorts of good examples of using leisure centres, one-stop-shops, mobile units and other facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton will be aware of the Enfield and Haringey 4YP sexual health bus, which is an excellent model of the difference that those practices can make locally.
We must work more broadly with the sexual health and HIV strategy, because our concern about teenage pregnancy goes hand in hand with concern about the high rates of sexually transmitted infections among young people. Our work on teenage pregnancy will continue to be closely co-ordinated with work on sexual health and HIV, so that we can reduce waiting times for advice, screening and treatment, in both community clinics and general practice.
We want to ensure that we provide proper support for young parents, because, as my hon. Friend said, they are obviously more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed

97WH
or be unable to access education, training and child care facilities. That is why in 35 areas with high rates of teenage pregnancy we have developed the sure start plus pilots, which include a personal adviser to help pregnant teenagers to make a decision about continuing with the pregnancy, having the child adopted or having a termination. The evaluation of those pilots will be available in 2004. We also want to tackle social isolation via supported housing.
Progress is being made, but as my hon. Friend said, we still have a great deal more to do. It is important that we engage with young people and learn from local and international examples. If we do that, we can continue the progress made in the first three years of the strategy. It is a reflection of the Government's commitment to bring down the rate of teenage pregnancy that we intend to focus on the issue right through the Government, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Children leading.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Top-up Fees
2 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has been in post for less than a month but, so far as I am aware, this is at least the third occasion on which he has been called on to respond to a debate on top-up fees. He should certainly be on top of his brief by now. Hon. Members may wonder what the point is of another run-through on top-up fees, because we had two major debates on them in the House at the end of June. Will we all say the same things and go away having achieved nothing?
This afternoon, I want to return to the subject in the light of the publication of the Education and Skills Committee's report, which has obviously contributed new perspectives. I am pleased to see the Chairman of the Committee present. I also want to discuss the particular perspectives that my constituents gave me in a consultation exercise that I undertook with them earlier in the year. They gave me insights that have perhaps not always been emphasised enough in our debates on the subject.
By way of background, I should say that in a previous life I was an academic and a university admissions tutor. That has given me one or two perspectives on the process of applying for university, which I shall try to bring into the debate a little later. Therefore, I hope that our debate will not simply be a run-round of what we have already said, but tries to move things on a little.
In my consultation exercise with my constituents on top-up tuition fees, I consulted roughly 1,000 local residents, a group of people who have opted into being consulted by me by e-mail. They are from across the constituency and across the political spectrum. They include first-time voters, pensioners and everything in between, and supporters of all parties and of none. Although politician surveys are quite rightly treated with some scepticism, I maintain that the basis of my remarks is an attempt at rigour and to reflect the representativeness of my constituents.
I occasionally put questions to that group of 1,000 people in as neutral a way as I can. On this occasion, I asked them about the Government's policy on top-up fees and referred them to the Department for Education and Skills website for the case in favour and to campaigning websites for the arguments against. I invited my constituents to register a vote for or against top-up fees and, if they wished, to give me reasons for their position. When I have undertaken similar consultations in the past, the division of views has been fairly gentle on many issues. For example, when I asked about building new nuclear power stations, the group divided 2:1 against. On genetically modified crop trials, they voted 2:1 against. However, on top-up fees, the view was 4:1 against. Of all the questions that I have asked my constituents, this was the most divisive. [Interruption.] From his reaction, perhaps the Minister thinks that that is a relatively high level of support for top-up fees; I do not know. If he wants, I can introduce him to the supporters. However, there was a clear, strong 4:1 vote against.
The significance of the exercise was not the crude aggregate figures, but the insights that the respondents gave. Some teach at university. Many are young, first-

99WH
time voters thinking of going to university; others are parents of people coming up to that stage. A whole cross-section of people gave me insights. I want to draw the House's attention to those this afternoon.
Perhaps the strongest single insight that I gained, on an aspect of the debate that I do not think has had enough attention, is the impact of top-up fees on women. Top-up fees are the same for male and female students, but the implications may be quite different. A woman, on average, will expect to earn less. A woman, on average, will expect to spend time out of the labour market for the birth of children and perhaps when children are young. As a result, although she may graduate with the same debt, she will have to pay it back over a much longer period. A young woman considering whether to go to university may be more disinclined to go down that avenue than a male student when she realises that she will be in debt for a very long period.
I quote from a response from a constituent who was in charge of university halls of residence:
"My impression was that the students"—
the current students—
"who were the first generation of their family to be coming to a University were especially worried about the debts they were accumulating."
The theme of debt and its impact on women in particular is one to which I shall return. I must stress that that response was entirely unprompted by me. Nothing in my questionnaire asked specifically about women. My constituent continued:
"Amongst them the women students were particularly anxious because they could not see how they could repay their debts if they should become pregnant … and want to look after their child."
That is a particular issue for women.
Another entirely spontaneous response from another female respondent said that
"it is discriminating against women who will either have to work longer before taking a break to have children (not ideal for the health of the woman, child or family) or will have an almighty debt hanging over her until she can return to high-paid work (assuming she can get it)."
I began to discern a thread in the responses and a concern about the position of women. So as to assess the scale of the issue, I asked the House of Commons Library earlier this week to prepare some fresh analysis for me on the effect of tuition fees and debt on women. I tried to ensure that the example on which we based the figures was as typical and realistic as possible. Complex spreadsheets are available to hon. Members. We assumed that someone graduated not with the maximum possible debt, but with the average debt to which the Government refer—some £15,000. We assumed that the debt rose in line with inflation, rather than at the faster rate that the Select Committee might have suggested in its recommendations, and that real earnings grew as they have in the past. We assumed that the woman earned a typical woman's graduate salary and that her salary followed the profile that someone in a graduate career might expect—in other words, the increments, promotions and seniority that went along with the profile.
We also considered the effect of children, assuming that a woman who has two children would typically have the first child in her late 20s and the second in her early 30s. Clearly, those are generalisations, but they are
100WH
meant to be illustrative of the scale of the problem. The woman may go back to work full-time and continue her career completely uninterrupted, or she might work half-time or job share until her children are in primary school. We considered the impact of those choices.
The interesting point to come out of the analysis is that a woman with a typical debt who does not have children would pay it back in 13 years. We then considered the case of a woman who has children and goes back to work part-time after her children are born, perhaps on a job share. Assuming that something silly does not happen—she does not go to work on a Tesco checkout but simply works half-time in her previous professional job, then goes back to work full-time when the children are at school, which, in itself, might not be straightforward—it would take not 13 years but 20 to pay back the debt.
James Purnell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's example. If the universities were funded out of general taxation and the woman went back to work part-time with earnings of about £8,000 a year, she would pay back the money, whether through a graduate tax or through the increased general tax that she would have to pay, whereas under the Kudent fees proposal she would pay back the debt only if she earned more than £15,000 a year. If she earned less than £15,000 a year for the rest of her career, she would never pay back the debt.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises several important issues. She would not pay back the debt while on half salary. I assume that the £15,000 is price indexed, but I do not know what the policy is on that—I am assuming annual price indexation. Even on half salary, a woman graduate will tend very quickly to go above the threshold, because real earnings grow with career progression and so on.
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. If there is a period in which the woman is not working or is earning so little that she pays nothing back, it merely postpones further repayment of the debt. She would still have to pay back the whole amount plus nominal interest. The point at which student debt no longer overhangs her would simply be further postponed.
The instance that I have given of a debt being paid over 20 years is based on fairly cautious assumptions. Therefore, the woman will have paid that off by the time she is 41. In my example, she has two children. I do not imagine that she will still want to live with her mum and dad if she is a female graduate who is aged 40 and has two children. It is reasonable to assume that she will want a mortgage, perhaps at 30, which is about the time that she might want to start a family. For 10 years, she will effectively be servicing two mortgages—the mortgage on the house and the mortgage that is the student loan debt, which starts at £15,000, grows a bit and tails off as her salary increases. Some women—I will quote examples later—will think twice about whether they want decades of debt, as it will have a differential effect on them compared with men.
There are two distinct issues with general taxation. With general taxation—that is, the whole tax pot—there is no named debt. If there is no name on the debt, people

101WH
will not delay having kids until they have paid off their debt, feel that they owe thousands on the house, or know that they must clear thousands on their student loan. The effect is different if they know that they must pay back fees through higher taxes when they graduate. That of course depends on the part of the taxation system used, if at all. For example, a female graduate on a part salary obviously would not repay fees at the higher rate.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I substantially agree with his analysis, which is consistent with what we have found out. Does he agree that the long and the short of it is that the student debt of a male graduate under normal circumstances will persist for at least one third of his working life, and, for a woman. it will persist for approximately half her working life? Those are substantial overhangs on anybody's career.
Mr. Webb: Certainly, the figures that I have just given for a 20-year repayment for a woman with children assume a pension age of 60, which means that the repayment would cover almost exactly half her working life. As a university academic and an admissions tutor, I found that the mature students entering in their mid-30s were some of the best and most committed that we had—we most wanted such students to enter higher education. If they take, on average, 20 years to repay their debt—and, if they enter the labour market in their late 30s, they may not have the career progression of a 21-year-old female graduate—they could, quite credibly, be repaying their debt while drawing their pension. That does not seem to be the world that we want to move towards, because I assume that debts will not stop at pension age. In a world in which recently retired women pensioners are still trying to repay their student debt, they will have probably tried to pay off their mortgage, and we apparently want to encourage them to save for a pension as well. I do not see how we can square all those circles.
Mr. David Rendel: I am sure that I do not need to draw to my hon. Friend's attention—although I may need to for other hon. Members—the current Liberal Democrat policy, which is to impose a charge on those earning more than £100,000 a year by raising their income tax. Does he agree that—the unfairness of life being what it is—not many women are earning that sum, and the proposal would therefore be of particular value to them, not only in removing the charge at the level that he discussed, but in imposing a greater charge on those men earning the highest salaries?
Mr. Webb: As ever, my hon. Friend is perceptive. He makes the point that if one uses funding that is not a named debt against a named person, the impact is bound to be different. Very little of the debate has focused on the differential impact of top-up fees on women. I will pursue that point by considering some other responses on top-up fees in my constituency survey, all of which are from female respondents. One woman, who is subject to the current system, said:
"I face the prospect of finishing the repayment of my student loan just in time to retire."
102WH
Even with fees of £1,100—not £3,000 or £5,000 as has been suggested—people are repaying those debts in some cases throughout the whole of their lives. I wonder about the world we want to create if those debts are overhanging people.
Another woman said:
"I came from a background with working class parents who didn't believe in spending money you didn't have."
Such young women will be discouraged from applying for university by the prospect of a £15,000 debt. That is the average figure, but it could be £21,000 or even more if there are credit card debts and so on. People look at those figures and are horrified.
I have two children at primary school, so I have time to save. However, if I do not want them to be blighted with a lifetime of debt, the available strategies are to find £30,000 to see them through university without debt or for them to find jobs when they are at university. When I was a university academic, I was aware of the detrimental effect that having a job had on a student's studies. If we force students to work more and more hours to avoid debt on graduation, they will have hardly any time to spare for their studies. Surely it is wrong, when an increasing proportion of students are desperate and worried about the debt that they will end up with, that they spend so much time working that their studies suffer. Society, and the economy, suffer as a result.
Another female respondent, Nicola, said:
"The thought of being £15K in debt would have put me off from going to university."
That is a first-hand observation. Another constituent said:
"I am looking forward to going to university later this year, and if the payment does rise, I will not be able to afford to go. I do not want a huge bank loan over my head when I leave uni, it will be bad enough as it already stands."
Another person, who has children of university age, said:
"I know many young people are now thinking twice about going to University because of the debts that they will incur."
Debt is a central theme to the debate on top-up fees. It has an impact in two ways. First, the anticipation of debt discourages people from applying. Secondly, there is evidence that it is the principal reason for drop-out among people who have overcome the first hurdle and then find that they cannot service their mounting debts. The Government's policy will surely make matters worse.
A second problem is obvious when it is pointed out. However, I had not grasped it hitherto, but the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) intimated it in his intervention. The system is progressive because the low-paid do not pay much back and the well-paid pay a lot back. That applies in any year but, over a lifetime, everyone repays the same amount for the fees that are not rebated for low-income families. Lower-paid graduates, such as women, repay a fairly small amount if they earn only just above the threshold, but they spend more of their life repaying the debt. They do not have less to repay; they merely repay it over a longer time.
James Purnell: Surely anyone who is earning less than £15,000 a year would not repay any of the loan. The loan

103WH
is only a small part of the total cost because 95 per cent. is financed by the state. The people who pay higher taxes will repay a greater proportion of the cost of going to university.
Mr. Webb: In a fair system, the better-off should pay a larger proportion of the total cost of a university education. With fees of £3,000, £1,900 is not rebated even for low-income households. I hope that the Minister will update us on the Secretary of State's thinking on that because he seemed to intimate in evidence to the Select Committee that he was considering whether the whole £3,000 should be rebated for low-income households. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he views that suggestion. Even the £1,900 is a flat rate. Whether people are rich or poor, they face a debt of £1,900 a year for tuition fees. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is right to say that if people spend their lives earning less than £15,000 a year, indexed to prices, they will never pay it back. However, typical graduate salaries are well in excess of that when allowance is made for real earnings growth compared with the prices index threshold and the career progression that many graduates will enjoy. Most graduates will pay the money back, but those at the bottom end—those nearer the £15,000 threshold—will pay it back over a longer period. They will not pay less. With progressive taxation, people on lower incomes pay less. That is the fairness difference that I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members.
A range of other issues linked to top-up fees came up in responses from my constituents. One argument for top-up fees is that they enable the Government to achieve their 50 per cent. target for students entering higher education. My constituents stressed the importance of not forcing people into inappropriate courses. They were sceptical whether 50 per cent. of people are fitted for three-year honours degrees at traditional universities, although I know that the Government are not driving towards that. My constituents strongly support the money raised by the top-up fees being used to facilitate vocational training and courses that include academic content and on which people learn trades. The Government should not try to increase the numbers just for the sake of it. I am glad that I am not a graduate in media studies because, judging from their responses, my constituents would not think well of me if I were. They are not great fans of that course.
The Select Committee's insights into differential top-up fees are interesting. What would happen if some institutions charged top-up fees and others did not? How would that affect people? One of my constituents said that
"top up fees will create a two tier University system and this is likely to mean that middle class students will go to the prestigious high fee Universities and others will go to the 'teaching factories'".
That comment is obviously linked with the Government's agenda to separate teaching and research.
If the Select Committee is right and practically every institution charges £3,000, there will not be a differential effect but an aggregate effect, which I discussed in relation to debt. There will not be a differential effect because a market will not be created. I understand the logic of the Select Committee's position—if fees of up to
104WH
£5,000 are allowed, it may create differentiation and if the Government want a market that is how to do it—but given my remarks about aggregate debt and notwithstanding some suggestions about grants, I would have great difficulty in supporting a threshold of £5,000 for tuition fees.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the interesting point about the creation of a market, which the Minister, in his last speech in the House, suggested that he wanted to achieve. Those universities that consider themselves to be less prestigious tell me that even if tuition fees go up to £5,000, they must still charge the maximum. The point about marketing is that if a university markets itself as having a lower fee—that may be attractive because students will not have to pay so much—that immediately makes it less prestigious.
Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is right. In the luxury car market, if Rolls-Royce were to charge less for its cars, it might well sell fewer because they would not be seen as an elite product. I do not know how far that analogy works, but there is danger that if a university signals that it does not think that the market will bear the full fee, it is signalling that it; course is not popular or that the people who take it will not tell their friends to do so. Prices have a signalling effect, which is a concern.
The flip-side of the top-up fees policy is the access regulator. Only institutions that satisfy the access regulator will be allowed to charge top-up fees. Even my constituents who liked top-up fees did not like the access regulator. Most of their replies are printable, although they are not polite. They referred to "a lousy idea"; "an army of bureaucrats"; and "needless bureaucracy". One mentioned:
"The elimination of this ghastly 'Access Regulator', a function that only a politician of the worst sort could have dreamt up."
The Minister was not in the Department at the time, so it was not him. Another reply said:
"The access regulator is another half-witted way of wasting the taxpayer's hard-earned money".
My constituents are deeply hostile to the creation of an additional quango.
One of my constituents made a more constructive comment:
"I also worry about the access regulator because it may come down to meeting quotas of people, who are not the most suitable for the course but fit the statistics".
That is the danger posed by such intervention.
I shall make a couple more observations. To return to the intervention by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, we are aware that graduates, by dint of being graduates, will, on average, tend to earn more than others. There is clearly an issue for those who go into public service and the voluntary sector, and who do not earn a great amount. They will be in debt for a long period. On average., however, graduates tend to attract a premium, will pay more in tax and will therefore contribute more to the cost of their fees. The Government say that those of us who do not support tuition fees think that graduates should pay nothing, but that is not remotely the case because they will pay extra tax by dint of their being graduates.

105WH
There are issues about how the top-up fees will affect people on longer courses such as architects, medics and so forth. The Government are so keen to get graduates into certain key occupations that they will subsidise their fees, but that is not true across the board. The policy will have a different impact in that case.
I am very concerned about the position of mature students. I am not aware of preferential rates being charged to them—I am happy to be corrected about that—but if they are charged the full fees, they really will face a lifetime of debt until retirement. Surely we want to encourage such people to go back into higher education.
My premise is not that higher education does not need additional funding. If we are to compete internationally as a nation we will not do so by paying sweatshop wages. The country in which we want to live would compete not on sweatshop wages but on a value-added basis, and with a highly educated, highly skilled and highly trained work force. That has to be the right strategy—we do not query that. An expansion of higher education—albeit of a more diverse form than we have traditionally seen—is to be welcomed.
It is not cheap keeping our universities at the forefront of research, and I have received representations from my constituents who are concerned about the low salaries for academic, research and support staff in universities. All those things have a price tag attached. My contention is that the top-up fee route of paying for them has very grave consequences that make it unacceptable.
The debt issue is critical, and debt for women is a particular problem. If we are not to expect parents to find tens of thousands of pounds to prevent their offspring from getting into debt, if we are not to expect students to spend their entire university careers working full-time to prevent themselves from getting into debt and if we are not to prevent women—and young people in general—from going to university because of the fear of debt on graduation, the top-up fee policy must be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically on the position of women, and more generally on the effect of debt on the scale envisaged among the people about whom I am concerned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind the Chamber that it is customary in these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination. I am giving fair warning that we have only 33 minutes of general discussion left. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions, and when accepting and responding to interventions.
2.27 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for allowing me to speak. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wrote to him and to you I want to be brief because I realise that many people want to speak in this important debate. The Select Committee on Education
106WH
and Skills, which I chair, was in the final stages of agreeing its report when the two Opposition days—one for the Liberal Democrats and the other for the official Opposition—took place. I took a vow of abstinence in those debates, so it is a pleasure to have five minutes today.
I would like to put a rather different case to the Chamber. The Select Committee listened to many experts when taking oral evidence. We received evidence from around the country in Belfast, Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge. We met the Russell group, and talked to many people, including parents and others. What the report came down to—it is good when one gets to this stage—was the fact that the unique nature of British higher education is quality.
Our universities have a reputation for such high quality that people from around the world still want to come here. They do not want to go to many American universities. They want to go to those in the Ivy League, but there are many universities in the United States that do not attract overseas students. Overseas students are not attracted to the universities of our fellow members of the European Union because they long ago gave up quality and went for quantity, with large classes, little tutorial intervention and poor pastoral care.
Anyone who can do so likes to come to Britain to study in higher education. What is our unique selling point? It is quality and the combination of teaching and research under one roof. In any one institution, research and teaching are carried out by the same people. That does not mean that they do that all the time and that some researchers are not less available than others. However, the principle exists, it is right and it underpins the very nature of our university system. That is the unique selling point of our higher education system.
The problem with preserving that system, however, is that it is expensive, and it will get more expensive as we go on. As the Select Committee report said, it is vital to have a vibrant, expanding and high-quality higher education system to encourage the development of individuals' potential. Most of us came into politics because we believed that the potential of all the people born in our country should be expressed and developed, and that is good for society at large. I still believe that a good society is a well-educated and trained society.
We must be frank and admit that the economic challenges to our country mean that we will increasingly have to invest in innovative products and services and in a range of industries and sectors, some of which have not yet been dreamt of. Such developments will come out of university research, participatory research and partnership research. The challenge facing our country is to stay wealthy and to continue providing good, well-paid employment for the individuals who live in it. That will depend on the higher education sector. I speak to many politicians who still do not understand the fact that the largest employer and wealth creator in many constituencies is probably the university.
By far and away the largest employer in my constituency of Huddersfield is the university, not manufacturing, the big chemical or dyestuffs companies, the wool textile industry or engineering, although they are still around. The real employment of the future is in the university. We can look at Manchester, Birmingham and London in the same way.

107WH
Let us take the 43 university institutions out of London and see what damage could be done to this great metropolis of ours. Taking the university institutions out of Edinburgh, Cardiff, or Swansea would have the same effect. The universities are so important to our future that we need to spend an increasing amount of the national treasure on developing them. There is the rub. We are taking part in a debate that I think is too centred on the issue of top-up fees.
I want briefly to take us back to the Dearing proposals. Dearing said clearly that we should fund universities on the basis that those who benefit from university education and the university sector itself should pay for it. That includes society, through taxation, because, as I have explained, society benefits from higher education. Individuals, who will have a better life, higher-paid employment and more opportunities, should pay towards their higher education.
The White Paper is weak on the issue of employers, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider our proposals for a levy on employers of more than a certain size. We propose that, if they do not devote a certain percentage of their turnover to research and development, they should be asked to pay into a levy that will flow into universities. The Government should take that, or a similar idea, seriously.
Those of us in this lower House of Parliament know that, at present, between 15 and 20 per cent. of our constituents, or at least the constituents of those present here, will benefit or will have benefited from higher education. About 80 per cent. of people in my constituency receive no benefit from higher education. Many of them leave school at 16. The state will have invested £45,000 in their education between the ages of three and 16, but they will get nothing more. However, those who stay on get a minimum of £25,000 between the ages of 16 and 21.
Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: Reluctantly.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that all those people will go to doctors for medical services, and that their children will have teachers at school? Those teachers and doctors will all have had a higher education, without which they could not do those jobs and give that help.
Mr. Sheerman: I recognise that familiar argument, but we are talking about a £25,000 extra investment in people who stay on for higher education. Some people leave school at 16 or 18, without a university education, and start their own business. Some of our greatest entrepreneurs do not have a higher education. If such people go into a bank and say that they want to start a small factory or an ICT company and therefore need to employ people, the bank manager will not say, "We are going to give you an interest-free loan."
Many people in our country do not benefit from higher education, but they pay tax and, quite fairly, they think that they can look at those who do benefit from higher education and say that Dearing was right. It is important to get the balance right between those who pay contributions and those who receive the benefits.
108WH
As we said in our report, the Government have invested enormously in higher education, but it is not enough if we are to have the highest-quality, internationally competitive research throughout the country, not just at a handful of universities in London and the south-east, and if we are to have well-paid university teachers. They have not had a real-terms pay increase for 25 years, which I know because I was a university teacher 25 years ago. There is an increasing shortage of young teachers who go to university and stay there, especially in specialist subjects. It is almost a mystery how we get them to do that on current salaries, and it is almost impossible to get people for certain subjects.
I constantly hear the refrain, "Don't wanna pay," which is almost like a teenage stamping of the feet, or Dario Fo's "Can't Pay? Won't Pay!" As the debate develops over the months and years before the next general election, I hope that the people who say, "We don't want to pay," will advance proposals that recognise the fact that, if they want a high-quality higher education, people have to pay. The Government cannot keep ratcheting up income tax, even for those earning more than £100,000, and I am dubious about how much money that would provide. If the extra money is not going to come from the taxpayer, where else will it come from in a society that believes in equity between people who receive benefits and those who pay for them? I hope that the debate can be a little more sophisticated.
The hon. Member for Northavon made a very good introduction. It is valuable that he has been corresponding with 1,000 of his constituents by e-mail, but they must start to think through what they want for our country in the long term and who should pay for that privilege and investment, so that we can get the balance right over t he coming years.
2.38 pm
James Purnell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate. He is one of those Members who give the Liberal Democrats a good name, if that is possible. He is extremely serious about social security issues, on which I have had many dealings with him. However, perhaps he knows in his heart of hearts that the picture that he paints of what the Government are doing may not be as multi-dimensional as it might be.
As politicians, either in opposition or in government, we must balance opposition against opportunism, although I am not making that accusation about the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party has put forward a policy pretending that we should not set the target at 50 per cent., but I think that it knows in its heart of hearts that that is not what the country needs. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but he must sometimes find it difficult to defend such things, given his one-nation credentials.
Mr. Boswell: On the assumption that our respect is mutual, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to enlighten us as to the objective basis on which the 50 per cent. target was selected?
James Purnell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing my first question: is the 50 per cent.

109WH
target arbitrary? In some respects, of course, it is. Why 50 per cent? Why not 51, 49 or 52.356 per cent? The point is that the 50 per cent. target makes clear the direction in which we want the system to head, and those who argue against such a target need to say what direction they want the system to take.
There are already pressures in the system. Improving A-level results mean that more people will want to go to university. Demographic pressures will bring tens of thousands, or perhaps even 100,000, extra students into the system over the next few years. Therefore, the figure is naturally rising towards 50 per cent., even before we take into account the relevant arguments, which are powerful.
The first argument is that more than 60 per cent. of people in the relevant age bracket go to university in countries with economies similar to ours, such as Australia and the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, the figure in most Scandinavian countries is already 70 per cent. Are we saying that the figure in this country will, uniquely, remain stuck at 42 per cent? Are the Conservatives saying that they will bring back a cap, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) did when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury? At that time, people were told, "You may have worked hard at school and sweated to get the right A-level results, but we're not going to let you go to university, even though your results would have got you in five or 10 years ago."
The second argument relates to access. At the moment, about 80 per cent. of children from the professional classes go to university, compared with 15 per cent. from the non-professional, manual classes. What are those who are against the 50 per cent. target saying about people from the manual classes? Are they saying that such people are genetically too stupid to go to university? Are they saying that they are doomed to stay in low-class, low-skill occupations? Are they saying that that is a fair reflection of their skills and talents? Those figures brutally show the discrimination that confronts people in our education system. It is often said that fewer than 1,000 people from social classes D and E get three good A-levels each year. We must address that problem, and I believe that the Government are doing so. However, that will not be enough, and we must make a radical effort to increase access so that more people can go to university.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend think that his argument is strengthened by the fact that we never changed the 80:20 participation ratio even in the heyday of full grants? Even after the grant was introduced, it seemed that there was a 20 per cent. ceiling, and we did not budge it. That shows that individual finances are not the real issue behind access to higher education.
James Purnell: I absolutely agree. The only reason one could give for not heading in the direction of a 50 per cent. target is that one believed in a 30:30 world. In such a world, middle class people would go to university, graduate and get the good jobs. There would then be some administrative jobs in the middle. Finally, there would be the low-paid section at the bottom,
110WH
where people would be trapped, never having the opportunity to go to university and, therefore, to get a highly paid job. This may not be true of the hon. Member for Daventry, but people who denigrate media studies courses or those of our universities that used to be polytechnics are appealing to a deeply patronising and conservative tendency, which still exists in parts of our society. I think, however, that they may be slightly embarrassed about that in their heart of hearts.
I am speaking in the debate because my constituents in Hyde would benefit hugely from the proposed policy. At the moment, we broadly achieve the national average for GCSE results, but the proportion of those who go to university is only half the national average. The policy will increase that proportion and allow constituents from families that often earn less than £15,000 or £20,000 to go to university. It will do that because it will make education free at the point of use. The policy will get rid of upfront tuition fees, bring back grants for the very poorest and give them more money in their student loan to pay their maintenance costs. It will make students much less dependent on credit card debt, which has much higher interest rates. The policy will start to allow people in my constituency to have the same aspirations to go to university as people in more middle class constituencies, particularly in the south, and that is why I defend it.
Mr. Webb: Does the hon. Gentleman share the view that the distinction between the £1,100 top-up fee, which is fully rebated for the poor, and the £1,900, which is not rebated at all, is a concern for his constituents? Would he like to see that £1,900 rebated for the poor?
James Purnell: As the consultation on the White Paper goes forward, we need to think about grants, where the £15,000 kicks in, and getting the right balance between having the right incentives in the system for people to choose which university to go to and making the way in which money is repaid as progressive as possible.
The 50 per cent. target is a crucial signal of the direction in which the Government are heading. It is arbitrary, but, if anything, too low. It is the right aspiration for 2010, but, given the demographic pressures, the improvement in A-levels and the fact that Scandinavian countries, Canada and Australia are already way above the 50 per cent. level, we should go higher than 50 per cent. in time. Anyone who pretends that we do not need to be heading in that direction is doing the country a disservice.
Increasing participation is the first spending pressure. The second is quality. I do not think that anyone pretends that that is not an issue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee made clear, the pay going to teachers and academics is a scandal that has gone unchecked for too long. We are starting to do something about it, but much more must be done.
It is still far too difficult for people to fund graduate courses. Anyone who fails to get a very good first still finds it extremely difficult to stay on at university and do a graduate course. Again, the Government are doing something about that, but we need more funding to address the issue. The Government have increased research funding in a number of areas, but, as Universities UK has made clear, there is still a lot further to go.

111WH
The twin spending pressures cannot be avoided. We must increase the proportion of people going to university and consider the spending pressures in terms of quality because, without world-class universities, in 10 or 20 years' time, we will be suffering in relation not just to the accumulation of knowledge but to the development of our economy. It is widely agreed across the House that universities are one of the key engines of economic growth in the 21st century.
We must ask ourselves how we will pay for that spending. Broadly. there are three alternatives. We can pay through general taxation. I agree with that, and we do that. The vast majority of university education is paid for through universal taxation. Such taxation is progressive and reflects the fact that there are great benefits to society. People use doctors and benefit from those who work in research and from general economic growth. Everyone benefits from our universities.
Is it right, however, to fund the whole of the increase needed to meet the spending pressures through general taxation? Even if we were to follow the Liberal Democrat proposal of increasing taxes on people earning more than £100,000, where would we want to spend that money? Would we want to spend it on people going to university, given that such people will, by and large, benefit from going to university, earn more and have their horizons expanded, or on genuinely universal services, such as sure start, nurseries, child tax credits, child benefit, schools and transport?
Even if we could raise all the money by a tax on people earning more than £100,000, which, along with the Chairman of the Select Committee, I very much doubt, higher education would not be the right place to spend it. It would not be fair. It is fair to ask people such as me who went to university to pay back a proportion of that cost. Everyone in their heart of hearts basically agrees with that.
The second alternative is to have a graduate tax.
Mr. Rendel: The argument about whether the money would be spent on higher education if it were raised is interesting. However the money is raised, if the Government spend it on some other service rather than increasing the amount spent on higher education, and decide to go ahead with top-up fees, I presume that they will then reduce the amount of taxation that is otherwise spent on universities and put it into all those other valuable and noble causes to which the hon. Gentleman referred, thus leaving the universities with no more funding than they had to start with.
James Purnell: That is a straightforwardly mistaken argument. People in universities are arguing for tuition fees precisely because they believe that they will have more control over the money. The money is much more likely to go to areas other than universities if it is taken in general taxation. University funding under the Conservatives saw a decline in per-student funds pretty much throughout the 18 years that they were in government. The hon. Gentleman would find exactly that if he ever became a higher education Minister.
Mr. Rendel: If the hon. Gentleman examines history, he will see that precisely what I just described happened when this Government—his party's Government—
112WH
introduced tuition fees. Universities received the same money as before because, although they received tuition fee money, taxation money was reduced in line with it.
James Purnell: Again, that is straightforwardly wrong. We are increasing the money going to higher education by, I believe, 9 per cent. in real terms. It is, in fact, increasing for the first time in 25 years.
Mr. Boswell: I align myself with the comment made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, promised that the money raised by the initial tuition fees, which, incidentally, were against Labour pledges, was additional money made available to the universities and was directed towards solving their financial problems, so why did the unit of funding not increase for six years, and why are they now in as bad a financial position, if not worse, than they were in 1997?
James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the unit of funding is now increasing. It did not increase in the first term because participation was rising and money was going into research funding. It is incontrovertible that the amount of money going into universities is increasing in real terms, and people in the university sector want the money raised in that way rather than through general taxation because they believe that they are more likely to see it than if there are arguments over the split between universities, health, primary schools and the NHS. They know that, under this Government, unlike under the Conservative Government, they can be confident about receiving general increases in money. However, they know that that will not be enough, so they believe that some tuition fee system will be the best way of ensuring that that money will be additional.
Could we raise the money through a graduate tax? Again, we could. I am completely agnostic about whether we should have a graduate tax or a tuition fee system. The greatest problem with a graduate tax is that it would have to be levied on everyone by adding it to the basic rate of tax. People would therefore pay it from an income of some £6,500 to £7,000—the hon. Member for Northavon is an expert on these issues, and he may correct me if I am wrong—which is about half the level at which the tax is currently paid. It is clearly much more regressive compared with the Government's proposal. The fairer way of raising money, other than through the basic rate of tax, is through repayments, which are income contingent but kick in at a higher level. If the graduate tax were added to the top rate of tax, the increase would not be 2p or 3p in the pound on the top rate of tax for people who had gone to university, but presumably 6p, 7p, 8p, 9p or 10p. If the idea of an income-contingent debt is a disincentive to going to university, the idea of paying 5p or more extra for going to university as part of the graduate tax if one is a top-rate taxpayer would be a clear disincentive.
An income-contingent loan is a fair way of raising money. If people could persuade me that it was fair to raise it through a graduate tax, I would be open to it, but the facts do not support that. People have advanced this great idea that debt will hang over people for the rest of their lives, but it should be made clear to them that the

113WH
debt is income contingent. The hon. Member for Northavon talked about the possibility of Rolls-Royce reducing its prices. If loans used for selling cars were income contingent, and people knew that they would not have to pay the money back if they earned less than £15,000 a year, an awful lot of people earning less than that would be popping down to Rolls-Royce and buying Silver Shadows.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned women. I greatly admire the way in which he consults his constituents, and I may steal the idea—plagiarism being the sincerest form of flattery. The biggest issues that face women in my constituency are the lack of universal child care and nursery education. If extra money were made available from general taxation, that is where I would invest it.
I recently met people from Hyde Clarendon, and university students have raised the issue with me. They are extremely intelligent and perceptive people, and they understand the details. If it were explained to students that the debt is income contingent and the small proportion of the total cost involved were made clear, we would be able to move forward with a policy that, in my view, is clearly in the national interest. It will be fair in terms of access, and it will plug the quality gap emerging in our universities.
2.55 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on bringing this subject to our attention. As he said, it is the third time in the past few weeks that we have had the chance to debate it. For my party, however, the more often we can do so the better. I am delighted to have the chance to put our views to the House and to the public. I am delighted also to have the chance to talk about the policies of the Government and the Conservative party; it is easy to spot holes in the policies of both.
The Chairman of the Select Committee said that he believed that most people did not benefit from higher education. That is an extraordinary thing to say.
Mr. Sheerman: Directly.
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman has clarified what he meant.
The example of David Beckham has been introduced before when talking about the money earned by people who have not had a higher education. His earnings are partly due to the fact that he played as England's captain in the last World cup. However, he was able to play only because someone had mended his metatarsal bone a few weeks earlier. To some extent, his earnings are now dependent on the fact that somebody was around who could do that.
The fact is that everyone who earns that sort of money will, in one way or another, be dependent on those who have had a higher education. Such an education can give people the chance to work for entrepreneurs who have not had a higher education, to provide services for their firms or in one way or another to add to the wealth of the nation and therefore the wealth of those entrepreneurs that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
114WH
The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position—that one should pay for whatever part of one's education others do not have—inevitably means that everyone should pay for education beyond the compulsory age of 16. If people have to pay for their higher education simply because not everyone gets it, they should pay also for education between the ages of 16 and 18. So far as I know, that has not yet become Labour party policy. I would be interested in whether the Minister has anything to say about that. Perhaps he will surprise us all by changing policy on post-compulsory education.
Mr. Sheerman: I know that the hon. Gentleman had a rather exclusive education, and that he is therefore a little removed from the world, but I was saying that individuals should make a contribution. I did not say that people should pay in full for their post-16 or post-18 education. I called for them to make a contribution for their higher education.
Mr. Rendel: It is interesting that those who have had post-compulsory education but not higher education will not have to pay under the hon. Gentleman's theory, but that those who have higher education will. I do not see the logic of that argument. Those who have education post-compulsory school age should either pay for it all or make a contribution to it all, or make no contribution to either. The idea that people should have to make a contribution for higher education but not for post-compulsory education has no logic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon made a powerful case, and he spoke of the representations that he has received from his constituents. In particular, he is right about the special effect that top-up fees will have on women. He seems to think that no one has been talking about it, but I assure him that when I go to universities and talk to groups of lecturers and students, I invariably make the point that the policy will have a major differential effect on women. He will not be surprised to hear that the response to such remarks is immediate, especially from the women. All heartily agree that the policy is particularly unfair to them.
There is an overwhelming view among students, young people, parents and university teachers that top-up fees and tuition fees have no part to play, because they are no answer to the problems that face the higher education system. However, in relation to my hon. Friend's speech, I should say that the Government are right about the need to widen participation, especially among those from the traditionally under-represented groups. The White Paper admits that the social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide and has widened. That analysis is confirmed by the MORI/Unite student living report produced earlier this year, which states that the proportion of students from social classes C2, D and E has dropped in the past three years from 20 to 17 per cent. Under Labour, the ratio of ABC1 students to C2DE students has increased from four to one to five to one.
Top-up fees, which would cause debts to soar to more than £20,000 on graduation, would make the situation much worse. We cannot have both a serious policy of widening participation to include students from non-traditional backgrounds and charges for tuition that place serious financial and psychological obstacles in the

115WH
path of participation. The two policies are mutually exclusive, and the proposals in the White Paper, far from removing the contradiction, merely reinforce it.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman two things. First, does he agree with the direction of travel towards a target of 50 per cent. of people accessing higher education, and secondly, given the thesis that he is advancing, why does he think that when there was no charge for higher education and full grants were available, only 20 per cent. from the lower socio-economic classes went into higher education?
Mr. Rendel: I am sure that there are many reasons why the participation rate was not higher, not least the failures of our education system further down the tree. It is a question of how many people progress to the right level in schools. The fact is that tuition fees have made the situation worse and top-up fees are likely to make it even worse. To answer the hon. Lady's question about the target, we should be aiming to make it possible for all young people who have the ability to make good use of a university education to have the opportunity to do so. The question should be not whether we can set a rigid target of 50 per cent. or any other figure, but how many people we can enable to reach a stage at which their education and their ability are such that they can make good use of a university education.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: I asked whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the direction of travel in increasing participation towards the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) gave from Scandinavia, Australia and Canada.
Mr. Rendel: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had said that one of the few points on which I agree with the Government is the need to increase the rate of participation. The direction is right, but the Government are going about getting there in an odd way.
I want to concentrate on two areas in which top-up fees might have an impact. The first is university funding, which I mentioned a few moments ago. It seems that all parties now agree that universities need more money—they have been seriously underfunded. The last Conservative Administration presided over a 40 per cent. real-terms drop in funding per student, and during Labour's first term in office there was a further cut of 7 per cent. in funding per student from the taxpayer. Britain now spends less as a proportion of gross domestic product on higher education than it did in 1989, when there were half as many students as there are now. That is a telling statistic.
The introduction of tuition fees did not result in any extra money for higher education. That was confirmed by Professor Sir Howard Newby, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, who
116WH
told a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on 28 January 2002, at which I was present:
"The grant to institutions was reduced by exactly the amount that. was coming through in tuition fees, so essentially there has been a displacement effect."
James Purnell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that higher education funding is now growing at 9 per cent. a year in real terms?
Mr. Rendel: I certainly pay tribute to the fact that the Government have in the past year or two begun to increase the amount of money going into higher education in real terms. That is good and has had welcome effects, but it has taken an awfully long time. Moreover, owing to the reductions in past, the level is still not back where was when the Government took office, let alone the position that held when the Conservative Government came to office in 1979, since when there has been a 40 per cent. drop in funding per student in real terms.
Why should the outcome for top-up fees be any different? There really is no logical reason to suppose that it will be. All that will happen if top-up fees are introduced is that the balance between the public and the private parts of the funds that go to universities will change. There is no reason to suppose that the overall amount will be any different from what it otherwise would have been if all the funding came from the public sector and general taxation.
The Government have denied that: the Minister told us recently that the income from top-up fees
"will be additional money going into universities."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 766.]
However, he has so far not been able to explain what provisions the legislation will include to ensure that, so I hope that he will do so today. Perhaps that is not surprising, since I cannot see any provisions that could possibly do so. If there were such provisions, they would in any case not be consistent with sound financial management, since surely Government must first decide how to split up the cake of our national wealth and then decide where the money for education is to come from.
To decide first how to get the money and then to leave to chance how much for higher education the universities decide to raise from our national wealth would a mad way of proceeding, and I do not believe that even this Government are capable of that. The important point about the impact of top-up fees on university funding, therefore, is that they will have no effect on the total funding.
I should like to concentrate on the effect that top-up fees could have on the credibility of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is an honest chap, and if it were not for the special parliamentary meaning of the term, I would perhaps dare to call him a friend. However, on tuition fees he seems to have difficulties with his own hon. Friends. The new Conservative policy to scrap tuition fees has been much trumpeted; however, the message does not yet seem to have got across to the Conservative members of the Select Committee, not one of whom backed my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) when he produced a minority report last week to outline his opposition to tuition and top-up fees.

117WH
Although I hardly dare to think that I could be so honoured, perhaps hon. Members noticed my speech when there was an opportunity to debate the Conservative proposals on 25 June. On that occasion I referred to research by Professor Nicholas Barr of the London school of economics that shows that the Conservative proposals would not only end the proposed expansion, but cut participation from the current rate of 43 per cent. to as low as 36 per cent. by 2010. Since then, Libby Ashton of the Higher Education Policy Institute has shown that up to 250,000 young people who would otherwise be well qualified to take up a university place would be denied one under the Tory proposals. Moreover, those people would be disproportionately drawn from the least well-off families. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found:
"The Conservative proposals would benefit the richest households more than the Government proposals while the poorest households would be worse off."
It is therefore no wonder that Professor Barr concludes:
"The Tory proposals are … offensive to anyone who cares about fairness."
Mr. Sheerman: What did Professor Barr say about the Liberal Democrats' proposals? The hon. Gentleman will find his comments in the same document.
Mr. Rendel: Professor Barr has certainly never been in favour of funding higher education out of general taxation, for reasons over which I have had many arguments with him; however, I am referring to what he said about the Conservative proposals. I do not pretend that we are fully in line with each other and never have done—we have argued long and hard about the issue.
The Liberal Democrats, it has to be said, and this is really the difference—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring it to the attention of the hon. Gentleman that he has made many interventions already in the debate. I do not wish to inhibit the flow of the debate, but he is rapidly approaching 15 minutes in making his own contribution, in addition to the numerous interventions that he has already made. I therefore ask him to bring his comments to a close fairly quickly.
Mr. Rendel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly try to do that.
The main difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives with regard to abolishing tuition fees and top-up fees is that the Liberal Democrats oppose fees, because we believe that they are an obstacle to wider participation, whereas the Tories want to scrap fees at the cost of participation.
The Government have earned some respect for their commitment to a fairer higher education system, in which more people have an opportunity to take part and from which more people will benefit. I hope that they will take account of the arguments advanced by many on the front line in our universities, in Parliament and on the Government Benches to show that the noble objective of increasing participation can be achieved only if they reverse their policy on tuition and top-up fees.
3.10 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on initiating the debate and also on the measured terms in which he put his case. That set the tone. This will not be the last debate on the subject, and I hope that any subsequent debates will be conducted with the same understanding of the complexity of the issues.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that his remarks will repay further study—I welcomed his technique of going out and asking his electorate for views on the matter. I also noted two particular points. He is right to emphasise the differential impact on the position of women. I would say that, because I have three graduate daughters and am sensitive to the issue. I was also interested in the nuancing of what he said about the vocational experience arising from higher education. We all understand that point.
I listened to the views of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and have debated with him previously on a rather wider compass than we have today. We have differences of view and opinions as to solutions, but I note his conversion to looking towards people's career development. That will be a welcome additional theme.
I do not want to overlook the contribution made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He has presided over a useful Select Committee report, which will repay not merely partial quotation this afternoon, but deeper study over the recess. I intend to go through it carefully then. The report has properly brought together a number of issues.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) for his contribution. From time to time, he makes an excellent job of defending the indefensible aspects of Government policies: someone has to do it, and I cannot think of anyone who could do it much better.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) has absented herself after making several interesting interventions, not least because we have "form" on the matter when I was the Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and she was the president of the National Union of Students. I will not say that our positions have been reversed, but I would have enjoyed probing her on her current stance on these matters.
I am conscious of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but none the less will remind hon. Members, before the record is distorted, that the Conservative party—I include myself in this because I was in the Conservative Government of that time—comes to this debate with clean hands. I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on the issue of participation as opposed to access, about which there is systemic confusion.
James Purnell: If the hon. Gentleman's party were to come to power and cut 250,000 students from the total roll, does he not think that both participation and access would decrease?
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman has leapt to a conclusion with which I do not necessarily agree. Our

119WH
proposals would make it possible to provide an adequate offer—with the option of progression to higher education—for anyone qualified to do it.
I wanted to put it on the record that a Conservative Government took us from an elite to a mass system of higher education, with participation of young people rising from 8 to 33 per cent. or more. That is a major and historic achievement, which we have no wish to reverse. We did that without imposing tuition fees. The student loans that we introduced and that enabled us to fulfil that policy at considerable speed in the early 1990s were of a magnitude lower than the loan requirements implied by the present Government's policies.
Finally, it is often overlooked that, although there were difficulties with the structure of mortgage-type loans, they did not kick in until 85 per cent. of average earnings was attained. On that basis, a starting figure for the repayment of loans would be a salary of more than £20,000, which is more or less in line with the Select Committee's thinking.
Even in this short compass I would wish to concede that two issues are of continuing concern. First, we all believe that there has been too little participation from the lower three socio-economic classes. In some respects, it has gone back from my days in university. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the first piece of work that I commissioned from officials when I became Minister was an analysis of the situation as it then applied. The lack of participation of those groups is a great loss to universities, which miss able students, and to those individuals who do not take part. The answer, in our view, is to concentrate on the schools. We should get people prepared for university and ensure that they have adequate prior attainments, as that has a big influence on drop-out rates, rather than carry out social engineering at the university level.
Secondly, there is undoubtedly pressure on university funding. In exchanges with the hon. Member for Newbury, we noted the fact that, despite tuition fees, things have not improved and the money, as the Treasury would say, has been taken into account in the overall financial settlement.
The Minister has said that only one fourteenth of the total funding package is provided by student contributions at the moment. It is clear from the Select Committee report—for example, when it talks about higher top-up fees—that the introduction of tuition fees creates instability. There is always pressure to drift upwards to totally unacceptable levels. The figure of £5,000 has already been mentioned.
I should just make three or four specific points on current developments in relation to Government policy. The first is one on which we all agree. I have written to all the vice-chancellors about our proposals. There has been a range of replies, not all of which, I hasten to say, said that our suggestions were anathema. They all agree that they do not like the Office for Fair Access. Its job is one that they think they can properly do themselves.
Secondly, the Minister announced today in a written statement the figures for the new grant. It is lower than the grant that applied until 1997 under the previous Government. The upper income threshold for the full amount will be £15,200. It is estimated that only 30 per cent. will receive the full grant and a further 10 per cent. a partial grant. Given that there is a huge participation
120WH
in fees relief for 58 per cent., the Government are beginning to shade down the coverage of people who receive support. The position under top-up fees is quite unclear.
I close on our strategic response to the Government's proposals. We object to them for two reasons beyond those that have already been discussed. First, they are unsustainable. Often, policies, including some of our own in government, require so much amelioration and tailoring that they yield little revenue. The Prime Minister appeared to say last week that only £500 million was coming in from the fees package. He was a little more modest than the Secretary of State, who suggested that it might be £700 million. It is still a very small amount, even if it is new money, which we doubt.
It is clear from the Select Committee report that the cost of the fees subsidy is already more than £800 million. A recent written answer suggested that it might be £1 billion. That is solved by cutting the Treasury interest rate. Once we move to top-up fees, the figures become much larger. I cannot see a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future wanting to draw the cheque for that. There will be some reneging on undertakings if those loans are allowed to escalate.
There is also the issue of indefensibility. In relation to that, I would single out students with incomes just above the qualifying thresholds who, with their families, will be under severe pressures. Those with lower income levels are also, in one way or another, deterred from the process. It is wrong to say that students do not make a contribution. They suffer the opportunity cost of not earning, and they have additional maintenance expenditure through university participation. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there is also the question of where the fees process will stop. If Governments think that they can charge students, why should they think that they cannot charge people at school?
3.21 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). As others have said, he approached the debate in a constructive and rather novel way by describing his survey of 1,000 constituents. He said that I might be getting a bit tired of debating this issue, but we cannot have too many debates on it. In this particular forum, I should like to leave aside yah-boo party politics and deal with the issue in the way that the hon. Gentleman has.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points that I will consider further, but I also have some immediate responses that will allow him to send a copy of the Hansard of this debate to the 1,000 constituents to whom he referred—if he can afford it. His constituents made an important contribution; their prejudices about the Office for Fair Access shocked me nearly as much as their prejudices about students on media studies courses. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made the point that we want to link university education to industry, and ensure that graduates who come out of our universities make an important economic contribution in today's world. I make no comment on any subjects that might have been

121WH
studied for 200 or 300 years, but media studies courses make, and will continue to make, an important contribution to today's economy. It is saloon-bar, red-neck language—not that I would accuse the good citizens of Northavon of that—to suggest that, because media studies has become an important topic, it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. The higher education sector needs to get that message across.
I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. I remain convinced that the Government's strategy is the only coherent one for the future of higher education. I want to explain why I believe that a variable fee, which is the prime topic of today's debate, is the right approach. I want to deal with the effects and the perceived effects of our proposals, and finally I shall put the proposals in context of the Government's wider agenda. As usual, there will not be enough time to cover all the points raised.
As the hon. Member for Northavon will accept, he has a problem not just with top-up fees, but with fees in the first place. The starting point for any such debate has to be the Dearing report. I am perfectly willing to listen to the views of the 1,000 good citizens of Northavon, but let us not forget what Dearing said. His was a cross-party report, which was supported across party boundaries. It was a national committee of inquiry that produced the most radical and thorough analysis of higher education since the Robbins report in 1963. The Dearing committee was unequivocal in its view, and Dearing himself put it well in a recent speech. Higher education is different from post-16 education where, although too many youngsters are leaving school at 16, they have a right to stay on. Dearing said that, given that higher education is a major benefit that is not available as of right to all our citizens, it is equitable that those who are qualified and choose to take it should put something back in the pot when they become earners. If it is unfair to ask graduates to pay more of the cost, why is it fair to ask non-graduate taxpayers to do so? That is at the heart of this debate.
The hon. Member for Northavon spoke about the effect on women. That is an important issue, and perhaps we have not paid enough attention to it—I shall certainly do so in future. However, the big success story is the number of women going into higher education. They were in the minority in higher education—34 per cent.—as recently as 1996, but now account for 55 per cent. of those going into higher education, so the introduction of tuition fees did not affect that at all.
The basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument was the time taken to pay back the loan. A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report said that that would take an average of 10 years under the Government's proposals. We have not analysed those figures carefully but, for women, 13 years—a difference of three years—sounds about right.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said how important the issue of loans is for women, and how onerous the loan might be to them. I am the secretary of his fan club, and all other hon. Members here probably feel the same. However, I remind him that, although it is true that under the loan system of the previous Government—£1 billion of which still has to be paid back—there was a threshold of £20,000, once that
122WH
threshold was passed by one penny, the debt would be paid back in five or seven years irrespective of whether a person had taken time out for maternity leave or had left the job market. That is a much more onerous burden, and those debts are being paid at this moment. That issue should be the subject of a debate.
The point was raised in debate in the House that we are not talking about debt in itself but about the level of debt, because by and large, under various systems, students have incurred debt. The introduction of tuition fees has not affected the number of women going to university. I repeat that our proposal is that we remove upfront tuition fees and take a purist steering, as it were. No one—not students or parents—pays anything except graduates once they are earning £15,000 a year, and then they pay on an equitable and attractive basis.
This is not credit card debt. There is no real rate of interest building up, and the loan does not have to be repaid in a short period. It is not as though the scheme takes no account of people's earnings—that would be credit card debt. It is 9 per cent. applied to the difference between the threshold and earnings. Someone on £18,500 a year would pay back £5.50 a week.
I am perfectly willing to engage in debate on the time that paying back the loan will take, but we should ask whether the scheme is an attractive proposition if we accept that graduates should make a contribution, and accept all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made so powerfully. We must decide whether, considering all the other options, Dearing was right. We are talking about making a contribution, not paying the total amount.
By the end of the current spending review, we will be putting £10 billion of public money into higher education, and that is—as it should be—a real increase of 6 per cent. a year in the next three years. That means that £400 for every taxpayer in the country will go into higher education. If graduates are to make a contribution, is our system the right way to provide for that?
On variability, recent research suggests that there is a 44 per cent. difference in the average returns for graduates at the two ends of the graduate pay scale. Fortuitously, I have the figures for women who study law and architecture, although I did not know that that would be a major feature of the survey that the hon. Member for Northavon conducted. Between 1993 and 1999, the returns for women graduates in law and architecture were more than 40 per cent., while those for arts degrees were below 20 per cent., so there is a big difference. That is a factor if, in trying to bring more money into the system, we ask students to pay the same amount and make exactly the same contribution.
It is unreasonable to insist that students with such different earnings prospects pay the same flat-rate fee. In a speech in February, Lord Dearing said that, with the introduction of the price competition that comes with the discretion of institutions to set fees ranging from nothing to £3,000 in what is otherwise a growth desert in the market for three-year degree students, strong competition will lead to a differentiation in fees. People will not go to the upper end of £3,000.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. For the next 30 minutes at least, we must focus our attention on community transport.

Community Transport
3.30 pm
Norman Lamb: My contribution to this debate is part of a cross-party initiative by Norfolk Members. I should mention in particular the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who cannot be present, as well as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who is here, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who is stuck in a Select Committee, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). I am also delighted to see that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is present—to support the case that is being made, I suspect.
Concerns were first brought to our attention by all the community transport schemes in Norfolk, as well as the two rural transport partnerships in the county. We are all indebted to them, and to the Community Transport Association nationally, for their guidance and hard work.
Before setting out our concerns, it is important to mention that there was some discussion about which Department should respond to this debate. It is clear that the Department for Transport has the main responsibility, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for the Countryside Agency, which provides grants, usually on a three-year basis, for community transport schemes. I hope that this debate will reinforce the need for coordination between those two Departments. The Department for Transport, in particular, needs to be aware of a developing funding crisis that is facing community transport not only in Norfolk but across the country.
The main message that I want to get across is that the Government must be applauded for providing funds to pump-prime new community transport schemes. Those have mushroomed throughout the country, and that is good. It is likely that such schemes will be the most viable model for rural public transport in the future. They are flexible, they are demand responsive and they tend to use vehicles that are small and environmentally friendly. We have all witnessed double-decker buses careering around country lanes, usually entirely empty.
The great danger is that all the good progress could be lost. The CTA—the national body—and others do not want confrontation: that is not what this debate is about. They want to work with the Government to ensure that this exciting development over the past few years is maintained and enhanced. We also aim to be constructive as a group of MPs, and we hope that the Minister will respond in a similar vein.
I wish to say something about the Norfolk schemes. There are four community transport schemes, which have been set up with rural transport partnership—RTP—funding provided by the Countryside Agency. One of them is in South Norfolk—the Diss and District Community Transport Association. It runs a minibus dial-a-ride scheme and a door-to-door service for people in rural areas. The scheme is operated by a small group of employed people, together with drivers. Its RTP funding runs out next year. The North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership in my constituency is a similar operation whose funding also runs out next year.
124WH
The North Walsham Area Community Transport Association is also in my constituency. There is a full-time co-ordinator and a part-time administrator. They operate on a low cost base from a rent-free office in North Walsham. The association has funding from the Countryside Agency, which got the whole thing established, at a rate of £18,000 per year. That has already ended—it came to an end earlier this year. It gets some funding from the county council, and the district and town and parish councils. It gets income from fares and from charges for other transport services and membership subscriptions. However, it is now living off its reserves and it cannot carry on like this for long.
The association was founded in 1999. I want to make it clear that that was made possible by Government pump-priming. The association covers 45 parishes and provides regular dial-a-ride services to local market towns, which get people from small village communities into their local town. Secondly, it provides transport to appointments at local hospitals, GPs' surgeries, dentists and so on—that is crucial in rural areas. Thirdly, it provides transport for organised groups that meet regularly for social gatherings, such as lunch clubs for elderly and disabled people.
The association also has a programme of excursions. It uses 10 volunteer drivers locally, so it is a real community effort. It also runs a hospital bus, with a paid driver, from north-east Norfolk to the new Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, which is five miles to the south of Norwich: not an accessible location for anyone relying on public transport. There has been a steady growth in the use of the association's services, and there are now some 420 return passenger trips every month. Users are mainly elderly and disabled people who cannot walk to the normal bus stop and who benefit from the fact that they can be picked up outside their front door. There are other passengers without access to a car. The services are very valuable, and passengers describe them as a lifeline, a godsend, and say that it is important that we keep those services.
The fourth scheme in Norfolk with the benefit of rural transport partnership funding is called "kickstart". It is a really innovative moped loan scheme that enables young people, primarily, to access employment and training. If a person is stuck in a small village that does not have a normal bus service, it is very difficult to get access to employment. The scheme has helped a significant number of people in Norfolk to access employment and training; its funding runs out next year as well.
There are other schemes with alternative sources of funding: a Norwich door-to-door scheme, of which I suspect the hon. Member for Norwich, North is aware. That scheme is specifically for disabled people and those with other mobility problems who are excluded from using traditional forms of public transport. There are other, existing schemes that have used RTP funding to expand their services. The West Norfolk community transport project, an excellent community car scheme, covers six parishes around Heacham. It is primarily used by people who need to get to hospital appointments. There are also the Swaffham rural links and Wymondham flexibus services. There are lots of schemes cropping up all over the place, all with the benefit of that central funding; the schemes tackle social exclusion and rural isolation and they give people

125WH
independence. Last week, I met a group of residents from Wigston in Leicestershire; it looked like they were going to lose their housing estate bus service. For those elderly people, that bus is a lifeline.
The Government's social exclusion unit recently published a report entitled "Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion". The North Walsham association was used as a case study in the chapter entitled "Solutions to the problem". The chapter demonstrates how community transport reduces social exclusion.
The common problem is where to get sustainable funding once the pump-priming ends. Schemes have done an awful lot of work to secure alternative funding. The North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership says that
"We have sought to secure alternative funding through trusts, Town and Parish donations and other funding bodies. However, in the current financial and investment climate, whereby many trusts have seen their stock-market investment funds seriously depleted over the last year, such bodies are unable to offer any substantial financial support. Most Town and parish councils have very limited funds and the most our organisation has ever been offered is a donation of £250, (this being from quite well-off town councils such as Fakenham and Holt), otherwise donations usually amount to something in the region of £25-£50."
That level of funding simply will not support the services that they provide.
Mr. Keith Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which has the support of all Norfolk Members. Following from what he just said, it seems to many of us—I know that the Minister will be aware of this—that sustainable funding is the crucial element. Our fear at the meeting that we attended on 6 June was that as more and more schemes are set up, there is a danger that those set up behind them will collapse because of lack of funding. What we are looking for from the Minister is more suggestions of how we can gel sustainable funding. During the past four years, Norfolk county council has spent from £171,000 to a planned £318,000 on community transport, but that may lead to cuts in local bus services. I support what the hon. Gentleman says.
Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that intervention, and I entirely agree with the Gentleman's points. The county council has explained to me that the only way in which it can get extra funding for community transport is to reduce subsidies on traditional bus services. That is a difficult process and takes time to achieve. Wholesale axing of existing services is simply not an option, because so many people rely on them.
The problem is that there is a very significant amount of money flowing in from the Countryside Agency to get those schemes started, but because so many started at roughly the same time, they are all coming to the end of their three-year funding period in a narrow time frame. Consequently, there is simply no prospect of the county council being able to take on the full burden following the withdrawal of Countryside Agency funding.
There sometimes seems to be an obsession with funding only new and innovative schemes. That is important, but must not happen to the detriment of
126WH
other schemes that are already working successfully. There is a danger of organisations straining to come up with some new package simply to attract funding. There is also a danger of spending a disproportionate amount of time pursuing funding, which is an inefficient use of management time. The process of applying for funding, then losing out in the bidding process, can be soul destroying. Uncertainty of funding will also lead to those employed in the sector seeking more security elsewhere, resulting in a loss of the skills and experience that need to be retained in the sector to build on the very successful foundations that have been laid.
One of the local operators in Norfolk has said:
"Such 'short-term' funding has hampered an expansionist ethos for our service and the general feeling with our members and that of many dial-a-ride operators is one of an impending 'shut-down' of the service as a whole."
That is not conducive to an expansion of such schemes.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that the schemes are unlikely ever to be profitable. They provide a public service in some of the most remote areas of the country. They fill the gaps that conventional transport cannot fill. Those running the schemes tell us that they may well be able to survive with tapering funding. They also say that, ideally, they would like to be locally funded, a view that I strongly share, but there must be some transmission mechanism to get from nationally provided pump-priming to sustainable local funding. Three years is simply not long enough to build a strong passenger base and for the county council to reorganise its funding to provide sufficient support for community transport.
Those in the sector feel that they are caught in something of a tussle between central and local government, both believing in community transport but neither coming up with a basis for sustainable funding. The Government's commitment in principle is very clear. The 10-year transport plan declares:
"There will be additional funding for other types of service"
than the traditional sort,
"including those run by the voluntary sector, community projects (such as the setting up and operation of social car and community minibus schemes) and flexible innovative schemes (which could include taxi-based services)."
The Government are there in principle, but the funding situation seems to be less optimistic than that statement of principle might suggest.
The Countryside Agency itself appears to be in something of a funding crisis. We have been told of concerns of
"appalling financial planning, and grossly inadequate communications."
I do not know whether that is true, but that is the concern that has been expressed. An embargo was imposed on applications to the vital villages programme, part of the funding stream for community transport, back in mid-April. Although the embargo was lifted in June, it seems that many transport services due to receive funding will still have to be shelved. That inevitably means that much of the work by voluntary groups throughout the country will be wasted and expectations will be dashed. The Countryside Agency claims that that was because of an over-subscription in applications for rural transport partnership funding,

127WH
but many believe that it is really because of over-spending on mapping work undertaken by the Countryside Agency.
Will the Minister investigate the situation? I appreciate that it is not his departmental responsibility, but it appears to be putting at risk an important part of the Government's transport strategy for rural areas. Will he also consider calling a summit of everyone with an interest in community transport? It could include the funders, local authorities, operators and service users, coming together with a view to ensuring that existing schemes are given the opportunity to flourish and a second aim of expanding rather than contracting the network.
Finally, as Paul Gray, co-ordinator of the North Walsham Area Community Transport Association, says:
"Quietly, and without too much fuss, community transport does a great job every day. Any community bus driver will instantly recognise the unreserved appreciation shown by his or her passengers on a frequent basis. The message I carry to you is simple: A modest investment in rural community transport would represent a significant payback in the quality of life in a rural environment."
3.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) not only on securing this debate and providing us with an opportunity to discuss the important role of community transport, but on the manner in which he introduced it. I know that there are concerns and that they are shared throughout parties and different levels of government in many areas, including Norfolk. I shall not dwell on much of what he has already said, but the Department appreciates that community and voluntary transport has a key role to play in all regions of the country, both urban and rural.
As an aside, I should say that the rigidity of the modernisation of the House should be examined. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is clearly a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs debate rather than a Department for Transport debate, but he could have secured a DEFRA Minister to respond only by losing this slot, because of the departmental timetable, and hoping and praying that he got another slot in September, October or the 12th of Never. That point may need to be considered.
Throughout Government, we understand that there are concerns. I should say that I shall render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, so I shall make no promises about chasing up matters that are properly DEFRA's, but ensure that colleagues in DEFRA get notice of the concerns from me as well as simply from reading Hansard.
The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the social exclusion unit report and the notion of transport as a key factor in overcoming social exclusion in both rural and urban areas. That is important not only for income, gender, race or disability—which are perhaps more relevant factors in urban areas—but for geographic isolation and all that follows from the rural infrastructure.
I shall come on to the specific issues in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about, in relative terms, a success story. A lot has happened
128WH
in recent years, and I commend and thank the many volunteers who work in community transport, as well as those who are employed by the schemes. The breadth of the community transport sector and its activities is important, but we must remember that services are disparate and often run at a local level. When focusing on some of the localised schemes, it is all too easy to lose sight of the sheer scale of the operation in the community transport arena.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Community Transport Association, which represents the majority of schemes throughout the country, estimates that there are some 5,000 schemes in the UK that between them are running some 60,000 minibuses. They do so with the help of a quarter of a million volunteers, and 10,000 full-time paid drivers. They deliver some 5 million trips for almost 2 million people with mobility problems. I do not say that to diminish the problems that the hon. Gentleman referred to concerning the Norfolk-specific schemes, but simply to put the matter into context. By any measure that is an impressive record, and the community transport sector should be very proud of it. It is perhaps all the more impressive when we consider that much of the activity is taking place in the voluntary sector.
We have heard today—and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he raised the matter—that the community and voluntary sector faces many challenges not least in funding, and I fully appreciate the difficulties to which uncertainty over future funding and the complexities of funding applications themselves can give rise. Any scheme will have at least one or two volunteers, if not an employee, simply looking for funding streams, and seeking to translate and fill in the relevant forms. For a small operation, simply pulling together all the information needed for a funding application can be a daunting and time-consuming task.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I associate myself with the speech math by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). One of the problems is that Norwich is seen as the centre of the universe in Norfolk. It is the cul-de-sac of the nation, and the many elderly people who gravitate into Norfolk—who will increasingly do so during the next few years—demand the right to transport such as buses or rail lines that were closed by Beeching, because they cannot drive cars.
Mr. McNulty: I would not dispute that point either, but the issue of sustainability is key to what the hon. Member for North Norfolk suggests. Having to repeat that time after time for different funders, and then repeating the same exercise, sometimes as soon as the following year, for continuation of that funding, could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Equally, however, we know that community and voluntary transport schemes do not give up easily. With their personal commitment to the people that they serve and their professionalism in providing transport services, they will do everything in their power to ensure that their schemes are able to continue. Indeed, that tenacity and dedication are what has led us to discuss these issues today.

129WH
As the hon. Gentleman said, concerns have been expressed about recent funding problems affecting the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership. The Countryside Agency administers the grant on behalf of DEFRA, not the DFT, and the overall level of funding allocated to the agency as a whole is ultimately the responsibility of DEFRA Ministers. Officials work closely with DEFRA and the Countryside Agency to ensure that the use of the RTP grant is consistent with, and adds value to, the Department's own rural transport programmes.
The RTP received a considerable increase in funding following the publication of the rural White Paper, as hon. Members will know. That includes many community transport enhancements, such as minibuses, and travel co-ordinators. I do not want to introduce a discordant note—I know that some people think that I regard it as my duty to introduce discord where there is consensus—but I do not think that articles such as the one entitled "Bus stops" in The Guardian today by the CTA are terribly helpful or add much to our deliberations on what sustainability is all about. The article is not terribly helpful—it is not terribly accurate—and the words
"Shaving 6 inches off one of the proposed new lanes of the M25 could probably have covered the costs."
are not terribly helpful or useful, either.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk knows that there was a moratorium on the RTP fund for a few weeks, but that has been resolved and £2 million extra has been found. He will also know that DEFRA will review the RTP grant scheme to build on its successes, not to cut it. The outcome of that review will be made available in October and will go through DEFRA's normal budgetary processes to determine future funding. As I have said, I shall ensure that DEFRA gets to learn of the specifics of the Norfolk schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He has kindly said that Norfolk county council has been a major beneficiary of our funding for rural bus services. In fact, Norfolk county council receives the single highest amount of rural bus challenge subsidy grant each year. It is currently over £2.3 million, and it supports 66 services in the county. That support reflects the rural nature of large parts of the county. Norfolk has also been allocated nearly £3 million for eight projects that were successful in the rural bus challenge.
We are studying the regulatory regime and the funding streams that are available because the Department for Transport considers that important. The community voluntary transport schemes are vital in the mix of transport provision. I accept that, in some of the most rural parts of Norfolk, the mix of transport provision is not a mix, but the community transport provision is relied on. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) may regard Norwich as the centre of the universe in terms of Norfolk, but he and others will know that, to all intents and purposes, London is the centre of the universe.
We want to do all that we can to ensure that the voluntary and community schemes thrive. As we have heard today, the funding issue is the key factor in determining how the sector can continue and develop
130WH
effectively. It is important that all those involved in funding, including national and local government as well as other funding providers, are fully aware of how their decisions can affect the future viability of community schemes. It is important that they can share their experiences, learn from others and develop their funding policies with the broadest understanding of the sector. I accept the important point about the sustainability of the projects.
In August, I shall be hosting a meeting of chief executives of voluntary organisations in the transport sector to discuss the Department's role in support of the voluntary sector, and many other issues. It will include discussion of our direct role as funders of services such as the Community Transport Association's advice service to which we give an annual grant—currently £100,000—as well as other issues that affect the voluntary sector.
Judy Mallaber: My hon. Friend will know that Derbyshire is at the heart of community transport. It was the area that lobbied for the fuel duty rebate to be extended to community transport services. He knows that, a short time ago, I hosted three seminars for the Community Transport Association about transport and social exclusion. In his discussions with transport organisations, will he take account of the points that arose in the seminars about which I shall give him details?
Mr. McNulty: I was about to reflect on that matter. In addition, officials will be setting up a meeting of the key funders of voluntary transport to discuss funding and what we can do to enable the community and voluntary sectors to develop to the benefit of the communities, both rural and urban, that they serve. I have not been told that I have been invited, but I will ensure that I am.
I was about to say, before my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) intervened, that she has asked me to meet a delegation of hon. Members and others about community transport, social exclusion and much of the work that has developed from the seminars to which she referred. I am happy to do so. I am equally happy either to broaden that meeting to include Norfolk Members, although on reflection, it is more likely that I will have a separate meeting with them about Norfolk—which includes Norwich, of course—to discuss specifically the micro and broader schemes. With hon. Members' indulgence, the meeting will not be held before the recess—as that would give us about 16 hours within which to fix it up.
The resolution of local issues might be better served collectively if the meeting were held after I have forewarned DEFRA about the issues that have been raised in the debate, after I have met the voluntary sectors in August to discuss what they are doing for community transport and after the forum or summit with the key funding bodies. There will then be something of substance to discuss in the meeting about the Norfolk schemes.
We are keenly aware throughout the Government, not only in DEFRA and the Department for Transport, that pump-priming and getting in place vital services is

131WH
one thing, but that we need to work with others to ensure that such matters are mainstream. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk that local transport programmes and local authorities should pick up such matters. I thank him again not just for instigating this debate, the subject of which is important, but for the tenor and the way in which he introduced it. I am grateful for that, and I will see you all in September or October.

Knowledge-Based Economy
4 pm
Jon Cruddas: I want to raise some issues concerning the demand for labour in the UK economy, which has some important implications for my constituents. I shall relate those to some of the assumptions made by Government policy makers about employment, education and skills, and then touch on some issues concerning labour market regulation.
To put it simply, it seems that much of the debate on public policy has been premised on specific assumptions and data sets concerning future demand for labour, which I think are more contentious than is sometimes assumed. Those assumptions centre on the notion of the new knowledge-based economy, which has been a dominant theme in Government thinking since 1997 and assumes that we are witnessing a profound change in the nature of work, fuelled by globalisation and the revolution in information and communications technologies. It offers a seductive political vision of the future in the development of so-called smart technologies and the new economy overtaking the so-called old economy with its more traditional patterns of work. The assumption is of rapid growth in scientific, technical, managerial and professional work and a corresponding decline in traditional forms of manual labour. Because of the liberating assumptions regarding new technology, Government emphasis is placed on supply-side strategy t o equip people for the new global revolution in work where market failure occurs.
There is a massive amount of literature about the new knowledge-based economy. During Labour's first term, that informed much of the thinking in the Department of Trade and Industry, culminating in a White Paper on the subject. It also seems to inform thinking within the Department for Education and Skills, and I want to examine some of those assumptions and tease out some of the thinking behind the Department's policies.
Ministerial speeches are littered with references to the knowledge-based economy. Much Government analysis seems to presume that future demand is almost entirely driven by high-wage, high-skilled, knowledge-driven labour and that is what I want to consider this afternoon. I want to consider what underpins some recent statements from Ministers. For example, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills stated this year:
"Demand for graduates is very strong, and research shows that 80 per cent. of the 1.7 million new jobs which are expected to be created by the end of the decade will be in occupations which normally recruit those with higher education qualifications."
During a recent debate in the House, the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education stated that the Institute for Employment Research showed that 1.7 million jobs will be created in this country between 1999 and 2010 and that nine out of 10 of those jobs will require higher education and graduate education.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, is that a correct reading of the research? The statistics come from "Skills in England 2001", and as far as I can see, the relevant quotation is on page 7 of that report, which states:

133WH
"This rapid growth in the numbers employed in a range of occupational groups where qualification levels are currently relatively high, combined with the decline of several occupational groupings where qualifications are relatively low, will lead to around 4 in 5 of the new jobs being at least at NVQ level 3, or equivalent, by the end of the decade."
Two pages later, it states:
"It is likely that around 8 out of 10 of all of the new jobs may well be at NVQ levels 3 or 4 or their equivalent."
I understand that NVQ level 5 relates to postgraduate degrees; NVQ level 4 relates to first degrees, teaching qualifications, nursing qualifications, HNC, HND and the RSA higher diploma; NVQ level 3 relates to 2 or more A-levels, the RSA advanced diploma, ONC, OND, national BTEC, City and Guilds advanced craft certificate, trade apprenticeship arid advanced GNVQ. It seems clear that ministerial statements that eight out of 10 new jobs require graduate qualifications is not quite the case, in that the 80 per cent. also covers the demand for labour for people with NVQ level 3 qualifications.
Table 3.5 of the research report. which was the basis for those recommendations, states that 55 per cent. of new jobs will require NVQ level 4 or higher by 2010, and not 80 per cent., the other 25 per cent. being the disaggregated figure relating to NVQ level 3 in terms of extra demand for labour. The ministerial statements do not refer to replacement labour demanded by 2010. What would the total demand for higher qualifications be as a percentage of actual jobs in the economy if we took on board replacement jobs as well as the figure for new jobs—1.7 million—by 2010? Again, to quote the "Skills in England" document, page 9 states:
"The volume of replacement demand that is likely to be required, and thus the relevant skills to go with them, may well be around 5 times as great as the volume of new jobs and the skills that go with them."
What happens when we combine that replacement labour with the expanded demand for new jobs? If they are added together—as shown in one of the tables in the report—the five growth categories in the English labour market by 2010 will be clerical and service-related elementary occupations, administrative and clerical occupations, sales occupations, caring personal service occupations—
4.6 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.21 pm
On resuming—
Jon Cruddas: To recap briefly, I was making a point about replacement labour, in addition to new jobs, by 2010. Once we take on board replacement demand, the top five growing occupations cover elementary occupations, administrative and clerical work, sales, caring and personal service occupations, and managers and proprietors in agriculture and services.
We need to take on board replacement labour and the fact that the estimates for new jobs also cover NVQ level 3. Page 79 of the research report states:
134WH
"By 2010, on the basis of a fixed qualification rate assumption, nearly 30 per cent. of those in employment are expected to be qualified to NVQ level 4/5 or equivalent"
So, we are not talking about 80 per cent. When the statistics are broken down further they show that, by 2010, the figure for those in employment required to be first degree graduates or postgraduates will be 22.1 per cent. That is to say, in terms of the demand for labour by 2010, 77.9 per cent. of jobs will not require a degree. That compares with the earlier assumption that about eight out of 10 jobs will require a degree.
All the data imply that growth is occurring at both ends of the labour market. I accept that there are growth areas in professional, associate professional and managerial work, but there are also growth areas in relation to routine, low-waged and low-skilled jobs, many of which are in the service sector and which include work in care homes, sales, cleaning and security, and routine clerical work.
That suggests a growing US-style polarisation between a primary and secondary labour market, both of which are expanding. The primary labour market will cover some 21 per cent. of all jobs by 2010. If there is 50 per cent. participation in higher education, by 2010 two graduates will be after every one job in that primary labour market. Does that mean that graduates—many with significant debts—will have to move further down the labour market? That would shut off opportunities for those with fewer qualifications. How do people without a degree break into an over-subscribed primary labour market? What are the training and education options on offer for that group?
It is interesting to compare the statistics that I mentioned with those for the United States. US Federal Government projections of labour market demand in 2010 suggest that no more than 21.8 per cent. of the entire work force will need a degree or a higher qualification, which is very close to the 22.1 per cent. estimate for this country. It should also be remembered that a US bachelor's degree is probably equivalent to our HND or foundation degree.
The US is often seen as a seductive model in Government policy-making circles and as the classic model of the new, knowledge-based economy. Further Federal Government research indeed states that three of the 10 fastest-growing occupational classifications by 2010 will be at the cutting edge of the new economy: computer software engineers requiring bachelor's degrees, and registered nurses and computer support specialists also requiring associate degrees. However, seven of the 10 fastest-growing occupations in the USA by 2010 will require only short-term or moderate on-the-job training: fast-food workers, retail workers, clerks, security guards, waitresses, cashiers, office clerks and the like. Put simply, the knowledge-based economy will not be on the horizon for huge and expanding sectors of the US labour market by 2010.
In the United Kingdom and the US the knowledge-based economy relates to about 21 per cent. of jobs, and it is a much more segmented labour market than one would otherwise assume. The majority of people are excluded from it and they operate in more traditional yet expanding labour markets. That is confirmed by data, rather than projected demand, on the fastest-growing occupations since 1992. In terms of absolute employment growth since 1992, the fastest-growing

135WH
occupations have been, first, in the four long-established services of sales assistants, data input clerks, storekeepers and receptionists, secondly in state-dominated health and education services, and thirdly in the caring occupations: care assistants, welfare and community workers, nursery nurses and so on.
In short, in terms of the demand for labour in the past 10 years, employment growth has been concentrated in occupations scarcely at the cutting edge of the new economy. For example, the fastest-growing occupation in the past 10 years has been hairdressing, and until 2010, the demand for labour in the knowledge-based economy will be in a small minority of very highly paid jobs for those who are highly trained. At the same time, the real growth—and much future growth—is in low-paid, routine and unskilled employment in occupations that have been pre-eminent for more than 50 years.
I want to consider the framework that underscores some public policy. First, there is the spatial dimension. The Department of Trade and Industry report, "A Regional Perspective on the Knowledge-Driven Economy" shows the enormous disparities in prospects for workers in different geographical locations. The conclusion, which will be no surprise to many people, is that the poorer the community that people live in, the less likely they are to plug into the new, high-wage world of work, and the greater the likelihood of their participating in the growing low-wage, low-skilled economy. Put simply, it is more difficult for my constituents in Dagenham on the east side of London to plug into the changes than for those in Westminster and Chelsea.
My second point, of which the Minister is aware, concerns the very low in-work demands being made on people's basic literacy and numeracy skills in much of the labour market. For example, the massive adult literacy survey of employees in Scotland provides some shocking statistics, and there is no reason to suppose that the figures for the rest of the UK are any different. A sizeable proportion of the Scottish work force are currently in jobs that demand virtually no reading or writing skills. The figures for reading skills are that 34 per cent. rarely or never use information from computers; 26 per cent. rarely or never use letters or memos; 35 per cent. rarely or never use bills, invoices or spreadsheets; and 53 per cent. rarely or never use manuals, reference books and catalogues.
The findings on writing skills are even more shocking: 37 per cent. rarely or never write or fill out letters or memos; 42 per cent. rarely or never write or fill out forms, bills, budgets or invoices; and 51 per cent. rarely or never write reports or articles. Given the demand for labour, there are some uncomfortable questions to be asked about what is achieved by offering adults in those jobs adult literacy training on the supply side without reform on the demand side. A more interventionist role is needed to consider the nature of the jobs being done and the needs of people who do them.
Thirdly, I want to speak about the DFES assumptions about the wage premiums that result from some of the qualifications. The DFES assumes that five good GCSE results produce a financial return of about 20 per cent. to the individual; NVQ level 2, which is what the employer training pilots offer, produces a rate of return that is so low it is not significant, reinforcing the argument that in a huge segment of the labour market,
136WH
employers are not necessarily looking for employees with even basic literacy and numeracy skills, which is truly shocking for our economy's productive capacity.
I raise all of the above in order to chuck out a few points and obtain so me responses. First, what are the assumptions of the future demands for labour requiring a degree by 2010? Secondly, will the Department accept that here, as in the USA, virtually 80 per cent. of jobs in 2010 will not require a degree, contrary to some of the inferences surrounding the public policy debates that are about to begin? Thirdly, what can be achieved by offering to adults publicly funded vocational education and training to level 2? How will that influence the broader issue of productivity movement? Is the strategy of incentivising training on the supply side workable without changing the nature of the demand for labour? Does the Government's in-work benefits regime reinforce and reincentivise low-wage, low-skilled jobs rather than reform them? How can a voluntary strategy operate without our seeking to regularise those low-wage, low-skilled labour markets more thoroughly, so that it will reincentivise investment in people and technology by choking off the low-wage, low-skilled options for employers?
Overall, is it not the case that the preconditions based on a stylised view, of the world—the so-called knowledge-based economy?—distract us from the real problems around the current and future demand for labour? We should prioritise a more interventionist agenda for those growing low-wage, low-skill labour markets, and seek to alter the demand for cheap, unskilled labour, rather than seeing our labour market problems as market failure on the supply side. That implies regulation, which boosts productivity, rather than deregulation, which reinforces our low-wage, low-skilled productivity capacity.
4.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) on securing the debate. It is an important debate and he raises several significant issues.
The White Paper on skills, "Realising Our Potential", which was launched last week, addresses some of my hon. Friend's concerns about how we prioritise lower-level skills in the same way as higher-level skills. We must be conscious not only of the economic arguments but the social inclusion arguments. People with low-level skills become parents and their attitude towards education often influences the educational potential and aspirations of their children. It is misleading to argue that higher-level or lower-level skills are more important. We need a rounded approach that tackles the fact that by 2010 there will be more jobs requiring higher-level skills. We have a responsibility to recognise that we must increase the number of people who can access adult literacy and numeracy skills and level 2 qualifications.
We should not apologise for our commitment to ensure that approximately 50 per cent. of young people experience higher education by 2010. We also aspire to ensure that by 2010 90 per cent. of young people have qualifications and skills that help them to access skilled employment. It is also important to mention that

137WH
foundation degrees, to which we have made a commitment, such as HNDs—my hon. Friend referred to them—have always been classed as higher education. They provide the skills that our economy needs. Some people claim that foundation degrees represent a dumbing down. High-quality courses such as foundation degrees ensure that our graduates fit the needs of the economy far more than they have in the past, and that we have an appropriate mix of academic skills and work-based skills.
My hon. Friend raised several statistical questions. It is important to recognise that currently in the UK we have relatively low qualification levels compared with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: 17 per cent. of the UK labour force is educated to degree level, compared with 28 per cent. in the United States. Of the 2.1 million additional jobs expected to be created by the end of the decade, 80 per cent. will be in occupations that normally recruit those with higher educational qualifications. It is accurate to say that a knowledge economy requires that more young people get up to degree level and we are able to ensure that our competitiveness and productivity are where they need to be in a global economy.
It is also right that we continue to stimulate demand for lower-level skills, which we know will be a major challenge. We must ensure that far more people leave the compulsory education system with at least basic decent qualifications than has historically been the case—various policies should lead to that—but we must also ensure that those people who are at present in the labour market or who are about to enter it also have opportunities throughout their lives to upskill and reskill.
My hon. Friend discussed the need for an approach to skills that is sensitive to individual sectoral and regional labour market priorities and requirements. The proposals that we announced in the White Paper only last week were a real attempt to move away from a "one size fits all" national approach.
The White Paper set out several key principles. We need greater clarity about the rights and responsibilities of key stakeholders, particularly the state, employers and individuals. We need a system of education and training with greater transparency and simplicity for its users, whether individuals or employers, and one that is far more responsive to their needs. Finally, we need a far more sophisticated system that cart respond to the needs of regions and sectors.
Some of the key reforms that were included in the White Paper directly address some of my hon. Friend's concerns about the balance of priorities and investment of public resources. We announced a new universal entitlement to free learning, including advice and guidance for a first level 2 qualification—a very important step forward. We also said that in cases of proven market failure, whether regional or sectoral, the level 2 commitment would be extended to level 3. We said that we would make available a weekly maintenance allowance to support young people, particularly post-19 students, who want to participate in full-time further education vocational courses.
138WH
In addition, we designated information and communications technology as the third essential skill for life alongside literacy and numeracy. My hon. Friend said that 7 million adults in this country lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, but we have made significant progress on that problem. By 2004, 750,000 people who do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills will have them, and we expect that figure to increase to 1.5 million by 2007. By designating ICT as an essential skill alongside literacy and numeracy, we acknowledge that it is not a luxury but an essential requirement for employability and social inclusion in the modern world.
The White Paper also reiterated the Government's commitment to the expansion and development of modern apprenticeships. People say that it is a shame that we no longer have apprenticeships in this country, but in fact some 234,000 young people are participating in modern apprenticeships. We expect 28 per cent. of young people to be undertaking some form of modern apprenticeship by 2004. It is vital, in terms of stimulating demand, to reform the adult information and guidance services.
We also announced in the White Paper the introduction of the sector skills council project to replace national training organisations. By next year, some 90 per cent. of the work force in the public and private sectors will be covered by sector skills councils. That should ensure that decisions about education and training strongly reflect the needs of particular sectors. We want the sector skills councils to be more effective, more employer-led and more strategic, and to have better labour market information than the national training organisations ever did.
The White Paper also proposes sector agreements. If sectors can make specific agreed proposals about how they will meet their labour market requirements, the Government will facilitate the implementation of the agreements over a period. The White Paper also contains the announcement of the employer training pilots to which my hon. Friend referred. We said that we would use the lessons of the successful pilots to inform the development of a national employer training scheme aimed particularly at those who are employed in small and medium-sized enterprises and do not have access to the necessary training.
We have also committed ourselves to a new employer-friendly qualification framework, which will support unitisation of qualifications and credit transfer. Modern apprenticeship is not the province of young people alone; we have committed ourselves to lifting the age cap so that there is no artificial cut-off at 25. That is particularly relevant for those who reskill or upskill and need access to apprenticeship later in life. We are committed to ensuring that, in every region, our approach to skills is far more holistic than it has been. By bringing together the regional development agencies, the local learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus and Business Link we shall be in a better position to stimulate demand than we have been.
One of the reasons for the White Paper is the fact that the skills delivery agencies are fragmented. Lots of organisations wish to make contact with business and to stimulate demand from both business and individuals, yet until now we have not had an effective, strong and cohesive approach. For the first time, we also have a

139WH
commitment at national level to a social partnership that will drive forward the skills agenda. The TUC, the CBI and the Small Business Council are working with key Departments to give the same messages and to ensure that we achieve the step change that is needed on skills. That is an important development; for the first time, we have a national structure that brings together all the organisations charged with delivering on the skills agenda in an effective way.
All of that should demonstrate to my hon. Friend that our passion about basic skills and level 2 qualifications equals our commitment to higher education. Our objective should be to ensure that we create a compulsory education system in which far more young people stay on and progress—some of them into higher education via the conventional means or perhaps via a modern apprenticeship, and others via a high-quality vocational route into a modern apprenticeship. The curse of the education system, which we cannot afford to ignore, is the fact that too many young people drop out and blight their life chances.
140WH
We have to create more ways for young people to progress, develop and achieve within the compulsory education system. We also have to make lifelong learning a possibility for those who are already in the labour market or close to it. In order to do that, we must take a smarter approach. We must have clear national priorities in relation to basic skills and level 2 qualifications, but we must also have a system that is sufficiently responsive to the needs of regions and sectors.
I hope that I have demonstrated that our approach is more sophisticated than is sometimes articulated. We are as passionate about people who are not going to go into higher education as we are about those who are. Both are essential if we are to create a society that is both fair and economically successful. We must continue to raise the standards in our compulsory education system, but we also need to raise our game in a significant way when it comes to adults who are already in the work force and those who are close to the labour market.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 745W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122988]

  John Healey
  All departments are aware of the new Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work (CAW) regulations 2002 and will be fully compliant by the required date of 21 May 2004. Information on buildings identified as containing asbestos has been placed in the Library of the House

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British overseas territories. [123992]

  John Healey
  Together with FCO and Inland Revenue, HM Treasury seeks to ensure that the regulation of the financial services sector in the Caribbean overseas territories, Bermuda and Gibraltar is maintained to the highest international standards, and that these territories comply with international standards of fiscal transparency.

  Environmental Taxes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the revenue received by the Government from taxes paid by different modes of transport that are designed to have an environmental impact(a) as a proportion of total UK environmental tax revenue and (b) in relation to the contribution made to UK GDP by each transport mode. [124766]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor considers a range of relevant economic, social and environmental factors when deciding all taxation policy. Determining a definition of what is an environment tax is therefore difficult as: some taxes have been specifically designed to help achieve environmental goals, such as the aggregates levy, landfill tax and the climate change levy; some have been restructured to reflect environmental impacts, such as fuel duty differentials, company car tax and reforms to capital allowances to provide tax incentives for environmentally-friendly technologies; and some taxes were introduced for non-environmental reasons, but can have some environmental impact—for example, air passenger duty.
  302W
  A number of these environmental taxes, such as landfill tax, climate change levy and aggregates levy, were introduced alongside offsetting tax cuts and recycling of revenue into environmental spending programmes, making them broadly revenue neutral.

  This Government has also demonstrated a commitment to using alternatives to taxation to protect and improve the environment, for example tradeable permit schemes as well as regulation and spending programmes.

  A modern economy could not function properly without an effective transport system. Figures are not readily available disaggregating the contribution of transport to the economy into different transport modes.

  In addition, many of the outputs of transport, such as the benefits from journeys by car, are not fully captured in national measures of UK GDP. The table below sets out revenues from the main taxes with a strong environmental dimension in 2002–03.

  Other environmental taxes

  £

  Climate Change Levy

  0.9 billion

  Landfill Tax

  0.7 billion

  Aggregates Levy

  0.3 billion

  Fuel Duties

  Ultra low sulphur petrol

  12.7 billion

  Ultra low sulphur diesel

  9.2 billion

  Road gases:

  8.0 million

  Biodiesel

  0.9 million

  Vehicle excise duties

  Cars

  4.2 billion

  Lorries

  0.28 billion

  Buses

  29 million

  Company car tax

  3.6 billion

  Euro
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126682]

  (2) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126676]

  (3) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126677]

  (4) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126678]

  (5) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126679]

  (6) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126680]

  (7) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro; [126681]

  (8) what steps he will be taking before December to campaign for British membership of the euro. [126683]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,
  303W
  Official Report, column 459W, which stated that Ministers will be holding a series of meetings around the country, campaigning for a pro-European consensus.

  Household Debt
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average(a) household debt per annum and (b) household monthly income in each year since 1997. [125834]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Cable dated 16 July 2003
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on average household debt and household income. (125834)
  The information requested is shown in the table below. The households' financial liabilities and households' gross disposable income series used in the calculations are national accounts series for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors. The accounts for the household and NPISH sectors are currently combined separate estimates are not available.

  Average household debt per annum and monthly household income for each year since 1997

  £000

  Average household debt during year1

  Average household income per month2

  1997

  24,500

  1,950

  1998

  26,000

  2,000

  1999

  28,000

  2,100

  2000

  30,500

  2,200

  2001

  33,500

  2,350

  2002

  37,500

  2,400

  Notes:

  1 Rounded to nearest £500.

  2 Rounded to nearest £50.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department is undertaking on the possible effects of an increase in income tax. [125044]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have committed themselves not to increase the basic or top rates of income tax within the lifetime of this Parliament. Policies on income tax rates and allowances are set out in the Budget and Pre-Budget reports, which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 933W, on income tax, what factors underlay his conclusion that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. [125398]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost because nearly 2,000 pieces of information have been requested (increasing the basic rate limit to seven different levels, and for each limit, introducing 13 additional higher income tax rates for 20 annual gross income levels). The sum of these requests would require a separate analysis that would exceed the rate for reasonable cost.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the statistics on the Inland Revenue regarding approved pension schemes, available at: http:// www. inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats/pension s/p_t091_htm, which of the figures are based on(a) administrative data and (b) information compiled by the Office for National Statistics. [125410]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures in the table are compiled from a number of different sources. Inland Revenue estimates of average marginal rates of income tax are used with ONS data on occupational pension contributions (net of estimated transfers, refunds and surrenders compiled from FSA and ABI data); investment income; lump sum payments; and pensions in payment. All other components of the table are Inland Revenue estimates based primarily on administrative data.

  Unemployment (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of his policies on unemployment levels within the London borough of Wandsworth during the last 12 months. [126175]

  John Healey
  In Wandsworth, as in the rest of the UK, the Government's policies to deliver a sound and credible platform of economic stability and to improve labour market performance are helping to achieve our long-term goal of employment opportunity for all. As a result, the claimant count in Wandsworth is down by 44 per cent. on its 1997 level.

  Recognising the importance of worklessness as a constraint on the economy, the Government have made a particular commitment to help those excluded from the labour force back into employment. The Government's new deal policies have helped almost 900 long-term unemployed aged 25 and over in Wandsworth over the last 12 months to gain new skills and experience. This, in combination with our other policies, has helped to reduce both youth and long-term claimant count unemployment in Wandsworth by over 20 per cent. in the last year and by over 60 per cent. since 1997.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the proportion of drivers who avoid paying car tax. [126057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A national roadside survey June 2002 showed that some 1.75 million vehicles were evading vehicle excise duty (VED). There are currently over 30 million registered vehicles.

  The survey indicated the loss of revenue from evasion at some 4.5 per cent. of that due. This equates to £193 million in 2002–03. This loss was offset by £110 million in fines, penalties and relicensing revenue through enforcement action, brought against 820,000 offenders.
  305W
  A further range of measures were announced on 22 May to modernise the vehicle registration system. These are designed to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register, help local authorities tackle abandoned vehicles, reduce VED evasion and vehicle crime generally.

  Armed Aircraft Marshals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether armed marshals are being deployed on British aircraft; and what information is being given to the captain of the aircraft. [126054]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend announced on 19 December the development of a capability to place covert armed police on UK registered aircraft, where warranted. For reasons of security, no information about this capability—for example the number of officers involved in the programme, the scale of their deployment, or the nature of their interface with aircraft crew—is made public.

  Birmingham Airport
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of postponing the widening of the M42 on Government proposals for a second runway at Birmingham Airport. [126401]

  Mr. McNulty
  The recent announcements on the roads strategy and West Midlands Multi Modal Study could not take account of any future airport expansion as no decisions have yet been made. However, we announced that between Junctions 3–7 of the M42, Active Traffic Management measures would be trialled from 2004, which would provide additional capacity at peak times on this stretch of the network, and the case for widening would be reviewed in the light of these trials.

  If the Air Transport White Paper were to favour a second runway at Birmingham airport then the major surface access enhancements required to accommodate the associated growth will also need to be identified and reflected in the 10 Year Plan for Transport.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air passengers used(a) UK airports and (b) Birmingham International Airport in (i) August and (ii) September in each year from 2000 to 2002. [126454]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is as follows:

  Thousands

  Birmingham

  UK

  2000

  August

  820.6

  18,866.5

  September

  835.4

  18,013.2

  2001

  August

  867.6

  19,659.5

  september

  827.0

  17,480.9

  2002

  August

  882.5

  20,165.0

  september

  858.3

  18,680.0

  Source:

  Civil Aviation Authority
  306W
  Mr. John Taylor
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the numbers of passengers using(a) UK airports and (b) Birmingham International Airport in (i) August and (ii) September in each year from 2003 to 2030. [126455]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department's air traffic forecasts provide annual figures rather than month-by-month projections. The key forecasts for 2015 and 2030 under two scenarios are in the following table, as contained in the consultation document. The RASCO figures include the assumption that significant new capacity is provided in the south-east: SEC assumes no new capacity is provided in the south-east above that already approved through the planning system. All figures are in million passengers per annum (mppa).

  mppa

  Birmingham

  RASCO 2015

  16–19

  RASCO 2030

  28–38

  SEC 2015

  18

  SEC 2030

  41

  The national forecast range for 2030 is 400–601 mppa from a base in 2000 of 180 mppa.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123993]

  Mr. McNulty
  While the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has general responsibility for the overseas territories, this Department takes the lead on international transport issues.

  The Secretary of State is responsible for:
  the general superintendence of all matters relating to merchant shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes ships registered under the law of an overseas territory;
  ensuring that overseas territories implement the IMO International Ship and Port Facility Security Code;
  ensuring that the overseas territories implement international standards relating to Aviation safety and security;
  issuing permits to foreign airlines wishing to operate scheduled or programmed charter services to or from the overseas territories;
  negotiations on EC legislative proposals on transport matters which will apply in Gibraltar.

  My Department provides advice and assistance to the overseas territories regarding these and related issues on an ongoing basis.

  European Roads Project
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Department's involvement in the Managing Speeds of Traffic on European Roads project. [126263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The MASTER project was part of the EU Fourth Framework Programme of research. It was a collaborative project part funded by the European Commission with a numberof European and UK partners. It was completed at the end of 1998. The Department provided financial support to the
  307W
  Transport Research Laboratory that enabled its participation in the project and sharing experience with the other partners

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the performance statistics are for each London Underground line for the last year, broken down by London Underground's monthly units, for(a) track, (b) signals and (c) trains; and what the (i) lost customer hours and (ii) excess journey times were for each monthly unit. [125768]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who have provided the information requested. However, it is very detailed and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Road Speeds
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 27W; if he will place in the Library the assessment his Department has made of the environmental impact of increasing motorway speed limits to 80 miles per hour. [126495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  New Directions in Speed Management—A Review of Policy, published in March 2000 and available in the Libraries of the House, provides information on the environmental impact of increased speeds on all roads. This information was included in the internal review and helped support the Department's conclusion that the current motorway speed limit should be retained.

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with airline companies to discuss the performance of the National Air Traffic Services. [126488]

  Mr. McNulty
  There have been no such meetings recently. National Air Traffic Services Ltd. is a private sector body. I would expect airlines to address themselves in the first instance to the company itself or to its regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what pollutants, broken down by volume, are emitted by(a) an average 2003 saloon car with a petrol engine travelling with average fuel consumption, (b) a 10-year-old double-decker service bus, (c) a diesel multiple unit train and (d) bendy-buses. [125762]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The emissions of some of the key pollutants (carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter) from the vehicles in question are shown in tabular form below. The data is from the 2001 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory.
  308W

  Grammes per vehicle km

  CO2

  NOx

  PM10

  2003 urban car (petrol)

  155

  0.14

  0.001

  1993 urban bus

  1003

  10.93

  0.528

  Average DMU train

  1712

  22.06

  0.122

  Bendy bus

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The car emissions are average figures for Euro III petrol vehicles operating at an urban speed. The bus emissions are average figures for Euro I vehicles also at an urban speed. It should be noted, however, that in practice many 10-year-old buses have been retrofitted with newer engines meeting tighter (ie Euro II or Euro III) emissions limits, or with pollution reducing equipment such as particulate traps. In these cases, emissions of NOx and PM10 would be much lower. Specific data for a bendy-bus is not currently available: much would depend on the age of the bus and the emissions standards it was required to meet at the time of purchase. The train emissions are average figures for diesel multiple unit trains used on regional networks. The majority of commuting by train is in London and the South East, where most of the trains are electric and so have zero local emissions. A full environmental comparison would need to incorporate occupancy figures but comparative data per passenger km is not available in the form requested.

  Highway Maintenance (Ragwort)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contractual arrangements exist for the clearing of ragwort from highway land along the A36 (T) and the A303 (T) in the Salisbury constituency; and what the cost was in(a) the last financial year and (b) this financial year to date. [125651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency manages the control of injurious weeds on the A36 and the A303 through its Area 2 Maintaining Agent (Atkins) and Term Maintenance Contractor (Raynesway Construction Southern). Under the terms of the arrangements, the Agent has a duty to manage the grassed and landscaped areas within Highways Agency land adjacent to the highway in compliance with the Trunk Road Maintenance Manual. In this Manual, Volume 2 Chapter 1.10 Section(b) 'Nuisance' states that the Highways Agency aims to take a proactive approach to the control of injurious weeds, such as ragwort, as defined in the Weeds Act 1959. Priority is given to the control of ragwort on highway land which is adjacent to or near agricultural or grazing land.

  The costs shown below have been calculated by proportioning the spend on the A36 and A303 routes as a whole to the lengths encompassed by the Salisbury constituency.
  The cost of clearing ragwort in the 2002–03 financial year was £19,500.
  The cost for clearing ragwort this financial year is £1,750 to date.

  Road Haulage Companies
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign road haulage companies have been prosecuted for failure to comply with
  309W
  (a) traffic and (b) road worthiness regulations in the UK in each of the last five years; and what the country of origin was in each case. [125541]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of prosecuted traffic and roadworthiness offences committed by foreign drivers and operators since 2000 is as follows:

  2000–49

  2001–33

  2002–26

  Nationality

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Handling agent based in UK

  36

  18

  9

  Germany

  6

  6

  10

  Republic of Ireland

  0

  0

  2

  Netherlands

  4

  4

  5

  Belgium

  1

  3

  0

  Poland

  2

  2

  0

  Data prior to 2000 is not currently available.

  Road Safety Strategy
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) timetable and (b) scope are of the Government's review of the Road Safety Strategy; and who will be conducting the review. [126257]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The main objective of the review is to provide a realistic evaluation of progress on delivery of the Road Safety Strategy towards meeting the Government's 2010 casualty reduction targets. The review will therefore focus on implementation of the original strategy launched in March 2000 taking into account latest casualty trends, but will also assess new initiatives, problems or constraints that have emerged.

  The review is being conducted by the Department, in consultation with the Road Safety Advisory Panel and with many of the individual partners, both within and outside Government, who play an active role in delivering the Strategy. The aim is to complete the review in spring 2004.

  School Buses
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many school buses have been brought into service since 1997. [125202]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected.

  Statutory home to school transport in England is arranged by local education authorities. They may provide passes for eligible pupils to use on scheduled bus services, or negotiate contracts for dedicated bus services with bus operators.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many new 310W
  entrants to the Civil Service were employed in her Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119828]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 657W.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what policies(a) initiated and (b) managed by her Department since 2001 have had an impact on Pendle; and if she will make a statement. [124097]

  Alun Michael
  Nationally, £1.6 billion of England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) funding is available to farmers from 2000 to 2006 for environmental protection and improvement, and rural development.

  All ERDP schemes, except one, are available in Pendle since 2001 and are shown as follows:

  Land-based schemes

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme;

  Energy Crops Scheme;

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme;

  Hill Farm Allowance;

  Organic Farming Scheme; and

  Woodland Grant Scheme.

  Project-Based schemes

  Processing and Marketing Grant;

  Rural Enterprise Scheme; and

  Vocational Training Scheme.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on drinking water quality in England since 1993. [125652]

  Mr. Morley
  Standards of public drinking water supplies have improved year on year since the Drinking Water Inspectorate was set up in 1990. The Chief Inspector's Annual Report published on 9 July 2003 reveals that 99.87 per cent. of more than 2.9 million tests carried out in England and Wales during 2002 met all the national and EU drinking water quality standards. 10 years ago nearly 37,000 tests failed to meet these standards. Last year, that number was_ just 3,741. A copy of the Report is available in the House Library.

  Equine Welfare
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent meetings she has held with the British Horse Society on equine welfare. [125998]

  Alun Michael
  I have frequent and productive discussions with the British Horse Society to discuss horse issues and we also meet in the Rural Affairs Forum for England (of which the Chief Executive of the Society is a member). Officials in the Horse Industry Team and in other parts of my Department have
  311W
  frequent meetings with the Society and value their practical help and expert advice on welfare and other issues.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110301]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The EU Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states

  The Committee has met twice since January 2002, on 29 January 2002 and on 24 February 2003. The agenda items it considered at these meetings were:
  Exchange of views on a Commission proposal for a new Council Regulation on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture (29 January 2002);
  Report on the state of projects funded under Council Regulation 1467/94 (29 January 2002 and 24 February 2003);
  Exchange of views on a Commission working document on a revised proposal for a new Council Regulation on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture (24 February 2003).

  No decisions were taken at these meetings.

  Decisions of EU Comitology Committees are not routinely deposited for scrutiny under established scrutiny procedures. Together with member states, the Commission has been conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of Comitology Committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/ EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  The Working Group on the Friends of Comitology is meeting later this month to discuss proposals for interim reform. As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the Committee. The second report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003 ref 5060/03, COM(03)733. As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every Comitology Committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on conservation of wild birds (ORNIS), the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items 312W
  it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110491]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The ORNIS Committee (the Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on conservation of wild birds) does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states. UK representation usually consists of one official from my Department, together with a scientific adviser from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Officials from the devolved administrations sometimes also attend meetings.

  Since January 2002 the ORNIS Committee has met twice, on 14 June 2002 and 26 June 2003. The main agenda items considered were:
  Commission's Sustainable Hunting Initiative: The Commission presented its draft guidance document on interpretation of the Birds Directive. Member states were asked for comments and corrections on the draft guidance and on scientific data. The updated guidance document was made at the last meeting, pending further consideration of a key chapter.
  Article 4 (Special Protection Areas): Member states provided updates on completing the Special Protection Area network and were updated by the Commission on progress regarding action plans for Annex I species.
  Update on EU enlargement preparations: Update from the Commission, including agreement that accession countries could attend future meetings as observers and that future Annexes to the Directive should comprise scientific names only (given the difficulty of including common names in the increasing numbers of languages). Timeframes for implementation of the directive as well as monitoring and peer review exercise for Accession countries.
  Other information points, including reporting by member states under Article 9 and 12 of the directive, seminar on management of the cormorant, information systems for NATURA 2000 and collaboration with the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA). The UK also highlighted recent work in relation to the Ruddy Duck and sought supportive action in other member states.

  The ORNIS Committee is a Comitology Committee and its agendas covered normal business and ongoing work programmes. Meetings did not involve regulatory or substantive decisions, and therefore no specific arrangements were made to inform Parliament. Ministers receive regular briefing. Together with member states, the Commission has been conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of Comitology Committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The Working Group on the Friends of Comitology is meeting later this month to discuss proposals for interim reform.

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the Committee. The second report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003 ref 5060/03, COM(03)733.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every Comitology Committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.
  313W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110296]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The committee on the conservation of natural resources and of wild fauna and flora does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states.

  Since January 2002 there have been three committee meetings, on 14 March 2002, 20 November 2002 and 10 March 2003. In this period the agenda items included:
  The future participation of accession countries in the committee and related working Groups—agreed to permit access countries to the committee and groups as observers.
  Green week.*
  Marine issues and Marine Working Group—agreed to establish group with terms of reference to establish site selection and management criteria for sites beyond territorial waters.
  A Swedish proposal on the introduction of fungi species into the Appendix I of the Bern Convention.*
  Establishment of Natura 2000 network.*
  Application of Article 8 and Financing of Natura 2000—establishment of working group with terms of reference to estimate overall cost of managing the Natura 2000 network.
  Article 12 and Article 12 Working Group—establishment of group to consider generic species management measures and relevant definitions.
  Art. 17 and 16—reporting.*
  Estuaries—agreement to a definition of boundaries.
  Proposed Directive on Environmental Liability and its link to Natura 2000.*
  GIS: state of play concerning data submission.*
  Access to information.*
  Access to sensitive data—agreement to withhold data on particularly sensitive plants locations from websites/public domain.
  Life Nature restoration projects and commitments for designation.*
  Projects to co-finance under Life Nature (2002)—support for Commission proposals for co-funding of projects under the Life-Nature Regulation 1655/2000 agreed in 2002.
  Projects to co-finance under Life Nature (2003)—support for Commission proposals for co-funding of projects under the Life-Nature Regulation 1655/2000 agreed in 2003.
  Monitoring.*
  Large Carnivores.*
  Communication issues.*
  Nature Directors' Meetings.*

  Decisions taken against each item have been listed. Those items marked with a * were presented for information only.

  Decisions made by the Comitology committees are not routinely deposited for scrutiny under established scrutiny procedures, unless they are politically significant.
  314W
  Together with Member States, the Commission has been conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of Comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The Working Group on the Friends of Comitology is meeting later this month to discuss proposals for interim reform.

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committee. The second report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003 ref 5060/03, COM(03)733.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every Comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures will be put in place for removing fallen stock from farms. [124878]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are currently considering whether a national scheme for fallen stock is viable and will be making an announcement about this shortly.

  In the meantime, the Fallen Stock helpline on 0845 8507070 can give advice to farmers on collection services in their area to enable them to dispose of their fallen stock now.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many responses to the questionnaire on the proposed National Fallen Stock Disposal Scheme were(a) in favour and (b) against; in what publications the deadline estimates of 7 and 28 May were notified; how individual farmers with more than one livestock holding were notified that they could cast a vote for each holding; how many eligible farmers and livestock holdings there are; how those not voting were classified; and on what basis the 50 per cent. threshold was set. [R] [124865]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A total of 105,404 letters were sent to livestock holdings on which we had information that livestock were present from their latest census return. By 30 May we had received 36,249 responses from farmers in England to the questionnaire, of which 32,489 expressed an interest in joining the scheme, 1,833 stated that they were not interested due to cost, and 1,927 stated they would be making other arrangements. No reply was received to 69,155 letters. These numbers exclude responses where farmers said they no longer had livestock or where the letter was returned by the Post Office as gone away.

  The letter made clear that the proposed scheme was on a payment per holding basis. Complete information on the number of eligible farmers (some of whom may have more than one holding) is not available. However, we have made some estimates where we have information about farmers with multiple holdings who

  315W
  only sent one reply. Where such a reply expressed an interest in joining the scheme we have adjusted the figures to show other holdings owned by the same farmer to a 'yes' response. This increases the 'yes' figure from 32,489 to 33,864.

  The deadlines for responses were published in Defra News Releases, News releases issued by the NFU, adverts were placed in the farming press and a number of news items publicising the deadlines also appeared in the farming press.

  The 50 per cent. threshold was set on the basis of estimates about the funds that this level of participation in a scheme would raise and which, when taken with the government contribution, would allow the scheme to operate in a way that was financially viable.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the issue of farm subsidies within the world trade negotiations in Mexico. [124821]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government considers it vital that WTO members deliver on the Doha commitment to fundamental reform of agricultural subsidies. The EU's decision last month to reform the Common Agricultural Policy is a major step toward achieving this objective and we urge our trading partners to be prepared to respond in the most positive manner so that a successful outcome can be negotiated at the ministerial meeting in Mexico.

  Hunting with Dogs
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the police over the implementation of a possible ban on hunting with dogs. [125139]

  Alun Michael
  During the period of consultation announced in my statement to the House of Commons on 21 March 2001 and subsequently during the preparation of the proposals set out in the Hunting Bill I discussed the issues with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. I also discussed my proposals with a number of individual senior police officers. Immediately after the discussions of the House on 30 June I had a further discussion with Mr. Alistair McWhirter who is rural policy spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers and I spoke to him again when it became clear that his views and those of ACPO had been misrepresented in some Press and Media reports.

  During the debate on 9 July, Official Report, column 1281, I spelt out for the House the legislative and policing implications of the amendments to the Bill in terms that had been agreed with Mr. McWhirter and the ACPO as well as the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Ministerial Colleagues at the Home Office.

  Information Technology
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what major IT 316W
  projects with a value in excess of £10,000 she authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125724]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was established as a new Department in June 2001. A table showing the major authorised IT projects with a total project cost exceeding £10,000 undertaken since that date, has been placed in the Library of the House. The word `authorised' has been interpreted to mean having an approved business case. Information provided relates to the core Department only.

  Landfill
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will take to ensure that the provisions of the Landfill Directive to ban the disposal of whole tyres in landfill sites from 16 July 2003 are enforced by the Environment Agency; and if she will make a statement. [125150]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is well aware of its regulatory and enforcement responsibilities in this and other environmental areas and will carry these out to the best of its ability.

  Under the Landfill Directive, the ban on landfilling tyres comes into effect on 16 July 2003 in respect of new landfill sites or for hazardous waste landfill sites. For existing non-hazardous waste landfill sites, the ban comes into force as and when each site is permitted under landfill/pollution prevention and control legislation.

  Milk
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with supermarkets on the price of milk paid to dairy farmers. [124493]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The prices negotiated between retailers and processors or processors and producers are a private commercial matter. We have therefore had no discussion with the supermarkets on this point.

  Power Stations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the load factor was in each year from 1999, of each power station without flue gas desulphurisation equipment fitted; and on what date a BATNEEC application to allow the loading to exceed forty per cent. was(a) submitted, (b) agreed and (c) rejected in each applicable case. [123815]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: Operators of large coal and oil fired power stations are regulated by the Environment Agency ("the Agency") through a system of authorisation under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Conditions are set in authorisations to ensure environmental protection and include emission limits with which operators must comply.

  In 1999 a review of the conditions contained in the authorisations was carried out by the Agency to secure further reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions, and to achieve a 50 per cent. reduction by 2005 of the 1999

  317W
  emission limits. In order to achieve this reduction, the Agency introduced conditions in the authorisations to encourage the building and operation of Flue Gas Desulphurisation ("FGD") equipment. The Agency formed the view that if a power station were to operate above a load factor of 40 per cent. then it would become economically viable to fit FGD equipment. Conditions were included in the authorisations whereby operators that did not have FGD equipment fitted, were required to submit a Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (`BATNEEC') justification if they wanted to continue operating after September 2001 at a load factor exceeding 40 per cent. The justifications were received in May and June 2000, as listed in the table to this answer.

  The exercise coincided with the introduction of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (or "NETA"). It was recognised that the NETA could alter the market structure of the sector, and that such change could have significant repercussions for the BATNEEC considerations. Because of this economic uncertainty. the Agency did not, at that time, formally accept or reject the BATNEEC cases.

  As NETA is now established, the BATNEEC cases made in 2000 are being reviewed. This may lead to a modification of the authorisations of those plant that are operated at high load factors without FGD equipment. This exercise will form part of a wider review of the performance of the coal fired power stations and will take into account further commitments by operators to fit FGD equipment and the requirements under the revised EU Directive concerning Large Combustion Plant.

  Operators are not required to report load factors so that information is not available.

  Power stations that submitted 'BATNEEC justification for operating above a 40 per cent, load factor without Flue Gas Desulphurisation abatement

  Operator1

  Site

  Date of justification

  AEP

  Ferrybridge

  June 2000

  Fiddler's Ferry

  Innogy

  Aberthaw

  June 2000

  Didcot

  Tilbury

  London Power

  Cottam

  May 2000

  PowerGen

  Drakelow

  May 2000

  Grain

  High Marnham

  Ironbridge

  Kingsnorth

  International Power

  Rugeley

  May 2000

  1 Current operator, may differ to that in 2000.

  Source:

  Environment Agency

  Private Sewers
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps the Government are taking to address the maintenance problems faced by the owners of existing private sewers; [126029]
  318W
  (2) whether she plans to amend section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to make it compulsory for sewerage undertakers to adopt existing private sewers; [126030]

  (3) what plans she has to assist owners of private sewers with maintenance costs before the implementation of new legislation; [126031]

  (4) what the time-scale is for changes to the legislation on existing private sewers; [126032]

  (5) if she will make it her policy to ensure that the owners of private sewers do not bear sole responsibility for paying for the maintenance of such sewers. [126033]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has commissioned research into the extent and condition of private sewers in England and Wales. The problems arising from the current arrangements for existing private sewers have been examined, especially with regard to their ownership and maintenance.

  A public consultation paper seeking views on possible options for addressing these problems was published on 1 July this year. The consultation period extends until 26 September 2003. We will need to review responses to the consultation before reaching a view on what action might follow.

  Radioactive Waste
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in establishing a committee on Radioactive Waste Management. [122611]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 2003]: I have today, along with the Environment Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, appointed Katharine Bryan as Chair of the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, CoRWM. Her task will be to lead CoRWM in recommending how the UK should manage its most highly radioactive waste and keep it safe for many thousands of years. Together, we shall receive CoRWM's recommendations, and around 2006, we shall decide how these should be implemented to secure the best outcome for the UK as a whole.

  In September 2001, we invited comments on our proposed programme, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. As we said, a substantial legacy of solid radioactive waste is being stored, awaiting a decision on how best to manage it for many thousands of years while radioactivity falls to safe levels. Even if no new nuclear plants are built, around 500,000 tonnes of waste will arise over the next century as existing plants are shut down and cleaned up. We proposed a rigorous and public review of alternative options, including underground disposal and surface storage. We proposed a new independent body to advise us when enough information had been gathered to decide the best option or combination of options. There was general support for this approach.

  We advertised for CoRWM in March 2003. We received over 400 applications. We have begun by appointing the Chair who will help us identify the best team. We shall now interview and appoint the remaining members so that CoRWM is up and running by October 2003.
  319W
  CoRWM's terms of reference require it, among other things, to aim to make its recommendations no later than the end of 2005; to prepare a work programme that will enable it to do this; to send this to us for agreement at an early stage; to meet us every six months; and to make an annual progress report which we can place before Parliament. Its review of options must be carried out in an open, transparent and inclusive manner; to inspire public confidence in the way in which it works, in order to secure such confidence in its eventual recommendations; and so to ensure the long-term safety of the UK's radioactive wastes.

  I am confident that Katharine will lead the Committee and the review very effectively. I shall make an announcement when the rest of CoRWM is appointed and it is ready to start work. With this important step forward in the process for deciding future policy for the long-term management of the UK's radioactive waste, Government have been giving consideration to the future of United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. (Nirex). As well as undertaking important work on standards for the conditioning and packagng of radioactive waste, the company has extensive knowledge of some of the potential options for radioative waste mangement to be considered by CoRWM.

  It is very important that Nirex stands ready, along with others, to help CoRWM reach its view and inform policy decisions. It is important also that the company can do this from a position where it is, and can be seen to be, independent of industry. The Government will consult Nirex shareholders on the best way of making Nirex independent of industry and under greater Government control, and our aim is to establish and announce the appropriate way forward by autumn of this year.

  Rural Enterprise Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Rural Enterprise Scheme grants have been approved by the South West Regional Appraisal Panel of the Rural Development Service in each of the last three years; and what the average amount given was. [126150]

  Alun Michael
  The South West Regional Appraisal Panel of the Rural Development Service has approved 112 Rural Enterprise Scheme grants in the last three full financial years. This can be broken down by year as follows.

  Financial year (April to March)

  Number of schemes approved

  Total grant offered (£)

  2000–01

  5

  178,483

  2001–02

  47

  2,656,604

  2002–03

  60

  3,914,858

  Total

  112

  6,749,945

  The average amount of grant awarded per scheme is £60,267.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how farmers applying for assistance from the Rural Enterprise Scheme in the south-west region may obtain details of the South West Regional Appraisal Panel's deliberations and reasons for refusing an application. [126151]
  320W
  Alun Michael
  All unsuccessful applicants are notified in writing with the Regional Appraisal Panel's decision and reason(s) for refusal.

  A summary of a project technical appraisal can be obtained by all the applicants on request in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Such a summary would not contain any information on third persons e.g. comparisons between an application under assessment and any similar application that may already have received an award.

  In addition, applicants can request a summary of the key points of the Panel's consideration of the project.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for receiving funding from the Rural Enterprise Scheme; and what budget has been allocated to the south-west region under this scheme in the next financial year. [126153]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Enterprise Scheme is aimed at producing sustainable outputs which contribute to the Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming, the wider rural economy and thriving rural communities. It operates on a selective basis by supporting good quality individual projects which will contribute to these aims, in line with regional priorities and objectives that have been agreed in consultation with local stakeholders.

  The scheme is administered by Defra's Rural Development Service on a regional basis. Applications for funding are assessed against the following criteria:

  the need for the project;

  clearly identified objectives, milestones and targets;

  the sustainability of the project (economic impact, environmental impact and social impact);

  the degree to which the project will produce desirable outputs that contribute to the scheme's key policy themes and priorities;

  financial viability;

  need for public funds;

  project management and delivery;

  risk assessment and sensitivity analysis; and

  how well the project fits the region's needs and priorities.

  Explanations of these criteria, and the need for them to be addressed in a suitable business plan, are set out in the scheme literature.

  A Regional Appraisal Panel determines which projects should be supported based upon the individual qualitative assessments and taking account of the scheme's wider objectives, the quality of other competing projects, and the funds available.

  The Rural Enterprise Scheme budget allocated to the south-west region for the 2003–04 financial year is £4.045 million, with £5.965 million currently budgeted for 2004–05.

  Waste Management
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings she has had with representatives of the waste management industry to discuss private finance initiative for waste management contracts. [124728]
  321W
  Mr. Morley
  Neither the Secretary of State nor other Defra ministers have met the waste management industry specifically to discuss private finance initiative for waste management contracts. I hope to meet a number of key stakeholders on waste issues in the coming months on a range of waste issues.

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long it took to plan and provide a new reservoir in the UK, on average, over the last 30 years. [125575]

  Mr. Morley
  Four major public water supply reservoirs have been constructed in the past 30 years: Carsington, Roadford, Rutland and Kielder. These took between 19–25 years from initial investigations until completion, with an average overall time of 21 years.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of total water leakage in England is caused by Thames Water. [125576]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001–02 Thames Water accounted for around 25 per cent. of all water leakage in England and Wales. Water company leakage data is published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water' reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Levels of leakage for 2002–03 will be published at the end of this month.

WALES

  Tourism
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of the public visited(a) Cardiff Castle and (b) Caerphilly Castle in 2001–02. [122813]

  Mr. Touhig
  Wales Tourist Board figures for the calendar years 2001 and 2002 are as follows.

  Wales tourist board figures

  2001

  2002

  Cardiff Castle

  169,709

  202,560

  Caerphilly Castle

  78,653

  81,758

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119815]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office is staffed entirely by people on loan or secondment from other Departments. It is thus normally the case that new entrants to the civil service will have served for a period in their home department before coming to the Wales Office.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for the Wales Office in each year since 1996. [126473]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office was created on 1 July 1999.

  (a) Until 12 June 2003 the Secretary of State for Wales had two special advisers, since then he has had one.

  (b) Since its inception the Wales Office has had a complement of three press officers (there has also been one three-month inward secondment for training purposes).

  (c) and (e) figures are published each year in the Departmental Report, the most recent of which was published in May 2003 as Cm 5928.

  (d) None.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116643]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 580W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108864]

  Mr. Touhig
  The small size of the Wales Office means that it is not autonomous on energy consumption and so meaningful figures are not readily available.

  The Government's policy on energy efficiency in its own estate was described in the Energy White paper "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy".

  Euro
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received the Treasury documents relating to the five economic tests and the 18 background studies; what discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the tests since receipt of the documents; when he expects to complete his analysis of the documents; and what representations(a) he and (b) departmental officials will make to other Departments before a decision is reached on the economic tests. [115380]

  Mr. Hain
  The Treasury's 18 supporting studies on EMU were sent to Cabinet Ministers on 16 May 2003. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor held meetings with Cabinet Members. There was an initial discussion at Cabinet on 22 May 2003, followed by a special Cabinet meeting on 5 June 2003. The Chancellor made a statement to the House of Commons on 9 June 2003.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European constitution. [124860]

  Mr. Hain
  I have had regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Gwydwr House (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has received from disabled people about plans for a new access to Gwydwr House. [122995]

  Mr. Touhig
  None.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by his Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if he will make a statement. [126208]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 43W.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123136]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office was created in July 1999. Information is not available before April 2000. Since that date expenditure has been:

  2000–01—£7,546

  2001–02—£6,266

  2002–03—£6,472

  April—June 2003—£1,832

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118866]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office complies with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on the handling of ministerial and other correspondence and the use of plain written English.

  Partnership Agreement
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117446]

  Mr. Touhig
  Staff working in the Wales Office are all on secondment or loan from other Government Departments and so it would be more appropriate for any partnership agreement to be with the home departments rather than the Wales Office.

  Steel Industry
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the future of the steel industry in Wales. [121938]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and discuss a wide range of issues including the steel industry in Wales.

  Latest developments for the steel industry in Wales are encouraging. For example, Corus recently announced investment into its "Living Solutions plant" at Shotton, which is expected to create up to 200 jobs.

  Corus also recently announced a major three year contract with Associated British Ports (ABP) to ship finished steel coils world-wide from its Swansea and Newport operations. This comes with an investment of £800,000 from ABP for a new 37 ton capacity crane.

  Additionally, Celsa recently announced that they expect to increase production output beyond that of the former Allied Steel and Wire Holdings Group plc plant in Cardiff. This will be a gradual build up from Celsa restarting production operations next month, with full roll-out of its operations at the end of this year. Celsa will employ a direct workforce of 400, with a further 200 subcontracted.

  I welcome these very positive developments for an industry that has had more than its share of difficult times.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Wales Office since 29 October 2002. [126611]

  Mr. Touhig
  Three:

  Wales Departmental Expenditure (28.02.03)

  Public Sector Ombudsman Service (Wales) (11.03.03)

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill (01.04.03)

PRIME MINISTER

  Access to Government Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he was consulted over the decision by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor and the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to issue a notice on 23 June under section 11(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration regarding a complaint under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to ministerial conflicts of interests. [126448]

  The Prime Minister
  The work of the Ombudsman is important, and the Government are working with the Ombudsman to develop a Memorandum of Understanding on co-operation between the Ombudsman's office and Government Departments.

  Information relating to internal discussion and consultation on the issue of a notice under section 11(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence and Overseas Policy Committee
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to provide the number of occasions the Cabinet Defence and Overseas Policy Committee met between 9 September 2002 and 18 March 2003. [126304]

  The Prime Minister
  There was no meeting of the Cabinet Defence and Overseas Policy Committee during this period. However, as I told the Liaison Committee on 8 July, the reason why this was not necessary was that Iraq appeared on the agenda of Cabinet as early as March 2002. From 23 September 2002 until after the conflict, Iraq was discussed at every regular Cabinet meeting.

  Additionally, during the course of the conflict, an ad hoc group of Ministers, which I chaired, met 28 times. The membership of the group was the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Leader of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Attorney General.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the continued imprisonment of Mordecai Vanunu during his meeting with his Israeli counterpart during his visit to London in July. [126305]

  The Prime Minister
  The priority for the visit was to discuss road map implementation and bilateral relations.

  The Government have raised concerns about the conditions of Mr. Vanunu's imprisonment with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Following his latest
  326W
  parole hearing the Israeli authorities decided against his early release. Our embassy in Tel Aviv will continue to monitor his case.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of Israeli possession of nuclear weapons he raised with his Israeli counterpart during his visit this month. [126306]

  The Prime Minister
  The priority for the visit was to discuss road map implementation and bilateral relations.

  The Government consistently urge Israel to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non nuclear weapons state, and to sign a full-scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), most recently during official-level talks in Tel Aviv on 5 March. Under the agreement with IAEA, Israel's nuclear facilities would be subject to regular inspection to detect and eliminate any diversion of nuclear materials, for weapons production. The UK has consistently supported UN resolutions calling for the establishment of a middle east zone free of weapons of mass destruction. That zone would include Israel.

  JIC Access (Director of Communications and Strategy)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister to what level of clearance Mr. Alastair Campbell has been vetted for access to Joint Intelligence Committee material. [126089]

  The Prime Minister
  Alastair Campbell has been cleared in the same way as other Downing street officials, whose roles may include seeing intelligence material.

  Lord Levy
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when Lord Levy has met Bill Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State in the United States State Department, while acting as his envoy; and where each of these meetings took place. [126447]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy has met Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns, including on 19 July 2001, 10 January, 11 March and 2 July 2002. All these meetings took place in London. Both men were also present at a London meeting on Palestinian reform on 14 January 2003.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent meetings he has held jointly with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [126521]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings, under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123148]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave him on 15 July 2003,Official Report, columns 164–65W.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) Government expenditure on ministerial overseas
  visits for the financial years 1996–97 to 2002–03 and (b) all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 between 1 April 2002 and
  31 March 2003, including the (i) cost, (ii) destination and (iii) purpose of each visit. [126761]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits for the period requested is estimated as follows:

  Expenditure on ministerial overseas visits

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1996–97

  7.9

  1997–981

  6.4

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  4.6

  2000–01

  4.7

  2001–02

  5.6

  2002–03

  5.7

  Special advisers

  Pay band

  Department

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  No 10 1

  —

  5

  6

  11

  2

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  —

  —

  22

  1

  —

  Chief Whips' Offices (Commons and Lords)

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Constitutional Affairs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Defence3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Education and Skills

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Health

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Home Office

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  International Development 3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords

  —

  41

  —

  —

  —

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons5

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Secretary of State for Wales

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Trade and Industry 6

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  HM Treasury 7.8

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Transport 3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Work and Pensions

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Minister without Portfolio 5

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  16

  26

  19

  4

  1 Plus two special advisers who are paid beyond Pay Band 4 but within the scheme maximum.

  2 Includes one part-time adviser.

  3 Includes one special adviser under their provisional pay band whose job has not yet been evaluated.

  328W

  Expenditure on ministerial overseas visit

  £million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  The figure for 2002–03 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in this period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to Departments for payment.

  A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date, destination and purpose of all such visits and the costs of Ministers' travel and accommodation where appropriate.

  Special Advisers
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of the paybill for special advisers was in 2002–03; and how many special advisers there are in each pay band, broken down by Department. [126760]

  The Prime Minister
  The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2003–04 are as follows:

  £

  Pay band

  Pay range

  Scheme maximum

  131,008

  4

  78,606 to 94,326

  3 and Premium

  58,693 to 91,181

  2

  46,116 to 60,278

  1

  35,635 to 47,362

  0

  Up to 35,634

  At 14 July 2003, the number of special advisers in each pay band by Department is as follows:
  329W
  4 Appointed by the Lord President on a part-time basis. Also works part-time to the Home Secretary providing cover for a special adviser who is on maternity leave.

  5 Includes two special advisers under their provisional pay bands whose jobs have not yet been evaluated.

  6Plus one adviser who is part-time and unpaid.

  7 Includes the Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury.

  8 Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (two in Band 4, two in Band 3 and one in Band 1—one is part-time).

  The cost of special advisers in 2002–03 is £5.4 million1.
  1 This figure includes salary, severance pay and an estimate of pensions costs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the Government's assessment is of the progress made in Afghanistan on civil service reform; what assistance his Department is giving Afghanistan in this respect; and if he will make a statement. [125677]

  Hilary Benn
  An effective public administration is essential to the process of reconstruction in Afghanistan. DFID has been an important source of assistance to the Afghanistan Transitional Administration (ATA) as it has sought to re-establish the basic functions of government. We are supporting capacity building within institutions, including the Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, and Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission. Other donors such as the World Bank are helping in areas such as procurement and audit. Achievements have included the introduction of a new currency, development of a national development framework, and of a payments and payroll system and implementation of measures to maximise revenue collection. But much remains to be done, and after twenty years of upheaval, there are no short-cuts to rebuilding Afghanistan's public administration. President Karzai recently issued a "Priority Reform and Restructuring" decree (executive legislation) that will allow further urgent reforms to take place in up to twenty Government Departments. These reforms will be supported by DFID and the World Bank.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many staff of his Department were redeployed out of London and the South East in the last five years. [125360]

  Hilary Benn
  Under a relocation programme approximately 40 Civil Service posts from our London Headquarters were redeployed to our East Kilbride Headquarters over the period 1998–2001. Staff were not required to move with the posts.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European Constitution. [124781]
  330W
  Hilary Benn
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, I and my officials have had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competencies. We have also had regular contact with member and accession states to discuss issues arising in the Convention. In line with exemptions 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to disclose details about internal discussions, or information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs.

  Iraq
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department is giving to the World Food Programme's work in Basra. [125704]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the start of the present crisis, DFID has contributed £33 million to the World Food Programme (WFP) for its work throughout Iraq, including Basra. DFID support has been earmarked for food delivery, logistical support and the provision of a United Nations humanitarian air service. It is not allocated by region within Iraq.

  Iraq's public distribution system for food aid was restarted on 1 June. WFP estimates that by the end of the June distribution cycle, rations has been provided to about 26 million Iraqis, which is 95 per cent. of the target population.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department has given to the reestablishment of(a) the electrical power system, (b) the legal system, (c) a police force and (d) a banking system in Iraq. [125694]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided over £7 million to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to assist in the restoration of electricity supplies in Iraq. The work undertaken has included needs assessments, repairs to generation and transmission plant, equipment for maintenance crews, equipment for a hospital and for water pumping and purification plants, and lighting for Umm Qasr port.

  The Government have seconded police advisers to the Coalition Provisional Authority to contribute to the development of policing in Iraq, and advisers to the Justice Ministry to assist in prison reform and undertake a general review of the judicial system. 31,000 police officers have reported back to work, and courts and prisons have begun operating again.

  The Government have not provided assistance for the banking sector. The Coalition Provisional Authority has, however, been working to help restore the banking system, and many banks are now open.
  331W
  To date, DFID has committed £155 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in the current crisis. Further assistance will be considered in view of emerging needs and the outcome of social and economic needs assessments being undertaken by the World bank, the IMF and United Nations agencies.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development which NGOs have approached the Department wishing to provide assistance for(a) the restructuring of Iraq and (b) humanitarian aid in Iraq. [125697]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had regular discussions with NGOs since before the conflict in Iraq started. We have only sought proposals from NGOs for preparedness and short quick impact projects to address immediate humanitarian needs. At least 34 different NGOs have
  submitted proposals, and we have selected 18 projects for funding

  We have not yet considered longer term NGO proposals for restructuring. Our assistance for longer term reconstruction work will be considered in view of the outcome of social and economic needs assessments being carried out by the World bank, the IMF and United Nations agencies, and a donor conference due to be held in October.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123140]

  Hilary Benn
  The cost of equipment, the call charges and line rental for mobile phones and car phones for Ministers and staff working for Ministers in the top management group in DFID are only available from 1999. The costs are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  8,249

  2000–01

  7,569

  2001–02

  7,455

  2002–03

  6,491

  Details of mobile phone costs supplied to other officials are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Planning/Reproductive Health
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) funding was spent on family planning and reproductive health in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total funding in this sector was. [125658]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports country Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) as a way to strengthen the social sector, pooling its financial resources with those of other donor agencies within the Government's overall budget. PRSs aim to coordinate Government led action with broad based participation, focused on delivering agreed outcomes. They also provide the basis 332W
  for long-term strategy and sustained investment. We work through sector wide approaches and direct budget support as ways of supporting countries' PRSs.

  The most recent data available from our information systems shows that in the financial year 2002–03, out of a total of £96 million spent by DFID on sector wide approaches, £31 million (32 per cent.) was spent on programmes that had reproductive health services as one of their target objectives. Our data systems do not allow us to identify specific expenditure on reproductive health services in previous years but recent changes will allow us to do so in future.

  The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has an important role to play in tracking overall resources devoted to reproductive health. We are working across the board to strengthen countries' own systems for reporting against their poverty reduction targets and progress towards the millennium development goals, including through the UN Millennium Project. This includes reporting on reproductive health gains as a factor in improving health overall.

  DFID's bilateral spending on reproductive health, including on HIV/AIDS, in 2002–03 was £270 million, up from around £40 million in 1997–98.

  Sustainable Development/Poverty Reduction
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what impact integrated frameworks have had on(a) sustainable development and (b) poverty reduction in the developing countries in which they have been promoted. [125898]

  Hilary Benn
  The Integrated Framework began, in its present form, in July 2000.

  The pilot ran in three countries and the process has been rolled out to a further eleven least developed countries. An evaluation of the Integrated Framework is currently taking place and a report will be presented to the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun in September. The objectives of the evaluation include an assessment of the impact of the integrated framework in linking trade, development and poverty and the integration of trade into development plans and poverty reduction strategies.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126609]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has made 17 Written Ministerial Statements since 29 October 2002.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Parliament
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 194W, when the BBC will convert its quarter-screen service for the parliamentary channel to the full screen version envisaged in its original bid. [125207]

  Estelle Morris
  The BBC has no plans to offer its BBC Parliament in full-screen. I understand that it did not, as part of its bid to the Independent Television Commission for the former ITV Digital Multiplex B, make a commitment to broadcast BBC Parliament in this way.

  In its application for some of the ex-ITV Digital capacity, the Corporation proposed a change in transmission mode which improved the reliability of reception for many DTT viewers but at the cost of reducing capacity overall. This left insufficient capacity to offer a full-screen BBC Parliament service. However, sufficient capacity was available for the BBC to propose, as part of Freeview, an improved version of BBC Parliament with quarter-screen pictures and accompanying context-specific text.

  Community Fund (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the latest awards granted by the Community Fund to projects in the London borough of Havering. [125999]

  Title

  Date

  National Gallery/National Portrait Gallery Review: stage one consultation

  January 2001

  National Heritage Memorial Fund Review: stage one consultation

  April 2001

  BBC Application to Launch BBC3

  April 2001

  Report of the Gambling Review Body

  July 2001

  National Museum of Science and Industry Review: stage one consultation

  August 2001

  Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London Review: stage one consultation

  August 2001

  Consultation on the draft Digital Television Action Plan

  October 2001

  English Heritage Review: stage one consultation

  October 2001

  Public Lending Right. Quinquennial Performance Review: Consultation Paper

  November 2001

  Quinquennial Review on the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  November 2001

  National Maritime Museum Quinquennial Performance Review

  November 2001

  Consultation on Media Ownership Rules

  November 2001

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester: Quinquennial Performance Review

  December 2001

  Spectrum Planning Consultation

  December 2001

  Council of Europe—Convention on the Protection of Audiovisual Heritage

  December 2001

  Review of Progress toward digital switchover

  February 2002

  Regent's Park Sports Facilities Consultations

  March 2002

  UK's Open General Export Licensing (OGEL) Limits

  April 2002

  Changes to Licensing Houses during All New Year's Eve

  April 2002

  The Draft Communications Bill

  May 2002

  Prize Competitions

  May 2002

  National Lottery Licensing and Regulation Consultation

  June 2002

  Review of Lottery Funding: a consultation on Lottery Distribution Policy

  July 2002

  Children's Play review

  December 2002

  Export Controls on Objects of Cultural Interest

  January 2003

  Review of Lottery Funding

  February 2003

  334W
  Estelle Morris
  Since April 2002, the Community Fund has awarded six grants to organisations based in the London borough of Havering, totalling £627,526.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the consultation documents issued by her Department in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124566]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government recommend that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Form al consultation documents are only one part of this process, which includes:

  Stakeholder meetings

  Listening events/public meetings

  Web forums

  Public surveys

  Focus groups

  Regional events

  Free-phone and freepost surveys and events

  Targeted leaflet campaigns

  Road shows and exhibitions.

  It is standard practice for departments to evaluate the policy development process, including the use of consultation.

  Information on Departmental consultations from 2001 to date is as follows:

  335W
  The remaining information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what policies(a) initiated and (b) managed by her Department since 2001 have had an impact on Pendle; and if she will make a statement. [124099]

  Mr. Caborn
  The principal funding to Pendle from policies initiated and managed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport since 2001 is listed as follows.

  1. Since 2001, Pendle has received 58 awards from the National Lottery1, with a total value of £3,501,882:
  1 Some of the funding will have been allocated under policies which were agreed prior to 2001.

  2001

  Distributing body

  Number of grants

  Total amount awarded (£)

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  2

  53,690

  Community Fund

  6

  724,192

  Sport England

  6

  100,861

  Arts Council of England

  1

  16,500

  New Opportunities Fund

  1

  4,600

  Total

  16

  899,843

  Body

  Number of grants

  Amount given to Pendle January 2001–03

  Sport England

  1

  30,000 (£10,000 per year for 3 years to August 2004) for a Community Sport Development Office

  Arts Council North West

  1

  £12,000 per year for 3 years—2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05 for an Arts Development Officer Post

  English Heritage

  6

  2001–02—£250,941

  3

  2002–03—£118,501 for various Heritage schemes

  3. The Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund are to deliver £176 million to 77 disadvantaged areas that have not had their fair share of Lottery funds. Pendle has been identified as one of the areas that will benefit under this fair share initiative, with a financial target for 2002–05 of £1,297,447.

  4. Creative Partnerships is DCMS' and Arts Council England's flagship programme in the cultural education field. The aim is to give school children aged 5–18 and their teachers the opportunity to explore their creativity by working on sustained projects with creative professionals. In June 2003, Ministers announced that the Creative Partnerships would be extended to 20 new areas. East Lancashire, including Pendle, will be one of the new areas in Phase 3 of the scheme, which will begin in April 2004, with activity in schools from September 2005.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department gives to post-war reconstruction of Iraq. [125111]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has recently taken a number of measures to assist the Iraqis to protect and conserve their Cultural heritage. Two officials from my Department have been working closely in Iraq with
  336W

  2002

  Distributing body

  Number of grants

  Total amount awarded (£)

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  1

  996,000

  Community Fund

  2

  6000

  Sport England

  2

  7,184

  Arts Council of England

  1

  2,800

  New Opportunities Fund

  1

  599,350

  Awards For All (England) Joint Scheme

  16

  57,762

  Total

  23

  1,669,096

  2003

  Distributing body

  Number of grants

  Total amount awarded (£)

  Community Fund

  1

  221,220

  New Opportunities Fund

  5

  657,613

  Awards For All (England) Joint Scheme

  13

  54,110

  Total

  19

  932,943

  2. Exchequer Funding2
  2 The grants from Sport England, Arts Council North West and English Heritage are to Pendle only. A large number of other grants will have had an impact on Pendle but will have been given to organisations based outside the constituency.

  Ambassador Cordone, Head of Cultural Affairs at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Their priority has been to re-establish the Culture Ministry as soon as possible and a Culture Cabinet of six Iraqis was formed in May. DCMS officials have helped prepare a budget for the Culture Ministry for 2003–04.

  My Department has created a database of offers of support from UK heritage bodies and others, and will follow up on these when we have a better picture of what specifically is needed in Iraq. It is in close touch with UNESCO, which is co-ordinating international help for the cultural sector in Iraq.

  Lottery Distribution
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the fair share initiative in terms of its capacity to distribute National Lottery funds equitably. [126111]

  Estelle Morris
  I view the fair share initiative as an important tool in ensuring that those communities at greatest disadvantage do not lose out from Lottery funding. Since its launch in April 2002, 77 areas across the UK have been identified to be targeted under the initiative through three programmes operated by the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. Over £31 million has been distributed through the
  337W
  Community Fund's grants programmes targeted at fair share areas; grants of between £200,000 and £2.2 million have been committed under the New Opportunities Fund's fair share: Transforming Your Space programme; and a £50 million fair share Trust has been set up, to be delivered by the Community Foundation Network. Now that the building blocks of the three strands of funding are in place, I expect to see a steady increase in the flow of funding over the remaining two years of the initiative.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the potential impact of hosting the Olympic Games on(a) the development of and (b) investment in grass roots sport in the UK. [124621]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has assessed the legacy of the Olympic Games for the development of, and investment in Grassroots sport using historical data, visits by Ministers to previous and future Olympic Cities, the joint DCMS and Strategy Unit report (Game Plan) and the details contained in the Arup report. Details of this analysis can be found in Annex 3, Evidence 51 to the Culture Select Committee report on A London Bid Olympic Bid for 2012, published on 23 January 2003.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the environmental costs and benefits of the London bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. [123953]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Arup report provided an initial evaluation, for a specimen Olympic Games, of the 18 themes of the IOC bid criteria required for the Candidature File. The 18 themes covered within the bid criteria include Environmental Protection and Meteorology. It will be for the Bid Company to ensure that the Candidature File, which must be submitted to the IOC in November 2004, properly addresses the environmental costs and benefits of a London bid.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what systems will be put in place by the Government to ensure that environmental considerations are fully incorporated into the design of the London bid for the Olympic Games. [123954]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Bid Company for the London 2012 bid will be responsible for the delivery of a high quality and competitive bid. This includes the preparation of the key bidding documents, the Applicant Questionnaire in the first stage of bidding and the Candidature file required in the second phase of the bid process. Both stages of the Bidding procedure should demonstrate how the London bid will reflect the commitment of the Olympic Movement to sustainable development and endeavours to contribute to the protection of the natural environment. In discharging this responsibility we would expect the Bid Company to consult the relevant stakeholder interests.

  As one of the key stakeholders for the bid the Government will be required to sign-off both the Applicant Questionnaire and the Candidature file prior to submission to the IOC.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) World Class Performance, (b) World Class Potential and (c) World Class Start funding has been distributed by (i) UK Sport, (ii) Sport England, (iii) Sport Scotland, (iv) the Sports Council for Wales and (v) the Northern Ireland Sports Council in each year since 1996–97. [125218]

  Mr. Caborn
  The actual distributions by UK Sport on World Class Performance programme are shown in the following table:

  £

  World Class Performance

  1999–2000

  16,489,569

  2000–01

  20,124,502

  2001–02

  22,550,608

  2002–03

  22,175,400

  The figures for Sport England are:

  £

  World Class Performance

  World Class Potential

  World Class start

  1997–98

  12,599,203

  —

  —

  1998–99

  27,366,285

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  18,881,351

  21,487,219

  —

  2000–01

  116,470,071

  —

  —

  2001–02

  12,627,736

  14,665,698

  6,537,498

  2002–03

  14,048,265

  16,064,180

  10,172,274

  1 This figure is a combination of World Class Performance, Potential and Start as separate figures are not available.

  2 This figure is a combination of World Class Potential and Start as separate figures are not available

  Support for Sport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a devolved responsibility; questions should therefore be directed to each administration.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of the Area Cost Adjustment on education funding. [125230]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Area Cost Adjustment provides funding top-ups for areas where it costs more to recruit and retain staff. It uses the New Earnings Survey to calculate earnings differentials between different areas in the country. A threshold is set below which all authorities are given the same area cost adjustment factor. The area cost adjustment factors are set out in the following table:

  LEA

  Area Cost Adjustment

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.0912

  Barnet

  1.1447

  Barnsley

  1.0000

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1.0279

  Bedfordshire

  1.0478

  Bexley

  1.0912

  Birmingham

  1.0272

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.0000

  339W

  LEA

  Area Cost Adjustment

  Blackpool

  1.0000

  Bolton

  1.0200

  Bournemouth

  1.0000

  Bracknell Forest

  1.1384

  Bradford

  1.0099

  Brent

  1.1447

  Brighton and Hove

  1.0113

  Bromley

  1.0912

  Buckinghamshire

  1.0943

  Bury

  1.0200

  Calderdale

  1.0099

  Cambridgeshire

  1.0427

  Camden

  1.2624

  Cheshire

  1.0215

  City of Bristol

  1.0279

  City of Derby

  1.0000

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  1.0000

  City of London

  1.4569

  City of Nottingham

  1.0000

  City of Peterborough

  1.0427

  City of Plymouth

  1.0000

  Cornwall

  1.0000

  Coventry

  1.0272

  Croydon

  1.0912

  Cumbria

  1.0000

  Darlington

  1.0000

  Derbyshire

  1.0000

  Devon

  1.0000

  Doncaster

  1.0000

  Dorset

  1.0000

  Dudley

  1.0272

  Durham

  1.0000

  Ealing

  1.1447

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1.0000

  East Sussex

  1.0113

  Enfield

  1.0912

  Essex

  1.0340

  Gateshead

  1.0000

  Gloucestershire

  1.0220

  Greenwich

  1.2624

  Hackney

  1.2624

  Halton

  1.0215

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1.2624

  Hampshire

  1.0361

  Haringey

  1.0912

  Harrow

  1.1447

  Hartlepool

  1.0000

  Havering

  1.0912

  Herefordshire

  1.0000

  Hertfordshire

  1.1034

  Hillingdon

  1.1447

  Hounslow

  1.1447

  Isle of Wight

  1.0361

  Isles of Scilly

  1.5000

  Islington

  1.2624

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1.2624

  Kent

  1.0327

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1.1447

  Kirklees

  1.0099

  Knowsley

  1.0116

  Lambeth

  1.2624

  Lancashire

  1.0000

  Leeds

  1.0099

  Leicester City

  1.0000

  Leicestershire

  1.0000

  Lewisham

  1.2624

  Lincolnshire

  1.0000

  Liverpool

  1.0116

  Luton

  1.0478

  Manchester

  1.0200

  Medway

  1.0252

  340W

  LEA

  Area Cost Adjustment

  Merton

  1.1447

  Middlesbrough

  1.0000

  Milton Keynes

  1.0841

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1.0000

  Newham

  1.0912

  Norfolk

  1.0000

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.0000

  North Lincolnshire

  1.0000

  North Somerset

  1.0279

  North Tyneside

  1.0000

  North Yorkshire

  1.0000

  Northamptonshire

  1.0285

  Northumberland

  1.0000

  Nottinghamshire

  1.0000

  Oldham

  1.0200

  Oxfordshire

  1.0794

  Poole

  1.0000

  Portsmouth

  1.0361

  Reading

  1.1252

  Redbridge

  1.0912

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.0000

  Richmond upon Thames

  1.1447

  Rochdale

  1.0200

  Rotherham

  1.0000

  Rutland

  1.0000

  Salford

  1.0200

  Sandwell

  1.0272

  Sefton

  1.0116

  Sheffield

  1.0000

  Shropshire

  1.0000

  Slough

  1.1384

  Solihull

  1.0272

  Somerset

  1.0000

  South Gloucestershire

  1.0279

  South Tyneside

  1.0000

  Southampton

  1.0361

  Southend

  1.0132

  Southwark

  1.2624

  St Helens

  1.0116

  Staffordshire

  1.0000

  Stockport

  1.0200

  Stockton on Tees

  1.0000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1.0000

  Suffolk

  1.0000

  Sunderland

  1.0000

  Surrey

  1.1384

  Sutton

  1.1447

  Swindon

  1.0304

  Tameside

  1.0200

  Telford and Wrekin

  1.0000

  Thurrock

  1.0760

  Torbay

  1.0000

  Tower Hamlets

  1.2624

  Trafford

  1.0200

  Wakefield

  1.0099

  Walsall

  1.0272

  Waltham Forest

  1.0912

  Wandsworth

  1.2624

  Warrington

  1.0215

  Warwickshire

  1.0292

  West Berkshire

  1.1252

  West Sussex

  1.0477

  Westminster

  1.2624

  Wigan

  1.0200

  Wiltshire

  1.0304

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1.1384

  Wirral

  1.0116

  Wokingham

  1.1252

  Wolverhampton

  1.0272

  Worcestershire

  1.0000

  York

  1.0000

  Asset Management Plan Survey
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the results of the 2003 Asset Management Plan Survey. [125348]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: Allowing for late returns from some authorities, and for appraisal and analysis of the data, we plan to publish the results early in 2004.

  Science Teachers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the proposed National and Regional Centres for Excellence in Science Teaching will be required to provide in service training opportunities to enable practising teachers to develop their skills in out of classroom teaching in biology and other scientific disciplines. [125269]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our plans, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, to establish a national network of science learning centres are progressing well. The national centre and up to nine regional centres will provide a range of continuing professional development opportunities for teachers of primary, secondary and post-16 science teachers, technicians and other support staff in the science classroom. We anticipate that, over time, the centres will help teachers to develop their skills in out of the classroom teaching.

  In addition, the Department's 'Growing Schools' initiative has worked with hundreds of schools to develop best practice in the use of the outdoor classroom for a range of curriculum subjects, including science at each key stage.

  Vulnerable Children
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is issued to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools on supporting children from homeless families in priority need. [124684]

  Mr. Miliband
  There has been no guidance issued from the Department for Education and Skills to local education authorities or schools specifically on supporting children from homeless families in priority need. We have, however, provided guidance to all local education authorities on use of the Vulnerable Children Grant, worth £84 million, which is to be used to help a range of groups of vulnerable children, some of whom may be homeless.

  We shall be setting out our future vision for children's services in the forthcoming Green Paper.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill (1) what the standards for citizenship are in respect of(a) assessment, (b) instruction, (c) pupil attainment and (d) academic content; and what the standards are for the other key stage four statutory subjects; [125016]
  342W
  (2) if he will assess the effectiveness of teaching citizenship within existing personal, social and health education programmes [125014]

  (3) if he will assess the extent to which schools (a) recognise the aims and purposes of citizenship as a statutory subject and (b) relate these to the broader aims of the school, as prescribed in the Ofsted report, National Curriculum: planning and implementation 2002–03; [125015]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the progress of pupils' knowledge, understanding and skills in citizenship since it became a statutory subject. [125017]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  National Curriculum subjects, including citizenship education, have clear requirements for what must be taught and the standards of attainment at the end of each key stage (see www.nc.uk.net). A range of teaching and learning methods are described in the QCA schemes of work for citizenship (see www. Standards dfes. gov uk/schemes). Schools can adopt a range of approaches including discrete lessons; whole school activities; and teaching through existing subjects such as Personal, Social and Health education.

  Assessment and reporting arrangements are similar to other national curriculum subjects. Teachers must conduct pupil assessment at key stage 3 and report pupils progress in key stage 1 and 2 to parents. GCSE (Short Course) in Citizenship Studies has been developed to give pupils the opportunity to obtain a recognised qualification. QCA has developed guidance for schools on assessment (see www.qca.org.uk). It is a year since the introduction of citizenship as a statutory subject in secondary schools and pupils need time to develop the required knowledge, understanding and skills in the subject. The Department is committed to continuing to monitor the introduction of citizenship education, to provide schools and teachers with the additional support they may need. The Department has commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) to conduct an eight year longitudinal study, to consider the impact of the subject on pupils' knowledge, understanding and skills in citizenship. It will also consider the impact on schools understanding of the aims of citizenship education and how they relate to wider school ethos and planning. The NfER longitudinal study and Ofsted section 10 inspections regime will provide effective progress reports on a range of models of delivery, including through Personal, Social and Health Education.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven were in class sizes of over 30 in each year since 1996–97 to 2002–03. [125231]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available information is shown in the following table.
  343W

  Maintained Primary Schools: Key Stage 1 Classes taught by One Teacher Position in January each year: 1997 to 2003 (provisional) England Key Stage 1 Classes1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032,3,4

  Number of pupils in classes with 31 or more pupils

  476,822

  485,311

  356,586

  176,962

  35,813

  10,263

  16,399

  Percentage of pupils in classes with 31 or more pupils

  29.0

  29.3

  21.9

  11.0

  23

  0.6

  1.1

  Number of classes with 31 or more pupils

  14,584

  14,826

  10,960

  5,487

  1124

  325

  515

  Percentage of classes with 31 or more pupils

  23.9

  24.2

  17.8

  8.7

  1.8

  0.5

  0.9

  1 Classes as taught during a single selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  2 Includes reception classes due to an underlying change in the data collection.

  3 Only 88 of the 515 large classes had no e excepted pupils or were engaged in ordinary teaching sessions which meant they did not comply with Class Size regulations,

  4 provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class sizes were in(a) primary and (b) middle schools in Leicestershire Local Education Authority since 1991–92. [125250]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained Primary Schools and Middle Schools: Average Size of Classes Taught by one Teacher1 Position in January each year: 1992 to 2003 (Provisional)

  Leicestershire LEA

  Primary

  Middle2

  19923

  25.8

  24.3

  19933

  26.1

  24.5

  19943

  25.8

  24.6

  19953

  26.5

  23.8

  19963

  26.7

  25.4

  19973

  26.7

  25.0

  1998

  26.9

  25.1

  19994

  26.7

  25.7

  20004

  26.7

  26.1

  20014

  26.3

  26.6

  20024

  25.9

  25.7

  20034,5

  26.4

  25.6

  1 Classes as taught during a single selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  2 Middle deemed secondary schools only as there are no middle deemed primary schools in Leicestershire LEA.

  3 Before local government reorganisation, Leicestershire LEA also incorporated Leicester City, Rutland and rest of Leicestershire

  4 After local government reorganisation

  5 Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Deprivation Indices
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the index of deprivation is in each local education authority. [125162]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Formula Spending Share has a top up to reflect significant deprivation or additional educational need. The additional educational needs index uses the following data:

  The proportion of children in families in receipt of Income Support/Jobseekers allowance

  The proportion of children in families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit

  344W

  The proportion of children for who English is not their mother tongue (in the primary and under five calculation)

  The proportion of children in low achieving ethnic groups (in the secondary calculation)

  The indices for each authority are shown in the table. Authorities with a figure of 0.000 are those who are funded at the level of the additional educational needs threshold.

  AEN index

  Primary

  Secondary

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.2055

  0.2119

  Barnet

  0.1715

  0.1360

  Barnsley

  0.1340

  0.1304

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.0115

  0.0130

  Bedfordshire

  0.0292

  0.0278

  Bexley

  0.0632

  0.0578

  Birmingham

  0.3209

  0.3314

  Blackburn

  0.2847

  0.2175

  Blackpool

  0.1579

  0.1561

  Bolton

  0.1711

  0.1330

  Bournemouth

  0.0894

  0.0801

  Bracknell Forest

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Bradford

  0.2878

  0.2743

  Brent

  0.3458

  0.3335

  Brighton and Hove

  0.1159

  0.1207

  Bromley

  0.0306

  0.0453

  Buckinghamshire

  0.0090

  0.0245

  Bury

  0.0959

  0.0951

  Calderdale

  0.1395

  0.1358

  Cambridgeshire

  0.0021

  0.0018

  Camden

  0.3977

  0.3608

  Cheshire

  0.0201

  0.0175

  City of Bristol

  0.1435

  0.1649

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0.2200

  0.2142

  City of London

  0.1734

  0.2428

  Cornwall

  0.0789

  0.0762

  Coventry

  0.1684

  0.1477

  Croydon

  0.1547

  0.2180

  Cumbria

  0.0500

  0.0473

  Darlington

  0.1135

  0.1095

  Derby

  0.1745

  0.1737

  Derbyshire

  0.0444

  0.0426

  Devon

  0.0423

  0.0379

  Doncaster

  0.1373

  0.1363

  Dorset

  0.0089

  0.0077

  Dudley

  0.0984

  0.0997

  Durham

  0.1097

  0.1057

  Ealing

  0.3075

  0.2650

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.0199

  0.0164

  East Sussex

  0.0482

  0.0463

  Enfield

  0.2449

  0.2216

  Essex

  0.0267

  0.0254

  Gateshead

  0.1433

  0.1379

  Gloucestershire

  0.0172

  0.0185

  345W

  AEN index

  Primary

  Secondary

  Greenwich

  0.2746

  0.3083

  Hackney

  0.4882

  0.5169

  Halton

  0.1756

  0.1739

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.3367

  0.3507

  Hampshire

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Haringey

  0.4454

  0.4709

  Harrow

  0.1948

  0.1627

  Hartlepool

  0.1807

  0.1763

  Havering

  0.0350

  0.0402

  Herefordshire

  0.0217

  0.0186

  Hertfordshire

  0.0109

  0.0132

  Hillingdon

  0.1322

  0.0975

  Hounslow

  0.2782

  0.2181

  Isle of Wight Council

  0.0948

  0.0924

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Islington

  0.4157

  0.4851

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.2573

  0.2506

  Kent

  0.0492

  0.0446

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.0586

  0.0465

  Kirklees

  0.1729

  0.1539

  Knowsley

  0.2586

  0.2571

  Lambeth

  0.4249

  0.4686

  Lancashire

  0.1012

  0.0913

  Leeds

  0.1209

  0.1203

  Leicester

  0.3359

  0.2360

  Leicestershire

  0.0106

  0.0030

  Lewisham

  0.2899

  0.3634

  Lincolnshire

  0.0466

  0.0425

  Liverpool

  0.2740

  0.2767

  Luton

  0.2379

  0.2610

  Manchester

  0.3759

  0.3986

  Merton

  0.1376

  0.1596

  Middlesbrough

  0.2460

  0.2405

  Milton Keynes

  0.0769

  0.0749

  Newbury

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.2237

  0.2051

  Newham

  0.5195

  0.4982

  Norfolk

  0.0564

  0.0519

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.1354

  0.1321

  North Lincolnshire

  0.0833

  0.0762

  North Somerset

  0.0088

  0.0084

  North Tyneside

  0.1115

  0.1067

  North Yorkshire

  0.0034

  0.0024

  Northamptonshire

  0.0415

  0.0449

  Northumberland

  0.0600

  0.0573

  Nottingham City

  0.2975

  0.3199

  Nottinghamshire

  0.0610

  0.0670

  Oldham

  0.2256

  0.2100

  Oxfordshire

  0.0064

  0.0114

  Peterborough

  0.1828

  0.1727

  Plymouth

  0.1229

  0.1180

  Poole

  0.0410

  0.0382

  Portsmouth

  0.1122

  0.1061

  Reading

  0.1183

  0.1312

  Redbridge

  0.2213

  0.1805

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.1458

  0.1405

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.0124

  0.0300

  Rochdale

  0.2122

  0.2121

  Rochester and Gillingham

  0.0711

  0.0650

  Rotherham

  0.1326

  0.1341

  Rutland

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Salford

  0.1801

  0.1731

  Sandwell

  0.2476

  0.2299

  Sefton

  0.0992

  0.0971

  Sheffield

  0.1561

  0.1679

  Shropshire

  0.0092

  0.0062

  Slough

  0.2341

  0.2083

  Solihull

  0.0342

  0.0264

  Somerset

  0.0236

  0.0226

  South Gloucestershire

  0.0000

  0.0000

  South Tyneside

  0.1747

  0.1708

  Southampton

  0.1559

  0.1427

  Southend

  0.1187

  0.1102

  346W

  AEN index

  Primary

  Secondary

  Southwark

  0.3809

  0.4795

  St. Helens

  0.1225

  0.1192

  Staffordshire

  0.0307

  0.0303

  Stockport

  0.0497

  0.0463

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.1312

  0.1266

  Stoke on Trent

  0.1910

  0.1884

  Suffolk

  0.0263

  0.0297

  Sunderland

  0.1570

  0.1510

  Surrey

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Sutton

  0.0387

  0.0432

  Swindon

  0.0515

  0.0425

  Tameside

  0.1340

  0.1272

  The Wrekin

  0.1177

  0.1130

  Thurrock

  0.0741

  0.0649

  Torbay

  0.1196

  0.1137

  Tower Hamlets

  0.6642

  0.6589

  Trafford

  0.0807

  0.0832

  Wakefield

  0.1050

  0.1014

  Walsall

  0.1904

  0.1711

  Waltham Forest

  0.2948

  0.3452

  Wandsworth

  0.2369

  0.3231

  Warrington

  0.0375

  0.0347

  Warwickshire

  0.0222

  0.0107

  West Sussex

  0.0125

  0.0068

  Westminster

  0.4386

  0.4264

  Wigan

  0.0806

  0.0762

  Wiltshire

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Wirral

  0.1457

  0.1432

  Wokingham

  0.0000

  0.0000

  Wolverhampton

  0.2093

  0.2079

  Worcestershire

  0.0244

  0.0231

  York

  0.0357

  0.0333

  Education (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils there have been in Leicestershire local education authority area in each year since 1996–97. [125252]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table for each year since 1998. Prior to this Leicestershire local education authority incorporated Leicester City, Rutland and rest of Leicestershire.

  All schools: Number (headcount) of pupils by type of school— position in January each year 1998 to 20031

  Leicestershire local education authority

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary2

  Special3

  Independent

  All schools

  1998

  50

  49,740

  41,797

  415

  5,368

  97,370

  1999

  50

  50,205

  42,598

  431

  5,288

  98,572

  2000

  50

  50,398

  43,667

  432

  5,168

  99,715

  2001

  51

  51,193

  44,736

  457

  5,242

  101,679

  2002

  50

  50,785

  45,431

  483

  5,460

  102,209

  20031

  35

  50,319

  46,383

  504

  5,549

  102,790

  1 Provisional

  1 For 1998 and 1999 includes grant maintained secondary schools.

  3 Maintained special school in Leicestershire LEA.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) percentage and (b) actual cash increase in education funding for Leicestershire county council for each year since 1991–92. [125253]
  347W
  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the total education standard spending assessment (ESSA) and revenue grant plus total capital funding allocated to Leicestershire local education authority for the financial

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total ESSA and Revenue Grant (£ million)

  207.7

  221.5

  239.0

  263.9

  288.4

  310.8

  Cash change (£million)

  —

  13.8

  17.5

  24.9

  24.5

  22.4

  Percentage change

  —

  7

  8

  10

  9

  8

  Total Capital funding (£ million)

  2.9

  5.5

  8.3

  18.9

  12.8

  20.7

  Cash change (£million)

  —

  2.6

  2.8

  10.6

  -6.1

  7.9

  Percentage change

  —

  90

  51

  128

  -32

  62

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 622W, on excluded pupils, if he will publish the responses of local education authorities to his Department's letter of October 2002. [125770]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: The responses received were not in a form suitable for publication. However, all Local Education Authorities confirmed that they were able to achieve the target of providing full-time education far all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training in each year since 1997 were(a) excluded from school and (b) in care, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic minority and (iii) local education authority. [124270]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: The percentages of young people not in education, employment or training (MEET) who were excluded from school by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity are set out in the following table.

  Gender/ethnicity

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  1998

  2000

  2002

  1999

  2001

  2000

  2002

  Male

  29

  24

  33

  26

  23

  20

  15

  Female

  16

  16

  21

  18

  12

  13

  6

  Not white

  1—

  13

  27

  1—

  1—

  1—

  6

  White

  22

  21

  27

  22

  18

  16

  11

  1 Sample size too small for a robust estimate

  Source:

  YCS cohorts 9 to 11

  Figures are not available for young people in care or broken down by LEA as the sample sizes are too small to provide robust estimates.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the higher education participation rate was in each region of England in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002. [113063]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has recently produced participation rates for 18-year-olds entering full-time undergraduate courses through the Universities and 348W
  years 1997–98 to 2002–03 (the years for which data is available on a like-for-like-basis) with the year-on-year cash and percentage changes.

  Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). The data cover the years back to 1994/95. Figures for the years 1994/95, 1997/98 and 2002/03 are given in the table.

  Participation by 18-year-olds in higher education by region

  Percentage

  Academic year

  Region

  1994/95

  1997/98

  2002/03

  Greater London

  17.2

  20.7

  23.9

  South East

  21.1

  23.0

  23.3

  Eastern

  19.0

  21.2

  22.6

  North West

  17.6

  20.2

  21.8

  West Midlands

  16.9

  19.5

  21.7

  East Midlands

  17.1

  19.8

  21.5

  Merseyside

  16.1

  19.6

  21.4

  South West

  19.0

  21.0

  21.1

  North East

  15.7

  17.5

  19.8

  Yorkshire

  15.7

  18.9

  19.7

  England

  18.1

  20.6

  22.1

  Note:

  Participation rates have been calculated using the 17-year-old population from the previous year to reduce the distortion caused to LEA populations by the migration of students to their place of study. Figures exclude a very small number of accepted applicants of unknown English domicile. Population figures relate to persons aged 17 at 31 August in the year prior to entry, counts taken at the following 1 January; accepted applicants are aged 18 at 30 September in the year of entry.

  These figures are calculated on a different basis to the Department's standard measures of participation in higher education, the Age Participation Index (API) and the Initial Entry Rate (IER), neither of which are available at regional level.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the National Learning and Skills Council(a) has spent, and (b) is planning to spend, on public affairs consultancy and advice on (i) promoting learning and (ii) promoting the Learning and Skills Council. [125787]

  Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the council's chief executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much the national Learning and Skills Council(a) has spent and (b) plans to spend on

  349W
  public affairs consultancy and advice on (i) promoting learning and (ii) promoting the Learning and Skills Council; and if he will make a statement. [125914]

  (2) how many executive directors of the Learning and Skills Council have been dismissed; if he will list the reasons in each case; and if he will make a statement. [125916]

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

  Local Education Authority Budgets
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities did not passport 100 per cent. of their education allocation this financial year; and if he will make a statement. [123043]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the analysis of local education authorities' (LEAs') budget returns published by my Department on 2 May, 19 LEAs were shown as failing to pass on, or passport, the full increase in their Schools Formula Spending Share to their schools budgets. My Department has been in touch with a number of these and as a result of connected figures or decisions by LEAs to increase spending on schools.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123142]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is as follows:

  Calls (£)

  Line rental/other expenditure

  1997–98

  52,352.41

  117,693.37

  Total for 1997–98

  170,045.78

  1998–99

  50,959.11

  117,339.61

  Total for 1998–99

  168,298.72

  1999–2000

  58,478.47

  160,410.62

  Total for 1999–2000

  218,889.09

  2000–01

  91,335.48

  237,861.51

  Total for 2000–01

  329,196.99

  2001–02

  98,504.53

  275,744.34

  Total for 2001–02

  374,248.87

  2002–03

  116,603.88

  237,351.90

  Total for 2002–03

  353,955.78

  The total cost refers to the cost of the equipment (set out above as 'other expenditure'), the call charges and the access charges (set out above as 'line rental').
  350W
  The 'other' expenditure includes the purchase of new handsets, personal hands-free kit, carry cases etc., but it is not possible to provide separate totals for line rental and hardware costs

  Research Funding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the criteria are for research departments in England to receive recurrent funding in 2003/04. [125481]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2003/04 the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocated research funding according to the quality and volume of research departments that were rated 4 and above in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). HEFCE allocated a further £20 million to departments that were rated 5* in both the last 2 RAE's. A further £20 million is also available as capability funding to departments that were rated 3a or 3b in seven specific subject areas, to provide extra support so the research base can improve to match that in the more established fields.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which units of assessment are receiving capability funding from the Higher Education

  Alan Johnson
  There are seven Units of Assessments (UoAs) in all receiving capability funding in 2003/04.

  They are:

  Nursing

  Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Social Work

  Art and Design

  Communication, Cultural and Media Studies

  Dance, Drama and Performing Arts

  Sports-related Subjects

  School Buildings
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost is of making school buildings in England and Wales compliant with(a) fire safety and (b) health and safety regulations. [125349]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: The information available to the department from local education authorities' education asset management plans is insufficiently detailed for estimating these costs for English schools. The department does not hold information on Welsh school buildings.

  School Funding (North-East Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total central government funding for schools in North East Lincolnshire was in each year since 1995. [120062]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is only available from 1997–98 onwards. Due to reorganisation in Local Government in 1997–98 and previous changes in Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) methodology, it is not possible to provide corresponding figures for previous years. The information available is contained in the following table:
  351W

  North East Lincolnshire

  £ million

  Real terms (2002–03 prices)

  SSA/EFS

  Grants

  Total

  1997–98

  73.1

  3.1

  76.3

  1998–99

  77.5

  1.7

  79.2

  1999–2000

  78.8

  4.1

  82.8

  2000–01

  81.6

  8.5

  90.1

  2001–02

  82.4

  11.6

  94.1

  2002–03

  81.7

  13.7

  95.3

  2003–04

  84.2

  12.8

  97.0

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA/EFS settlement (all sub-blocks) plus revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EFS pupils aged 31–9.

  2. Figures exclude EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level for all years and the pensions transfer to EFS and LSC for 2003–04.

  3. 1997–98 figures for LEAs subject to Local Government Reorganisation in that year have been estimated, pro-rata to their post LGR figure.

  4. 2003–04 figures are forecasts.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million. Real Terms figures are calculated using June 2003 GDP deflators.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was made available for schools by the North East Lincolnshire council in each year since 1995. [120063]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is available only from 1999–2000 onwards. Comparable data is not available pre 1999–2000 therefore it is not possible to provide corresponding figures for previous years. The information available is contained in the following table:

  North East Lincolnshire

  Real terms (2002–03 prices)

  Total (£ million)

  1999–2000

  93.7

  2000–01

  93.7

  2001–02

  99.4

  2002–03

  102.0

  2003–04

  104.6

  Notes:

  1. LEA Budget Figures are provided gross:. of all income (whether DfES grant, grants from other sources, or other income)

  2. Figures provided are from the Total Education Revenue Expenditure line of LEAs Section 52 budget statements (Table 1) as submitted by the LEA (Line 4 in 1999–2000, line 5 for 2000–01 to 2002–03 and line 3 for 2003–04. Data held as at 30 June 2003.

  3. Real Terms figures are calculated using June 2003 GDP deflators

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) government and (b) local government funding (i) was available in 2002–03 and (ii) is available in 2003–04 to schools in North East Lincolnshire; and how much of this funding was passed on to schools in each case. [120065]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table. The increase in funding for each school will depend on a number of factors covering both central and local government responsibility. These are the increase in funding given to the school's authority by central Government; the amount which the local authority decides to increase its Schools Budget by; the increase which the local authority decides to give to the 352W
  Individual Schools Budget, as opposed to the items within the Schools Budget which are held centrally; and the operation of the local authority's formula which gives different increases to different schools.

  North East Lincolnshire

  £ million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2003–041

  CentralGovernment Funding

  95.3

  99.6

  101.7

  Local Government Funding

  102.0

  107.4

  —

  Amount passed on to schools

  75.7

  77.8

  —

  1 Including pensions transfer

  Notes:

  Central Government figures:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA/EFS settlement (all sub-blocks) plus revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EFS pupils aged 3–19.

  2. Figures exclude EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level for all years and the pensions transfer to EPS and LSC for 2003–04, unless otherwise indicated.

  3. 1997–98 figures for LEAs subject to Local Government Reorganisation in that year have been estimated, pro-rata to their post LGR figures.

  4. 2003–04 figures are forecasts.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million. Cash term figures have been used.

  Local government figures:

  1. LEA Budget Figures are provided gross of all income (whether DfES grant, grants from other sources, or other income).

  2. Figures provided are from the Total Education Revenue Expenditure line of LEAs section 52 budget statements (Table 1), as submitted by the LEA (Line 4 in 1999–2000, Line 5 for 2000–01 to 2002–03 and Line 3 for 2003–04).

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million. Cash term figures have been used.

  4. Figures are as reported by LEAs, data held as at 30 June 2003.

  Amount passed to schools:

  1. Amount passed to schools taken to be Gross ISB + devolved Standards Funds + SSG + Class Size Grant

  2002–03: Line 1.1.7 Total ISB Including SSG and Standards Fund Devolved Grant Plus 1.3.3 Class Size Grant.

  2003–04: Line 1.0.1 Individual Schools Budget + Line 1.0.2 School Standards Grant + Line 1.0.3

  Standards Fund allocation—revenue (all gross).

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million. Cash term figures have been used.

  3. Figures are as reported by LEAs, data held as at 30 June 2003.

  School Governance Degree
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to fund the persons completing the pilot Masters degree in school governance at Greenwich university. [125847]

  Alan Johnson
  From the information available, it has not been possible to identify the course at Greenwich university to which the hon. Member refers.

  Ofsted Reports (Staff Morale)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on staff morale and teacher retention of an Ofsted report that places a school in special measures; and if he will make a statement. [125224]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives a copy of the termly monitoring report from Ofsted on every school which is in special measures. These reports describe the current progress of the school against all the issues causing concern, and
  353W
  would inevitably cover staff morale and staff turnover where these are having a significant impact on progress. While some schools do experience these problems when they are first placed in special measures, there are also many examples of schools with high staff morale, associated with a strong determination to effect the much needed improvements.

  Sex Education
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to improve school-based sex education for boys. [125161]

  Mr. Miliband
  Our Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) Guidance, issued to schools in July 2000, makes clear that SRE needs to focus on boys as well as girls. Teachers need to plan a variety of activities and teaching methods which will engage boys.

  To support teachers we have commissioned the development of practical guidance for addressing the sex and relationship education needs of boys and young men. This will be available later in the year. We have also established a Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) website which flags up information and resources that are specific to boys—www. teachernet.gov.uk/pshe.

  From April 2003 we have rolled out a professional development programme for teachers of PSHE which includes a specialist module for SRE. Participating teachers will be required to demonstrate a secure knowledge and understanding of the gender roles and how that is applied to teaching. Up to 750 teachers will participate this year.

  Staff Redeployment
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the south-east. [125305]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has over half of its staff outside London and the south-east and we continually review where our business can best be delivered, including consideration of opportunities for relocation where the business case justifies this.

  Like other Departments, we are participating in Sir Michael Lyons work on public sector relocation which is due to report to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister in November.

  Staffing Survey
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 632W, on the 2003 staffing survey, whether his Department is using the (a) 1996 and (b) 2002 staffing survey data in the formulation of the 2004–05 initial teacher training targets. [125771]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: The Department is planning to use the 2002 Staffing Survey data.

  Student Performance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he collates on the relative performance at undergraduate level of students(a) with GCE A-level qualifications, (b) with GNVQ or equivalent vocational qualifications, (c) with advanced modern apprenticeships, (d) with overseas qualifications and (e) with other qualifications. [112205]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department is not aware of research that looks at the relative performance at undergraduate level of students with different types of entry qualifications. However, research has been conducted into the relationship between A-level attainment and undergraduate performance. Studies in this area include:"Determinants of degree performance in UK universities: a statistical analysis of the 1993 student cohort" by Jeremy Smith and Robin Naylor; available from Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63 (1) 29–60;
  "School Performance and the Likelihood of getting into Bristol" by Jeff Odell in 1999; available from http:// www.bris.ac.uk/wp/w. p_strategy/sn99–35(s.htm);
  "Who does best at university?" Higher Education Funding Council for England 2002; available from http:// www.hefce.ac.uk/Learning/whodoes/. The HEFCE are continuing to refine and develop its analysis and a fuller report will be published later this year; and
  "Fair Enough£ Wicer access to university by identifying potential to succeed," by UUK 2003, available from http:// www. universitiesuk. ac. uk/fairenough/.

  Teacher Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether, under the Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003, people without a formal teacher qualification can be responsible for the direction and supervision of student teachers in schools. [126085]

  Mr. Miliband
  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 of The Education (Specifiec. Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003 defines student teachers as those aged over 18 years who are awaiting admission to, or retaking part of, a course of initial teacher training leading to Qualified Teacher Status. Student teachers may undertake specified work in schools for a limited period of time only (for up to 2 years or a longer period if approved by the Secretary of State). They must be supervised and directed by a qualified teacher or a nominated teacher in accordance with arrangements made by the head teacher of the school. The Regulations define a nominated teacher as a person who is either an instructor with special qualifications or experience, an overseas-trained teacher, a teacher who has almost qualified but has riot yet passed the skills tests, a graduate teacher, a registered teacher, or a teacher on the employment-based teacher training scheme. Higher level teaching assistants and other school support staff cannot direct or supervise student teachers.

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what special(a) measures and

  355W
  (b) funding are available for the retention and recruitment of teaching staff; and to which areas of Essex these apply. [125022]

  Mr. Miliband
  Essex as a whole has benefited from the full range of Government measures introduced since 1997 to improve teacher recruitment and retention. These measure include: Training Bursaries, Golden Helios, extra pay flexibilities, an enhanced Graduate Teacher Programme, assistance to purchase homes through the Starter Homes Initiative, the repayment of student loans and funding for Recruitment Managers within local education authorities. These initiatives have helped full-time equivalent teacher numbers rise across Essex from 12,580 in 1997 to 13,650 in 2002.

  In addition, twenty-one Essex schools are benefiting this year from the £125,000 Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG).

  School Standards
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from governing bodies about the role of governors in the Time for Standards initiative. [125426]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: Earlier this year I met with representatives of the National Governors' Council and the National Association of Governors and Managers to discuss how best to ensure that school governing bodies are fully involved in the implementation of proposals outlined in "Time for Standards" and the National Agreement on raising standards and tackling workload.

  Following these discussions, my Department has set up a regular forum with governors' representatives and the signatories to the National Agreement. The first took place on 27 June. One of the outcomes of that forum will be the development of specific materials for school governors to help them contribute to workforce reform.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rogue Landlords
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure that tenants and the public are protected from rogue landlords. [125861]

  Keith Hill
  The Government published a draft Housing Bill at the end of March 2003. The Bill contains provisions that would enable local authorities to engage in the selective licensing of private sector landlords. This will help them to tackle the bad effects that irresponsible landlords and anti-social tenants can have on the wider community—particularly in areas of low housing demand where the worst problems are concentrated. Raising standards of management': in these areas will benefit tenants and the public alike.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on neighbourhood renewal. [125867]

  Yvette Cooper
  Last year, the Government invested over £500 million in neighbourhood renewal programmes, including the New Deal Communities programmes, which involve local residents in major projects to regenerate low income areas, and over 240 neighbourhood warden programmes.

  Electoral Pilots
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if will make a statement on local electoral pilots. [125868]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) at column 263.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responsibilities for transport regional assemblies will have. [125869]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Elected regional assemblies will be responsible for a regional transport strategy, for advising the Government on funding allocations for local transport and for Rail Passenger Partnership grants. They will also have powers to make proposals to the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority for schemes of regional importance, and they will have a right to be consulted by these bodies on proposals affecting the region.

  Construction Projects
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on recent construction undertaken(a) at ports, (b) at airports and (c) on railway land under the provisions of the General Development Order. [125870]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The General Permitted Development Order grants permitted development rights to enable generally small-scale development to take place without the need to make a planning application. The Order includes rights granted to statutory undertakers for a variety of development required for the purposes of their undertaking.

  Regeneration
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the work of the South East of England Development Agency on regeneration; and if he will make a statement. [125871]

  Yvette Cooper
  A new system of Regional Development Agency (RDA) performance measurement and monitoring was set up in 1 April 2002. The annual report for SEEDA, as with all RDAs, is currently being prepared and will be submitted to the DTI and other Departments in the autumn.

  Homes (Modern Construction)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to promote building of new homes using modern methods of construction. [125872]

  Phil Hope
  The office of the Deputy Prime Minister is promoting modern construction methods to get homes built more quickly, more safely, and to a higher standard through a number of measures including:the £300 million Challenge Fund, which will produce over 8,000 homes in London and south-east England, of which 2,600 will be built using modern methods of manufacturing;
  the Housing Corporation's target that, from 2004–05, at least 25 per cent. of grant-funded homes will be built using modern methods of construction; and
  Millenium Communities projects, which act as exemplars of using the most efficient construction methodologies. We have asked English Partnerships to give a focus on modern methods at the Millennium Community in Milton Keynes.

  The Approved Documents to the Building Regulations will give guidance on how modern methods of construction can comply with the Regulations.

  London Project
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his plans are to take forward his London project. [125873]

  Keith Hill
  The Strategy Unit's recent report analysed the issues facing London over the long-term. It did not contain policy recommendations.

  The Strategy Unit is now working with a range of departments and organisations to address these issues.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to revise Circular 6/98, with particular reference to(a) the definition of affordable housing and (b) the site size thresholds which trigger affordable housing planning gains from developers; and when he plans to issue the revised good practice to local authorities on planning obligations. [126337]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published today for consultation an update of the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing. The update addresses a number of matters including how affordable housing should be defined and the size of site on which local authorities can seek affordable housing. The update will be supported by practice advice. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also intends to issue a consultation document on planning obligations in the near future. Following the consultation, it is our intention to publish a policy document on planning obligations that will replace Circular 1/97.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much Government funding the UK forum of Arson Investigators received in each of the last five years. [125765]
  358W
  Phil Hope
  The UK Forum of Arson Investigators has not received Government funding in any of the last five years.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many dwellings in the UK have been subject to compulsory purchase orders in each of the last five years. [126453]

  Keith Hill
  This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of consultants used by his Department was in financial year 2002–03. [115607]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) came into existence following the Machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002. The estimated cost, subject to final audit, of consultants used by the Office in the period 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2003 was £8,922,000. Consultants are used to bring in additional expertise and help across a wide range of the Office's responsibilities. A few examples of the areas of work where consultants are employed are:

  (a) evaluation of Local Authority statutory service and policy planning requirements;

  (b) setting up of the NRU website "renewal.net";

  (c) use of arboricultural consultant Inspectors to provide advice to the Secretary of State on tree preservation order appeals;

  (d) providing senior Bain Review team members and conducting the comparisons between firefighter's pay levels and those in the economy generally;

  (e) using expertise within local authorities and suppliers to local authorities to advise on local E-Government.

  (f) seeking innovative ways of delivering services on the Strategic Partnering Taskforce.

  (g) use of independent Advisory Panel members to advise on Beacon Council selection.

  Correspondence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much correspondence was received by(a) Ministers in his Department and (b) chief executives of agencies from hon. Members in 2002; what the target times for replies were; and how many replies were sent within target times. [120871]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley South (Mr. Alexander) on 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 21WS.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112751]

  Yvette Cooper
  With the exception of The Rent Service, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is yet to undertake such assessments.
  359W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister collects data relating to staff turnover in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its agencies for manpower planning. The Regional Co-ordination Unit, as the corporate centre of the Government Office Network, collects data for the Government Offices. These data will be used to make assessments of regional differences in developing our pay and workforce strategy.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is planning to improve the energy efficiency standards of new build to achieve the 10 MtC emissions reduction per annum by 2010 as indicated in the Energy White Paper. [124639]

  Phil Hope
  The Energy White Paper announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would start work immediately on the next major revision of the building regulations with the aim of bringing it into effect in 2005, and that we would raise boiler standards to the level of the most efficient types, A and B condensing ones. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also indicated our intention of raising standards over the coming decade learning lessons from the standards set in comparable European countries. The revision work will, for instance, examine what improvements can be made to the winter and summer performance standards for building fabric and heating, cooling and lighting systems, while ensuring the Regulations remain technically sound, proportionate, cost-effective and sufficiently flexible for designers.

  Fire
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fires in homes have occurred in each year since 1997. [125766]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is tabled as follows.

  Fires in dwellings. United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  Total

  1997

  72,492

  1998

  71,077

  1999

  72,228

  2000

  70,899

  2001

  69,014

  Dwellings include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.

  Data for 2001 are provisional; 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 33, whether there will be a reduction in the response to 999 calls in England as a result of modernisation of the Fire Service; and what definition he will use of reduction in the response. [125730]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under integrated risk management, it will be for fire authorities, not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to set local standards for responding to fires and other emergencies in the light of a full assessment of the risks faced by their communities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes that by 360W
  developing local standards based on the risks faced by communities and by placing greater emphasis on preventative action to stop fires and other emergencies from occurring in the first place, public safety will be improved and lives will be saved.

  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes to career prospects in the fire service, in terms of(a) opportunities, (b) training and (c) promotion he estimates will arise from the changes proposed in the Fire and Rescue Service White Paper. [125902]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The changes to the appointment and promotion regulations announced in the White Paper will mean that people with the right potential and skills, both within and outside the fire and rescue service, can apply for jobs at all levels and in all parts of the service. This will provide wider and more varied opportunities for staff in all sections of the service. The White Paper also announced the introduction of the Integrated Personal Development System which will ensure staff are developed and receive training relevant to their personal needs. In many cases this will include development to help them obtain promotion. This coupled with the removal of the requirement to have served for a specific number of years before obtaining promotion will improve promotion prospects of many staff.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many hoax calls were made to the Fire Service in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [126321]

  Phil Hope
  The number of malicious false calls are tabled:

  Year

  Number of calls

  1997

  88,813

  1998

  74,200

  1999

  70,446

  2000

  63,482

  2001

  63,359(provisional)

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many retained firefighters have been recruited in each year since 1997. [125767]

  Phil Hope
  The available information collected on a financial year basis from brigades in England and Wales is set out as follows:

  Number of applicants who were successful in their applications for employment as retained firefighters in brigades in England and Wales

  1998–99

  1,486

  1999–2000

  1,406

  2000–01

  1,352

  2001–02

  1,508

  Source:

  Annual returns to Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Fires
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious car fires were started by individuals under the age of 18 in each year since 1997. [125205]
  361W
  Phil Hope
  The information requested is in the following table. 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

  Malicious primary car fires started by persons under 18 UK 1997–2001

  Number

  1997

  9,098

  1998

  10,030

  1999

  14,352

  2000

  15,437

  2001

  18,841

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 2001 are provisional.

  2. Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) the average waiting time and (b) the longest waiting time for homeless families in priority need before being placed in permanent accommodation was in the last year for which figures are available; and what the range of waiting times was in each local authority. [124680]

  Keith Hill
  Under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002), local housing authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for applicants who are eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and who fall within a priority need group (the main homelessness duty). The duty applies until a settled housing solution becomes available (for example, an allocation of housing made under Part 6 of the 1996 Act as amended by the 2002 Act) or some other circumstance brings the duty to an end (for example, the applicant voluntarily quits temporary accommodation secured for him or here by the authority). Data supplied by local authorities in England shows that, overall, in 2002/03 almost three-quarters of households owed the main homelessness duty and provided with temporary accommodation received an offer of some form of settled accommodation; for the remainder, the duty was brought to an end as a result of some other circumstance.

  Information on the length of time that households which were owed the main homelessness duty have stayed in temporary accommodation (including any period pending a decision on their application) before the homelessness duty is brought to an end is collected in six-monthly time bands ("under six months", "six months to one year", etc to "two years or more"). It is therefore not possible to provide an average waiting time. However, it is estimated that just over half of the households who were owed a main homelessness duty, placed in temporary accommodation and subsequently received an offer of settled accommodation during 2002/ 03 (either an offer made under Part 6 of the 1996 Act or some other form of offer) had waited less than six months before receiving the offer. By comparison, only 10 per cent. had been in temporary accommodation for more than two years before receiving such an offer.

  Only two-thirds of local authorities were able to provide a comprehensive analysis of time spent in temporary accommodation and, due to concerns about
  362W
  the data quality, comparisons between authorities are not advisable. Available information suggests that, in around a quarter of local authorities, 90 per cent. of the households offered accommodation received the offer within six months.

  Housing (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many dwellings have been completed in the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years that were(a) for private residential use and (b) for local authority use. [125502]

  Keith Hill
  Tom Cox: Details of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) arid private completions are listed below. From the information available, there have been no local authority dwelling completions for the last three years.

  Private

  RSL

  2000–01

  209

  90

  2001–02

  336

  51

  2002–03

  637

  141

  Sources:

  P2 Return from local authorities to ODPM (data based on building control inspection

  RSL Figures: Housing Investment Programme Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2003,Official Report, column 461W, on housing revenue account, whether housing revenue account money may be used to fund the administration of anti-social behaviour orders served on people who do not live in local authority housing. [124939]

  Keith Hill
  No.

  National Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 3WS, what assessment he made of the option using the interest generated on tenancy deposits held on a single custodial deposit scheme to cover the costs of independent adjudication where disputes occur. [126046]

  Keith Hill
  The consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" provided an assessment in paragraph 35 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1. It noted that if £790 million, the amount estimated to be currently held in deposits, were held in a single custodial deposit scheme for a year, it would raise £31.6 million in interest (calculated at the Bank of England's then current base-rate). This is income that currently accrues to the landlord or, if so specified in the tenancy agreement, the tenant.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of disputed cases that would ultimately require adjudication under a national tenancy deposit scheme. [126043]
  363W
  Keith Hill
  There is a statistical analysis in paragraphs 8–14 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1 of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. This noted that according to the Survey of English Housing (SEH) some 20 per cent. of tenants said that their deposits had been unreasonably withheld in the last three years. However for the purposes of calculating the maximum number of disputed cases an SEH figure was used that showed that of the 905,000 tenancies that finished in 2001–02 some 127,000 of these (14 per cent.) involved, in the tenant's view,0 an unjustified retention of all or part of the deposit.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place copies of the public responses to Tenancy Money: probity and protection in the Library. [126041]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will do so when detailed proposals that will take account of Law Commission proposals for tenure reform are published. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes this will be later this year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 3WS, which paragraph in Tenancy Money: probity and protection indicated that there is not a robust case for legislating to compel the protection of tenancy monies in third party schemes. [126042]

  Keith Hill
  Chapter 3, paragraph 35, of the consultation paper stated that an independent evaluation of the pilot by York University was inconclusive as to the need for legislation, as the pilot had provided insufficient evidence to assess fully the nature and extent of the problem. A more detailed report published alongside (but summarised in Annex 9 of) the consultation paper concluded that there is no clear evidence that the actual incidence of tenants losing their deposits is so high as to require legislative intervention. In Annex 1 of the consultation paper the balance of costs and benefits, as estimated for the Regulatory Impact Assessment, were shown to be roughly equal.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 3WS, what estimated percentage of disputed cases going to adjudication he used to calculate that the annual adjudication costs of a national tenancy deposit scheme would be £19 million. [126044]

  Keith Hill
  There is a statistical analysis in paragraphs 8–14 and 29 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex I of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. This was based on the figures in the Survey of English Housing that of the 905,000 tenancies that finished each year approximately 127,000 tenants (or 14 per cent. of that total) felt that none or a lesser sum of the deposit should have been withheld. It further assumed, having regard to evidence from the pilot tenancy deposit scheme, that the average cost of adjudications would be £150.
  364W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the annual adjudication costs of the custodial option for a national tenancy deposit scheme if only 2.5 per cent. of disputed cases require adjudication. [126045]

  Keith Hill
  There is a tentative statistical analysis in the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1 of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. It suggested that the maximum number of tenants who might feel they had a case to go to adjudication was 127,000. Assuming that (i) only a custodial option was in place (ii) only 2.5 per cent of 127,000 (3,175) sought adjudication and (iii) the average cost of adjudication under the pilot of £150 applied—the cost would be £476,250. Although the figure of 2.5 per cent. is closer to the proportion of tenancies in the pilot that resulted in adjudication a mandatory requirement for safeguarding tenancy monies would probably result in a much higher proportion requiring adjudication.

  Housing (North-East Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was allowed to north east Lincolnshire for housing in the SSA for each year from 1995; and how much was spent on it by the local authority. [126419]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The majority of resources for housing are provided through the Housing Revenue Account. Formula Spending Shares (formerly Standard Spending Assessments) cover rent officer functions and certain homelessness and housing renewal functions, though we do not make allocations for specific services.

  North East Lincolnshire's expenditure on these non-HRA housing services from 1996–97 to 2001–02 was £443,000; £785,000, £795,000, £850.000, £743,000 and £836,000 respectively.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions since May 2002 Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what percentage of the total number of letters and questions received this represents. [121821]

  Yvette Cooper
  Between the period of 29 May 2002 to 27 June 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received(a) 10,060 letters from hon. Members of which 89 were transferred to executive agencies for response; and (b) 3,692 parliamentary questions of which 11 were transferred to executive agencies. In both cases this represents less than I per cent. of all correspondence and parliamentary questions received.

  Small Retailers (Deprived Areas)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on programmes under the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiative funded by the Government Office for the North West. [124387]

  Yvette Cooper
  Government Office for the North West was allocated £2,355,088 of funding for small retail businesses in deprived areas for the three years,
  365W
  2001–04. It was used on a range of interventions to individual shops or groups of shops, such as better locks and toughened glass or by making improvements to their immediate environment, such as better lighting.

  It is expected that a minimum of 955 shops in the North West will benefit from this year's allocation.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 937W, on social housing grant, what estimate he has made of the number of social housing schemes which will not proceed as a result of the abolition of Local Authority Social Housing Grant; and how many social housing units will be lost in consequence. [125727]

  Keith Hill
  On 17 June, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced a further extension of transitional arrangements for with debt local authorities. The period for submission of bids to the Housing Corporation by those authorities has been extended to 31 July and further resources have been made available of £30 million in 2004–05 and £40 million in 2005–06. The number of affordable houses to be built in 2003–04 from the funding for transitional arrangements will not be known until after that date.

  Sport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) assessment he has made of and (b) research he has commissioned into the potential impact of sport on regeneration; and if he will make a statement. [125260]

  Yvette Cooper
  The potential impact of sports facilities in contributing to regeneration is recognised in the Urban White Paper "Our Towns and our Cities: the Future" published in November 2000. It covers the role of cultural, leisure and sporting activities in promoting social and economic well-being in towns and cities.

  The impact of such activities on regeneration has been demonstrated by assessments carried out to select Beacon Councils for the "Regenerating through Culture, Sport and Tourism" theme in Round Two of the Beacon Council Scheme. Councils awarded Beacon Status have worked with the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) to share their best practice with councils all over the country.

  Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, revised in July 2002, recognises that high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sport and recreation facilities can support an urban renaissance and improve peoples' sense of well being in the place they live. "Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG 17" advises on how local assessments of need and audits of provision for such facilities can be carried out.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not carried out research specifically into the impact of sporting activities on regeneration. Within Government, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) takes the lead on sports policy. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is, however, working closely with other Government Departments (including DCMS), the Regional Development Agencies and the Core Cities
  366W
  Group of local authorities to consider ways of increasing the competitiveness and prosperity of major regional cities. This has included looking at the role that large-scale sporting and cultural investments can play in creating successful cities.

  The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is working closely with Sport England to improve the design quality of new sports buildings and spaces by adopting best practice. Their joint report "Better Places for Sport," published in May 2003, acknowledges the role of high quality sports facilities in helping to revitalise deprived neighbourhoods.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also been involved along with other stakeholders, such as DCMS, in analysing the consultants report commissioned to assess the costs and benefits of bidding for and hosting the Olympic Games in London in 2012. This examined the potential regeneration benefits offered by the Games for regenerating the Lower Lea Valley and other proposed sites.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the average Standard Spending Assessment was per head of population in(a) England, (b) the South West, (c) Dorset and (d) Poole in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [126442]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) were replaced by Formula Spending Shares (FSSs) in 2003–04. These are not directly comparable since the total amount of FSS was much larger than the total for SSA would have been as a result of increasing the Resource Equalisation.

  The population data used for 2003–04 (the mid-2001 population estimates) was based on the 2001 Census; the population data for the other years was based on the 1991 Census. These data are therefore also not directly comparable.

  The following table provides SSA per head for the period 1997–98 and FSS per head for 2003–04 as requested.

  England

  South West

  Dorset

  Poole

  1997–98

  829.45

  736.59

  560.95

  653.65

  1998–99

  869.19

  768.63

  585.49

  681.09

  1999–2000

  907.66

  803.66

  615.17

  711.94

  2000–01

  943.33

  836.69

  645.79

  735.73

  2001–02

  980.69

  866.93

  670.32

  764.00

  2002–03

  995.30

  876.47

  665.64

  759.72

  2003–04

  1,177.45

  1,045.84

  778.36

  903.15

  The figures are not comparable year-on-year as the services funded through SSA and FSS have changed over this period.

  The figures for England and the South West also include police services. Police services are provided by Dorset police in the Dorset and Poole area and are not therefore included in the Dorset and Poole figures.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124806]

  Keith Hill
  Since 29 May 2002, when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established, there have been no planning applications for prior approval to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what EU policy is on removing(a) tariff and (b) non-tariff barriers to trade between the EU and the developing world. [125745]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The EU is committed to improvements in market access for all members of the WTO, with a particular emphasis on developing country priorities. In agriculture the EU has already proposed average reductions in tariffs of 36 per cent. In non agricultural goods, the EU has proposed that all tariffs should be reduced to a maximum of 15 per cent. The EU is also committed to the reduction and whenever possible elimination of non-tariff barriers ensuring that these do not replace tariffs as an obstacle to trade.

  In addition, to assist the integration of developing countries into the world trading system, the EU's preferential access schemes allow many products from developing countries to enter the EU either duty free or with low tariffs. Under the Everything But Arms initiative, least developed countries have duty and quota-free access to the EU. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries also have preferential access to the EU market under the Cotonou Agreement under which most of their exports enter the EU duty free. Other developing countries enjoy preferential access under the generalised system of preferences.

  Administration/Receivership Services
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to review(a) the way that companies are charged for administration and receivership services and (b) the ways in which assets of companies placed into administration or receivership are sold. [125197]

  (2) What procedures are in place to control administration and receivership costs. [125198]

  It is a matter for the judgment of the administrator or receiver, usually with the benefit of professional advice, as to the most appropriate method of disposing of the company's assets, with a view to achieving the best price for them. We have no plans to review this or the basis on which an administrator's or receiver's remuneration is fixed.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  An administrator is appointed by the court and is required to submit his proposals for achieving the purposes of the administration to the 368W
  company's creditors and members. His remuneration is fixed by reference either to the value of the property with which he has to deal or the time properly given by him and his staff in attending to matters arising in the administration, and it is for the creditors' committee to determine it. If there is no committee or it does not make the required determination, the remuneration can be fixed by resolution of a meeting of the company's creditors. If not fixed in either of these ways, the administrator must apply to the court to fix his remuneration.

  The costs of an administrative receiver, including his remuneration, are primarily a matter for agreement between the receiver and the secured creditor by whom he is appointed, but any liquidator appointed in relation to the company has the power to ask the court to fix the receiver's remuneration if he considers that necessary or appropriate.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government will take to ensure that every home has access to affordable heating. [125582]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government published its Strategy for dealing with fuel poverty in November 2001, and its first annual progress report in March 2003. These documents set out how the Government intends to ensure that fuel poverty is ended among the vulnerable by 2010 and among the non-vulnerable in England by November 2016, as far as reasonably practicable. This will be done through:programmes to improve the home energy efficiency of fuel poor households;
  continuing action to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills, ensuring fair treatment for the less well off, and supporting the development of energy industry initiatives to combat fuel poverty;
  continuing action to tackle poverty, low incomes and social exclusion.

  We are working closely with the independent Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, to develop better identification and targeting mechanisms to improve local delivery of measures to combat fuel poverty. Extension of the gas network can help to meet these targets, and my Department is continuing to consider how this may be achieved.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the management of BAe Systems concerning a possible takeover bid by a foreign company. [125588]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has regular meetings with the management of BAe Systems at which a wide range of issues are discussed, including the company's performance, competitiveness, future programmes and future strategy. Such discussions are commercially confidential, under Exemption 13—Third Party's Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Biotechnology
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her Answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 922W, on biotechnology, how much her Department spent in (a) sponsorships, (b) grants and (c) other financial assistance to biotechnology companies in 2001–02. [125384]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 July 2003]: For the most recent financial year (2001/02), the Department's expenditure on grants and other financial assistance for the biotechnology industry sector in the UK was approximately £16 million (excluding Research Councils' funding).

  Information on the expenditure by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) was provided in my answer to the hon. Member on 26 June 2003, Official Report, columns 921–22W.

  It is not possible to give precise information, due to the lack of a generally accepted definition of biotechnology and the differences in the ways individual Research Councils analyse their annual expenditure.

  Broadband
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sums have been paid to(a) NTL and (b) BT to assist in the rollout of broadband services; when such payments were made; and if she will make a statement. [117716]

  Mr. Timms
  [pursuant to the answer, 18 June 2003, Official Report, c. 324W]: In that answer I stated that "Under the Cornwall ActNow project, assisted by EC Objective I funding, BT received £237,225 from DTI between December 2001 and August 2002, as a result of a tender process to upgrade exchanges for broadband in a region where such investment would also not be commercially viable". I should now like to clarify the position.

  The source of the capital funding for ActNow was EU Objective 1 funding. In addition, some revenue funding was provided via EU Objective 1, other public contributors and the South West of England Regional Development Agency from funds provided by Central Government. None of this funding was paid direct to BT. The applicant for both the capital and revenue funding for ActNow was Cornwall Enterprise, a part of Cornwall county council, on behalf of all public partners in the project. BT was one of a number of partners with a role in fulfilling the project. Cornwall Enterprise also took responsibility for monitoring BT's performance.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to publish the recent report by Analysis on the UK's progress on the take-up of broadband across the G7 countries. [126020]

  Mr. Timms
  The take-up of broadband, which is measured as an index of residential (M.J.A.) broadband penetration across a range of G7 countries, will be published in an extract from the recent report by Analysis on the Department's website in the section headed Broadband progress-national facts and figures by the end of the July.

  Coal Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of when coal will disappear as a plausible energy source owing to emission constraints. [125585]

  Mr. Timms
  Published supporting analysis to the Energy White Paper published in February 2003 suggests that coal could still represent more than 10 per cent. of total UK energy use in 2010, while falling to somewhat below 10 per cent. by 2020. The fall partly reflects the impact of an increase in the age structure of existing coal plants on plant economics, but also incorporates the impact of certain policies such as the Climate Change Programme, Large Combustion Plant Directive and the National Emissions Ceilings Directive.

  The White Paper itself recognizes that the pressures on coal from an environmental direction may increase in future, but comment.; on the potential for coal to remain as a major fuel source if combined with clean coal technology or capture and storage techniques.

  Company Directors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 569W, on company directors, how many adverse reports in each year were referred by her Department for court action; how many directors were reported on more than one occasion; and how many of these directors were disqualified, and for what period. [125931]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Details of the disqualification actions issued and of the disqualifications obtained are published in the Insolvency Service Agency Annual Report and Accounts. The remaining information cannot be provided except at disproportionate costs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes c f 19 May concerning the Early Day Motion calling for o ban on trade in cat and dog fur and which was transferred from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for reply. [126155]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reply will be sent to the hon. Member for Totnes on 17 July 2003.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings have been held between her Department and the Treasury since the publication of the Energy White Paper in February to discuss fiscal instruments to improve energy efficiency. [123975]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury and Defra lead on the question of fiscal instruments and energy efficiency policy respectively. The DTI has not specifically held meetings with the Treasury on the subject of fiscal instruments for energy efficiency. However on a number of occasions discussions between DTI, Defra and the Treasury on the follow up to the Energy White Paper,
  371W
  through the Sustainable Energy Policy Network and otherwise, have addressed the use of fiscal instruments in various aspects of energy policy.

  Energy Imports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the UK's energy she estimates will be imported in 2023. [125579]

  Mr. Timms
  As mentioned at Section 6.13 of the Energy White Paper, published in February 2003, we are likely to be importing around three quarters of our primary energy needs by 2020.

  European Union Contracts
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her counterparts in the EU concerning reform of the system for advertising EU public sector contracts for which small businesses might bid. [125168]

  Jacqui Smith
  My hon. Friend the then Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets met her counterparts in the EU to discuss the need to reform the present system for awarding EU public sector contracts. These exchanges have taken place as part of the discussions held with the European Commission and other member states on the proposals to update, clarify and simplify the existing public procurement directives.

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the additional cost to businesses arising from the need, under the Government's implementation of the Equal Treatment at Work Directive, to compensate employees taking early retirement who might have worked on until they were 70; and if she will make a statement. [125296]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Early retirement packages are a matter for negotiation between employer and employee. The Government are consulting on proposals to prohibit age discrimination under the EU Employment Directive. The proposals include options relating to retirement age, but would not require changes to the age at which pensions may be payable. They do not, therefore, require additional costs to businesses in relation to early retirement.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the expected quantity of age discrimination claims against employers from employees per year as a result of EU Directives in terms of(a) volume and (b) value; and if she will make a statement. [125297]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanies the "Equality and Diversity: Age Matters" consultation document has used existing discrimination cases as a pointer to estimate the number and cost of age discrimination claims that might arise.

  We would expect about 8,000 Employment Tribunal applications to be made per year, at an average cost to an employer of between £2,000 and £4,000 per case. To reduce the potential burden on employers, the
  372W
  Government are aiming to have the Regulations outlawing age discrimination in place by the end of 2004 so that employers have ample time to change their internal systems to reduce the likelihood of claims being made against them when the legislation comes into force on 1 October 2006.

  Executive Remuneration
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the publications produced by her Department in each year since 1997 which have made reference to executive remuneration. [126077]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has produced consultative documents specifically on the issue of executive remuneration on three occasions since 1997, as follows:

  Date

  99/923

  Directors' Remuneration

  July1999

  01/1400

  Directors' Remuneration

  December 2001

  03/652

  "Rewards for Failure" Directors'

  June 2003

  Remuneration—Contracts,

  Performance and Severance

  Other publications will also have made reference to executive remuneration but a more detailed answer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as such information is not held centrally.

  Independent Insurance Company
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports' she has received from the administrators concerning the conduct of the directors of Independent Insurance Company; and what action she intends to take concerning the company's collapse. [126073]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  On 17 June 2001, the High Court of Justice appointed provisional liquidators of Independent Insurance Company Ltd. The provisional liquidators are responsible for the protection of the company estate until the court determines the winding up petition presented against the company. There is no requirement to submit conduct reports on the company directors, until such time as a winding up order is made by the court, at which time the business affairs and failure of the company would be investigated by the Official Receiver.

  Insolvency Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licensed insolvency practitioners are employed by the Insolvency Service. [125833]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None.

  Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees are estimated by her Department to lack adequate internal dispute resolution procedures; what proportion of these are small and medium-sized enterprises; how many are
  373W
  expected to lack adequate procedures when the new rules come into force in 2004; and if she will make a statement. [125822]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We estimate that there are just over 800,000 employers that do not have adequate dispute resolution procedures in place at this time. 97 per cent. of those firms with inadequate procedures have less than 20 employees.

  The statutory dispute resolution procedures (as set out in draft Regulations, under the Employment Act 2002, which were published on 9 July 2003) are planned to come into force in October 2004. The implementation of these procedures will be supported by a broad, wide-reaching information and guidance campaign, in partnership with a range of small firms organisations and other advisory bodies. The campaign aims to ensure that all small firm employers are informed about the new requirements in time to implement them.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has had from small and medium-sized enterprises concerning requirements expected to come into force in 2004 to compel staff wishing to pursue a complaint to go through internal dispute resolution procedures before going to a tribunal. [125823]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The framework for these new dispute resolution procedures was established in the 2002 Employment Act. This was preceded by an extensive public consultation, involving many small and medium-sized firms.

  The Government are currently consulting on draft Regulations that will bring these dispute resolution procedures into effect. The draft Regulations were developed with considerable input from an Advisory Group, which included representatives from the Small Business Council, the Small Business Service, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum for Private Business. Moreover, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines, two focus groups were held with small businesses to test the proposals.

  The ongoing consultation on these draft Regulations will last for 16 weeks until 29 October 2003. We hope to collect more views from small firms, and other organisations, during this time.

  Mail Order Companies
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions there are on mail order companies debiting customers' credit cards where they are unable to give a date when the goods will be available. [125622]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There are no restrictions on mail order companies debiting consumers' credit cards in the circumstances described. However, consumers are protected by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 which stipulate that unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the supplier must deliver the goods within 30 days; and that if the goods are unavailable the consumer must be informed and reimbursed.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government has to support research and development in the nuclear industry. [125581]

  Mr. Timms
  Direct DTI funding of fission research stopped in 1994 with the cessation of the fast reactor programme and there is none included in current DTI spending plans for the next three years. DTI funding is reviewed annually and will be considered next as part of the 2004 Spending Review, which covers the period 2005–08. The UK nuclear industry currently benefits from Government support for EU and OECD coordinated research programmes.

  The Research Councils received funding from spending review 2002 for a research programme "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy" which includes proposals to establish a National Energy Research Network and UK Energy Research Centre. A Scientific Advisory Committee has been established to advise the Councils on the emphasis and scope of the programme and of the Centre. It is however envisaged that the National Energy Research Network would cover a broad range of energy research. In addition, the Research Councils provide funding in the region of £16 million a year for fusion research.

  Pension Fund Deficits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on government liability for deficits in the pension funds of(a) Rolls Royce and (b) BAE Systems. [124905]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government assumed ultimate responsibility for any outstanding liabilities of British Aerospace, which vested in its successor company on 1 January 1981 in preparation for privatisation. The Government would only become responsible for such liabilities, including those for pension fund deficits, in the event of a voluntary winding up of BAE Systems plc or an order to wind up the company by the court under the Insolvency Act.

  The Government has no liability for deficits in the pension funds of Rolls-Royce.

  Post Offices
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices in Leicester she has visited since 2001; and how many of those subsequently closed. [125273]

  Mr. Timms
  In her ministerial capacity, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has visited one post office in Leicester since 2001. In her constituency capacity, she visits post offices as part of her normal engagements. Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd and we do not keep data showing if post offices visited by Ministers have subsequently closed.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the appointees to the(a) National Consumer Council, (b) Hearing Aid Council, (c) Gas Consumer Council, (d) Post Office Users Council for Scotland, (e) Post Office Users Council for Northern Ireland, (f) Post Office Users Council for Wales, (g) English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, (h) Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, (i) Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications, (j) Economic and Social Research Council, (k) Medical Research Council, (l) Natural Environmental Research Council, (m) Advisory Committee on Coal Research, (n) Energy Advisory Panel, (o) Measurement Advisory Committee, (p) Overseas Project Board, (q) London & Southeast Industrial Development Board, (r) Northwest Industrial Development Board (s) Southwest Industrial Development Board and (t) Eastern Region Industrial Development Board; and which of the appointees to each body are from ethnic minorities. [122992]

  Ms Hewitt
  The membership of the bodies listed is as follows. An asterisk indicates appointees who have declared that they are from the black or minority ethnic communities:

  National Consumer Council

  Deirdre Mutton—Chair

  Robert Chilton—Vice Chair

  Graeme Millar

  Viv Sugar

  Stephen Costello

  Mark Boleat

  Andrew Dilnot

  Dianne Hayter

  Sir Christopher Kelly

  Stephen Locke

  Julie Mellor

  Julia Unwin

  Hearing Aid Council

  John Raine—Chair

  Anthony Corcoran

  Christine Pearce

  Deepak Prasher*

  Victoria Skeels

  Jonathan Ormerod

  Maurice Hawthorne

  Mark Georgevic

  Margaret Hughes

  Denise Yates

  Huw Thomas

  John Irwin

  Peter Ormerod

  Energywatch

  Ann Robinson—Chair

  Allan Asher—Chief Executive

  Andrew Horsier

  Bob Wilkinson

  John Hanlon

  Les Roberts

  Neil Menzies

  Sharon Darcy

  Tim Cole

  376W
  Postwatch

  National Council Appointees:

  Peter Carr—Chair

  Moi Ali*

  Dr. Diane Bailey

  Ann Foster

  Clara Arokiasamy*

  Council appointees who are also regional chairs

  Dr. Tom Begg QBE JP—Scotland

  John Stringer OBE—Northern Ireland

  Eifion Pritchard QPM—Wales

  Judith Donovan CBE—Northern England

  Kay Dixon—Greater London

  Dr. Charles Winstanley—East of England

  Richard Wand—Midlands

  Dr. David Bland OBE—South East England

  Charles Howeson—South and West

  English advisory committee on telecommunications

  Moira Black CBE—Chair

  Peter Collins

  Siva Lingham-Moodley*

  Robert Little

  Brian Love

  Barbara McClennan

  Brian McNally

  Peter Sayers

  James Woodward-Nutt

  Scottish advisory committee on telecommunications

  Jeremy Mitchell—Chair

  Christopher Griffith

  Mark Hagger

  Kenneth Murray

  Wendy Reynolds

  Alastair Robertson

  Barry Stevens

  Northern Ireland advisory committee on telecommunications

  Courtenay Thompson—Chair

  John Campbell

  Brian St. John Collins

  Moore Kennedy

  Ian McPherson

  Seamus Magee

  Jean McVitty

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Frances Cairncross—Chair

  Professor Ian Diamond—Chief Executive

  Professor Patricia Broadfoot

  Professor Andrew Chesher

  Ms Bronwyn Curtis

  Professor Haydn Ellis

  Mr. Stuart Etherington

  Mr. Paul Johnson

  Ms Eileen MacKay

  Ms Marianne Neville-Rolfe

  Professor Robin Wensley

  Professor Steve Wilks

  Professor Sir Alan Wilson

  377W
  Medical Research Council

  Sir Anthony Cleaver—Chair

  Professor Sir George Radda—Chief Executive

  Dr. E. Mac Armstrong

  Sir William Castell

  Professor Kay Davies

  Professor R M Denton

  Dr. Peter Fellner

  Professor Ray Fitzpatrick

  Derek Flint

  Dr. Ruth Hall

  Professor Ian MacLennan

  Professor Alan North

  Professor Sir John Pattison

  Professor Genevra Richardson

  Professor Nancy Rothwell

  Professor John Savill

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Rob Margetts—Chair

  Professor John Lawton—Chief Executive

  Professor Malcolm Anderson

  Chris Andrews

  Professor John Beddington

  Professor Valerie Brown

  Pamela Castle

  Professor Howard Dalton

  Professor Trevor Davies

  Professor Anne Glover

  Richard Hardman

  Dr. Colin Hicks

  Edwin Tenner

  Mrs Karen Morgan

  Professor Judith Petts

  Professor David Read

  Advisory Committee on Cleaner Coal Technologies

  Peter Cooper

  Mike Evans

  Dr. Mike Parley

  Ken Ferguson

  Dr. Chris Green

  John Griffiths

  Professor John McMullan

  Nick Otter

  Brian Ricketts

  Paul Setchfield

  Professor Jim Williamson

  378W
  Energy Advisory Panel

  Sir John Collins—Chair

  Dr. Christopher Anastasi

  Peter Lehmann CBE

  Professor John Chesshire OBE

  Dr. Catherine Mitchel

  Tony Cooper

  Hugh Mortimer

  Dr. Nigel Evans

  David Green MBE

  Peter Nicholls

  Dr. Dieter Helm

  Mike Parker OBE

  Dr. Paul Jefferiss

  Professor Kenneth Vowles OBE

  Professor Alexander Kemp

  Dr. Anthony White

  Measurement Advisory Committee

  Dr. Cohn Gaskell CBE Chair

  Dr. Penny Allisy-Roberts QBE

  Mr. Mike Buckley

  Dr. Peter Cowley

  Prof Les Ebdon

  Dr. David Ellix

  Prof Ken Grattan

  Mr. David Holmwood

  Dr. Alan Johnson

  Dr. Roger Jones

  Mr. John Latham

  Mr. Steve Lower

  Dr. Julia King

  Dr. John Tyrer

  Mr. Richard Freeman

  Dr. Janet Townsend

  London and South East Industrial Development Board

  John McCready—Chair

  Thomas Cohen

  Peter Croucher

  Praful Davda*

  Bryan Davies

  Gurbinder Gill*

  Jim Hicks

  Wendy Hyde

  Mei Sim Lai*

  Helen Sasson

  Robert Stiles

  Indeer Jeet Sodhi*

  Graeme Wyles

  379W
  North West Industrial Development Board

  Lorraine Clinton—Chair

  John Dixon

  John Alcock

  Raymond Armstrong

  John Cackett

  David McCall

  Duncan Mcllan

  Kirit Pathak QBE*

  George Verghese*

  Eva Wisemark

  Dr. Marcus Wood

  South West Industrial Development Board

  Ian Lowe—Chair

  Dr. Susan Astbury

  Ruth Bagley

  Dr. Richard Brown

  Alan Courts

  John Crownshaw

  Ian Douglas

  Neville Gibson

  Alan Hayman

  Richard Morgan

  Rama Nand-Lal

  Victoria Pickering

  Nigel Randall

  Brian Sherwin

  Terence Slater

  Barbara Speirs

  Eastern Region Industrial Development Board

  Elaine Oddie—Chair

  David Baggott

  Alan Davies

  Robert Downing

  Martin Gould

  Keith Hamilton

  Terence Hill

  Shaz Khan OBE*

  Hugh Lawson

  Laurence Russen

  Mike Smith

  Notes:

  1. The Gas Consumer Council has been replaced by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (better known as Energywatch)

  2. Postwatch (also known as the Consumer Council for Postal Services) took the place of the Post Office Users Council for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and also the Post Office Users National Council.

  3. We have no trace of the Advisory Committee on Coal Research—we have however attached details of the membership of the Advisory Committee on Cleaner Coal Technologies.

  4. We have no trace of the Overseas Project Board.

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what target she has set for the percentage of renewable energy use by(a) 2010 and (b) 2020. [125584]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Renewables Obligation which the Government introduced in April 2002, places an obligation on all licensed electricity suppliers to supply a specified proportion of electricity from renewables. We have set a target for electricity generated from renewable sources to reach 10 per cent. by 2010.

  (b) The Energy White Paper—Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy published in February 2003 reinforces the Government's commitment to renewable forms of energy. Our aspiration is that by 2020, 20 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs will be met from renewable sources.

  Richard Roberts Ltd.
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when in October 2002 officials of the Department of Trade and Industry's Insolvency Department met the CEO of Richard Roberts Ltd. to discuss redundancy payments for the unemployed workers in Leicester; what the original amount was that the Department of Trade and Industry agreed to pay for the Richard Roberts Company's insolvency in the Leicester factory in October 2002; and by when the Department of Trade and Industry intends to pay the agreed amount. [125661]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My officials concerned with redundancy payments have held a number of meetings with the Finance Director of Richard Roberts Ltd. but have not met the Chief Executive Officer. The Redundancy Payments Office agreed to make payments to former employees of the company, initially of £750,000 and subsequently a further £1,250,000, a total of £2,000,000. The office has already made payments in excess of the agreed amount.

  Trading Standards
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Stop Now Orders have been issued since June 2000; and if she will make a statement. [125827]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Since June 2001 when the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations came into force, seven Stop Now Orders have been sought and obtained from the courts. Four of these were obtained by Trading Standards authorities and three by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received alleging unfair contract terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in each year since 1997; how many of these complaints have been open for more than two years; and how many successful prosecution there have been in each year since 1997. [125825]
  381W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) figures for complaints by calendar years are:

  1997: 1,045

  1998: 1,110

  1999: 1,359

  2000: 1,202

  2000: 1,179

  2002: 1,048

  Figures for the last two financial years are:

  2001–02: 1,076

  2002–03: 1,055

  At the end of the last financial year, 125 cases had been open for over two years.

  OFT has no power to undertake prosecutions as such for the use of unfair terms. Its power is to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms. But OFT may accept undertakings not to use unfair terms in lieu of seeking injunctions and in nearly all cases it secures such improvements in standard contract terms in this way, through consultation and negotiation. Since 1995, OFT has secured some 900 undertakings from businesses not to use unfair terms. These undertakings govern the use of some 5,000 unfair terms. In only one case, that of 'Director General of Fair Trading v. First National Bank', has the OFT had to take legal action to stop the use of a term it considered unfair. In that case, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and decided that the term in question was not unfair.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many undertakings she has received from businesses to desist from unfair trading; how many subsequent breaches of these undertakings there have been; and how many have been prosecuted for breach of undertaking; [125826]

  (2) if she will set out the procedures in place for monitoring undertakings given by businesses to desist from unfair trading. [125828]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Under the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001, there have been 26 undertakings (12 by the Office of Fair Trading and 14 by Trading Standards authorities) received against business breaching consumer protection legislation. The DTI do not receive undertakings from business under these Regulations.

  As a result of breaches of the undertaking, seven cases gone to court and Stop Now Orders obtained. A breach of a Stop Now Order in one case resulted in the trader been found guilty of contempt of court.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment her Department has made of the effects of below-cost selling by supermarkets; [125683]
  382W
  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the impact on the UK grocery retail sector of introducing measures to (a) prohibit below-cost selling by supermarkets and (b) to ensure transparency in contracts between supermarkets and supplies; [125684]

  (3) what measures her Department will take (a) to ensure transparency in commercial dealings between supermarkets and their suppliers and (b) to prohibit below-cost selling by supermarkets. [125685]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answers 14 July 2003]: The Competition Commission (CC) monopoly report `Supermarkets: A Report on the Supply of Groceries from multiple stores in the United Kingdom' was published on 10 October 2000. The CC concluded that the practice of persistent below-cost selling when conducted by supermarkets with market power, operates against the public interest. However, the CC stated that remedies to prevent below cost selling would require monitoring and intervention that would be disproportionate to the adverse effects they were designed to remedy. Therefore the CC made no recommendations for remedial action.

  Following the CC's report, the four supermarkets with a market share of 8 per cent. or over (Sainsbury, Asda Wal-Mart, Tesco and Safeway) gave legally binding undertakings to comply with a Code of Practice governing relations with their suppliers. The Code is intended to provide a framework for dealings between supermarkets and their suppliers. Terms of business must be transparent and available in writing.

  Supermarkets will not be able to change agreed terms without giving the supplier notice or compensation. The Code also includes a provision for an independent mediator, paid for by the supermarkets, to resolve disputes about the Code if the parties cannot do so themselves.

  The Office of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the Supermarket Code o [Practice. They are expected to report later this summer. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she wit take steps to replace the supermarket Code of Practice with a statutory requirement for suppliers to offer the same contractual terms to all grocery retailers; [125681]

  (2) what measures her Department will take to revise the Supermarket Code of Practice. [125682]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answers 14 July 2003]: Under UK competition law it is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading to review undertakings which arise from adverse findings in a monopoly investigation. The OFT is currently reviewing the Supermarket Code of Practice. They are expected to report later this summer. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

  Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the companies and organisations that have made representations to her about the effect of the implementation of the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive on the printer ink and toner cartridge recycling industry. [125332]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: Following a recent press article about these issues, my Department has received over fifty letters from t he cartridge refilling industry and others, including a number from Cartridge World franchisees. My officials will be meeting the UK Cartridge Recycling Association later this month to discuss their concerns. They are also due to meet representatives of the larger cartridge manufacturers shortly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the implementation of the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive on the printer ink and toner cartridge recycling industry. [125386]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Directive (the WEEE Directive) does not prevent the reuse or refilling of printer cartridges.

  A number of printer ink and toner cartridge refill businesses have raised the concern, following a recent press article, that their operations may be put at risk if the scope of the Directive does not include these goods. My Department is looking at the points they have raised, bearing in mind our support for the reuse of printer cartridges and our desire to see this continue. My officials will shortly be meeting representatives of the cartridge recycling industry to explore their concerns.

  The refill industry has raised with us concerns related to existing technology applied to some of the goods currently sold, which prevents reuse. However, the WEEE Directive does not affect this.

  The European Commission has made clear that printer cartridges do not fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive, but considers that forthcoming EU legislation on eco-design may address the issues here. The Government agree with this assessment. In the meantime, if the spread of new technology specifically to prevent reuse begins to impinge significantly on the independent refill market, I would want to consider what additional action might be warranted.

  World Trade Organisation
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she will take to ensure that at the next World Trade Organisation meeting the issues to which developing countries give priority are resolved before consideration is given to the new issues, objected to by developing countries at Doha. [125903]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We agree that it is necessary to address developing countries' interests as a matter of priority to ensure that the Doha Development Agenda is truly a development round.
  384W
  We hope to see the WTO Ministerial in Cancun secure agreement to a package of measures of interest to developing countries, including progress on agriculture and agreement on TRIPS and Public Health and on a series of measures on special and differential treatment.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126605]

  Ms Hewitt
  Up to 15 July, 72 written ministerial statements have been made by my Department.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  National Women's Conference (Iraq)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the national women's conference in Iraq on 9 July. [126394]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to my written statement of 15 July 2003,Official Report, columns 17–18WS.

  Armed Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with the Minister for the armed forces with regard to the recruitment of women into the armed services. [124795]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have not had specific discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces about the recruitment of women into the armed forces. However, I understand that in FY 2002/03, the armed forces gained 3,230 new women recruits, an increase of 540 over the previous year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on Northern Ireland's agricultural industry of the outcome of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [125845]

  Mr. Pearson
  I believe the agreement that has been reached is a good deal for Northern Ireland farmers. It creates a long term stable policy environment and will introduce a new era for the farming industry, with a much greater emphasis on production in response to the market. The option to fully decouple subsidies will free producers from farming for subsidies and provide a much more market-orientated approach. The days when farmers had to maintain, sometimes at a loss, a certain number of cattle or sheep to qualify for subsidies will shortly be at an end.

  Most importantly, the provision for regional discretion gives Northern Ireland sufficient flexibility in the implementation of the new arrangements to ensure outcomes which reflect fully the needs of its agricultural industry.
  385W
  On modulation, the UK will receive back at least 80 per cent. of the modulation monies raised, compared with 66 per cent. in the original Commission proposal.

  In the dairy sector, the agreement is closer to what the industry wanted. Quotas will be retained until 2014–15, the quota increases originally suggested for 2007 and 2008 havebeen suspended pending an outlook report to be conducted after the reforms are implemented, and the support price cuts, although starting a year earlier, are not as large as originally proposed, while compensation for the price cuts has been increased from 50 per cent. to over 80 per cent.

  The proposal for cereal price cuts reform was rejected and the only change is that monthly increments are halved. This will have minimal impact in Northern Ireland.

  It is not possible at this stage to accurately assess the impact of the deal on the industry. Many technical details remain to be finalised and there is uncertainty

  £

  Financial year

  Programme

  1Greater Belfast area

  Northern Ireland

  1997–98

  Northern Ireland Drugs Campaign—Classroom resources/inservice training;

  5,000

  25,000

  2 European Social Fund (ESF)
  assistance (through the Department for Employment and Learning) for nine Projects, which include drug education.

  69,940

  —

  1998–99

  2 ESF assistance

  196,647

  160,475

  1999–2000

  2 ESF assistance

  466,876

  177,785

  2000–01

  2 ESF assistance; Northern Ireland Drugs Strategy, including;

  312,644

  —

  Education and Library Board Drug Education Projects—employment of field officers to develop resources and provide training;

  70,000

  408,000

  Public information campaigns;

  —

  3 81,000

  Other (non DE) projects and programmes with an educational focus;

  3 287,500

  2001–02

  2 ESF assistance NI Drug Strategy (as above:

  250,008

  —

  Education and Library Board Drug Education Projects;

  63,000

  374,000

  Public Information Campaigns;

  —

  184,500

  Other (non DE) programmes and projects

  —

  3 600,778

  2002–03

  2 ESF assistance;

  171,004

  73,468

  Public Information Campaigns

  —

  3 437,955

  DE—Continuation funding for Inter Board Project;

  42,000

  235,000

  Other (non DE) projects and programmes

  2,4 264,252

  3 993,888

  2003–04

  2 ESF assistance;

  110,515

  215,391

  DE funding for ELB Projects (Not yet allocated)

  76,000

  425,000

  2002–04

  Northern Ireland Drug and Alcohol Strategy—activities agreed by the Education and Prevention Working Group

  5—

  6 350,000

  7 325,000

  8 35,000

  1 It is not possible to identify separately the North Belfast component of expenditure.

  2 It is not possible to identify separately funding for the Drug Education component of expenditure.

  3 (DHSSPS)

  4 (DEL)

  5 Cannot be separately identified.

  6 Public Information Campaigns.

  7 Training for Educators.

  8 Revision of 'Misuse of Drugs' pack.

  386W
  over the extent to which other countries will decouple. One of the expected benefits from a decoupled system is that, while production will fall, prices will rise. We will need to undertake substantialeconomic analysis and modelling before we agree final decisions with the industry.

  Drugs Use (Education)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been allocated to educate young people in(a) North Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland against the dangers of drug use in each year since 1997. [123803]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not possible to quantify the amount of money spent on drug education for young people in schools, as drug education programmes are, for the most part, delivered as part of the statutory curriculum and funded through schools' normal LMS budgets. Additional funding has been provided as set out in the table. It is not possible to identify separately funding allocated to North Belfast.

  Energy Industry
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the long term contracts for Ballylumford power station and the Moyle interconnector have been refinanced; and what discussions he has had on the refinancing of the Scotland to Northern Ireland natural gas pipeline. [125190]

  Mr. Pearson
  In 2000, the Ballylumford power station contract, entered into at the time of privatisation in 1992, was refinanced through a customer buyout.

  The Moyle interconnector was refinanced as a result of its sale on 14 April 2003, to a fully debt financed, not for profit company.

  The Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation is currently in discussion with the owners of the Northern Ireland to Scotland gas pipeline about the scope for introducing a similar not for profit structure for that interconnector.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will refinance the Ballylumford power station and the Moyle interconnector within the Northern Ireland energy industry. [125191]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave him today to Question references 125190 and 125192.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the, Government have taken to minimise the cost to Northern Ireland electricity customers of energy industry debt; what the Government's plans are for reducing this cost on electricity customers; and when he estimates customers will benefit. [125192]

  Mr. Pearson
  A working party of economists drawn from the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation has been examining options for the refinancing of energy assets and contracts, with a view to energy cost reductions for the consumer. It is expected to report shortly.

  The findings of the working group and the outcomes of the consultation papers "Competition and Customer Empowerment" published by the Regulator on 4 March 2003 and "Towards a New Energy Strategy for Northern Ireland" published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on 17 April 2003 will shape future announcements in this area.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what aspects of the Higher Education White Paper will be extended to Northern Ireland; and what the timetable is for the implementation of its proposals. [125538]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is my intention to consider carefully the implications for Northern Ireland of the DfES White Paper on the future of Higher Education in England over the next few months; to take into consideration the outcomes of the, consultation process in England and discussions with local stakeholders 388W
  including the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council; and to bring forward recommendations on the way forward in Northern Ireland in due course.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of post—primary education in Northern Ireland. [125535]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have established a working group to provide advice and recommendations on options for future arrangements for post-primary education. The group has been asked to report by 31 October 2003. Decisions on future post-primary arrangements will not be taken until the group's advice has been considered.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act (Passenger Information)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Government have taken to achieve international co-ordination of the passenger information required at ports of entry under section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000; [124756]

  (2) what progress has been made by the Government in putting in place the IT and other systems necessary to achieve successful implementation at UK airports of the requirements of section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. [124757]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government has consulted a number of other countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and the EU countries, about the implementation of the Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002.

  We are making good progress on implementation and the police are working closely with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service to ensure a cohesive approach to the collection of information at all ports.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the average time taken between an application for an antisocial behaviour order and its subsequent court hearing in(a) England and Wales and (b) the West Midlands; [22781]

  (2) what actions have been taken to reduce the length of time between application for antisocial behaviour orders and their subsequent hearing. [122782]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the length to time taken between an application for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and its subsequent hearing is not routinely collected. However, since ASBOs became available in April 1999, the Government has identified that in some cases the time between an application for an ASBO being made and the order being granted was too long.

  As such, we have taken a range of measures under the Police Reform Act 2002 to improve the effectiveness of ASBOs, enabling the courts to protect communities

  389W
  more quickly. Interim orders can be made at the same time as an ASBO application, orders on conviction and county court orders can avoid the need for a separate court hearing.

  In addition, the Government is working with agencies to spread good practice, the Judicial Studies Board has produced training to improve the courts' understanding and implementation of ASBOs and the Home Office has issued guidance to enable practitions to implement the Police Reform Act 2002 changes more effectively.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it took the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to process applications for(a) asylum, (b) indefinite leave to remain and (c) citizenship in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [125102]

  Beverley Hughes

  (a) Asylum

  The average time between an asylum 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 7 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 Appellant Authority 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 from the Library, published at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigration 1. html

  (b) Indefinite leave to remain (settlement)

  There are no published data on decision times to determine applications for settlement. Our aim is to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks. Currently straightforward applications are being decided on initial consideration within three—four weeks on average. Most applications that cannot be decided
  390W
  on initial consideration are being decided within six months but because of the high intake there are some that are taking around 12 months to decide.

  (c) Citizenship

  Information on the current waiting times for citizenship applications are available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website www.ind.homeoffice. gov.uk/default.asp?Pageld = 16, and is periodically updated. As at July 2003 the average length of time for a citizenship application to be processed in nine months.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that the emergency services are prepared to deal with a terrorist attack in the UK. [124412]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The UK has the necessary plans in place in the interests of national security and the protection of the public. The Government's preparations include a series of classified contingency plans for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats. These plans are regularly tested, reviewed and updated in the light of changing circumstances; this ensures that all agencies involved are prepared to respond to a terroristincident.

  The response to any terrorist incident relies upon a co-ordinated approach and the Government draws upon the resource; and expertise of Government Departments, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, the military, the emergency services, local authorities and scientific and other specialist advice as necessary.

  I set out further details of the steps we have taken in my written Ministerial Statements on 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 72WS, 20 March 2003, column 51WS, and 3 July 2003, Official Report, column 25WS.

  My hon. Friend may also wish to refer to the generic guidance contained in the publication "Dealing with Disaster" which can be found on the UK Resilience website (www.ukresilience.info) and the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism).

  Immigration
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change the immigration rules to allow those with leave to remain of more than one year to submit family re-union applications. [125106]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is provision within the Immigration Rules for the family members of those persons admitted to the UK for the purpose of studies, training or work experience or employment to accompany or join them here. There is no qualifying period for family reunion applications under the non-asylum categories of the Immigration Rules.

  Family members of those recognised as refugees may apply immediately to join the sponsor in the UK. Family members of those granted Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave can apply to join them once the sponsor has been granted indefinite leave to remain. Those granted Humanitarian Protection are eligible to apply for indefinite leave after three years, and

  391W
  most of those with Discretionary Leave after six years. However, applications for family reunion may be considered before the sponsor has been granted indefinite leave to remain in those cases where there are compelling, compassionate circumstances. There is no intention to reduce the time qualification period for family reunion applications.

  Mr. Nadhmi Auchi
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 645W, on Mr. Nadhmi Auchi,(1) how many representations were received; who made the representations; and what the basis was of each representation; [118615]

  (2) when he will reply to the question from the honourable Member for North Norfolk for written answer on Monday 16th June concerning Mr. Nadhmi Auchi. [125292]

  Caroline Flint
  I have replied today to the hon. Member's letter of 27 May about the case of Mr. Nadhmi Auchi, explaining that it is not our policy or practice to disclose either the names of those who take up a particular case or the basis on which they choose to do so.

  What I can say in an attempt to assist, is that any such representations as were to the general effect that an Authority to Proceed against Mr Auchi should not be issued. The full chronology of those who took up his case with us was as follows:

  11 September 2000

  An honourable Member made some factual enquiries.

  15 September 2000

  Mr. Audi's solicitors wrote to the Home Office.

  9 October 2000

  A second honourable Member wrote to Ministers at the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  25 October 2000,5 June 2001, 9 August, 2001 and on 17 October 2001

  Mr. Auchi's solicitors wrote to the Home Office.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the findings of the independent review into the National Asylum Support Service announced on 7 March. [124969]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement on 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 30WS.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the occupations were for which in-country work permits were issued in 2002, broken down by(a) number, (b) percentage share of the total number of work permits issued and (c) country of origin of recipients; [123777]
  392W
  (2) what the primary occupations were for those to whom work permits were granted out of country to enter the UK in 2002, broken down by (a) number,(b) percentage share of the total number of work permits issued and (c) country of origin of recipients. [123778]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures for the primary occupations for which the most in-country and out-of-country work permit applications have been issued in 2002, include figures for the top five nationalities for each occupation.

  The total number of out-of-country work permits issued for 2002 is 89,049. This is 58 per cent, of the total figure for all work permits issued in 2002.

  A copy of the tables will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the consultation documents issued by the Scotland Office in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124564]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has issued two consultation documents since 1999. The following table lists the requested information in respect of each document:

  2001 The Size of the Scottish Parliament—A Consultation

  2002 Sunday Working in Scotland—A Consultation

  Cost (£)

  1,007

  331

  Copies issued

  783

  200

  Responses received

  237

  138

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123080]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  The cost of ministerial cars and drivers will be addressed in a letter from Mr. Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, to the hon. Member.
  The cost of taxis for the Scotland Office was £9,244 in 1999–2000; £16,519 in 2000–01;£13,543 in 2001–02 and£15,266 (estimated) in 2002–03.
  The cost of rail travel was£37,970 in 1999–2000; £41,998 in 2000–01; £54,882 in 2001–02; and £70,140 (estimated) in 2002–03.
  The cost of air travel was £126,704 in 1999–2000; £227,024 in 2000–01; £222,568 in 2001–02 and £216,269 (estimated) in 2002–03.
  393W
  No expenditure has been incurred on the use of helicopters or chartered planes since 1 July 1999.

  All official travel was undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the departmental staff handbook and all Ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123135]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date the cost of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  6,464

  2000–01

  17,566

  2001–02

  8,174

  2002–03

  10,135

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether she plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117454]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Most staff in the Scotland Office are on loan from the Scottish Executive, which has a partnership agreement with the trade unions. The Scotland Office currently operates within the framework of that agreement.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123108]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  In the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 the costs of running the ministerial private offices were not recorded separately. The costs of running Ministerial private offices after March 2000 were:

  £

  2000–01

  522,721

  2001–02

  614,146

  2002–03 (est.)

  594,486

  Security
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many documents are held by her Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107358]
  394W
  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 696W.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106977]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891W.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106345]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office follows the conditions set out in the Civil Service Management Code which requires departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economical means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  The estimated cost of rail travel by staff in the Department in 2002–03 is £70,140.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Scotland Office since 29 October 2002. [126615]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Three.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Advocate-General how many documents are held by her Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107363]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 696W.

  Information Technology
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Advocate-General (1) what new IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 the Department has authorised in the last three financial years; [124246]

  (2) how much the Department spent on IT (a) licences, (b) hardware, (c) maintenance and (d) software in the financial year 2002–03. [124247]

  The Advocate-General
  The information can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106976]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891W.

  Staff Travel
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106344]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Abdullah Rehmani
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to locate the file of Mr. Abdullah Rehmani, the husband of Mrs. Baluch of Leicester, a constituent, and make a determination on the application. [125778]

  Mr. Mullin
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ambassadors for British Business he has appointed since 2001. [125781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  British Nationals (Military Trials)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of(a) the evidence, (b) the sources of the evidence and (c) the charges which the US military authorities intend to use in the cases of (i) Moazzam Begg and (ii) Feroz Abassi. [124981]

  Mr. Mullin
  Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi have been designated as eligible for Military Commissions, but have not yet been charged. We have not had access to the information on which the designations have been based. We have made clear to the US authorities that we expect the process to comply with minimum fair trial standards under international law, including those relating to the examination of evidence.

  Burma
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the government of Burma on the situation in Karen; and if he will make a statement. [125806]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly press bilaterally with the Burmese regime and in international fora for a rapid improvement in the human rights situation for all the people of Burma. In April this year we co-sponsored the 396W
  United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights resolution on Burma which highlighted the disproportionate suffering of members of ethnic minorities, including the Karen. We will continue to put pressure on the Burmese military to move towards democracy and respect for human rights.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the value of imports of gems and precious stones from Burma was in the past two financial years; and which companies imported these gems and precious stones. [125926]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to official statistics from HM Customs and Excise, no gems and precious stones have been imported to the UK from Burma in the past two financial years.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures have recently been discussed by the EU in response to the recent crackdown in Burma. [125928]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  With EU colleagues we strengthened and updated the EU Common Position on Burma on 16 June 2003. We are in regular contact with EU partners and are in discussion on what further steps we will take if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses.

  British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much access time to(a) family members, (b) legal representatives, (c) religious representatives and (d) British Red Cross representatives is allowed to each British detainee at Camp Delta. [124632]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are not currently allowed access to family members or legal representatives but they do have access to a Muslim cleric. The International Committee of the Red Cross has access to the detainees on request.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Foreign Office officials have visited each British detainee at Camp Delta; and how long each meeting lasted. [124637]

  Mr. Mullin
  British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay on five occasions. During each visit, all the British detainees who were held at that time at Guantanamo Bay were seen individually by British officials. Each meeting lasted up to one and a half hours.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay would be returned to the UK. [124232]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have been informed that the US authorities have not made any decision on whether or not to return the British detainees to the UK. We continue to press the United States to resolve the position of the detainees.
  397W
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken to determine the future of British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay. [123938]

  Mr. Mullin
  Ministers and officials continue to have regular discussions with the United States authorities about the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Two of the British detainees have been designated as eligible to be tried by Military Commissions. We have strong reservations about the Commissions. We have raised and will continue to raise these concerns energetically with the US, including with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

  We continue to press the United States to resolve the position of all the detainees, including the other seven British nationals in Guantanmo Bay.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer of 8 July, ref.122612, on the welfare of British citizens in Guantanamo Bay, what the individual health concerns of the detainees are that the Government has raised with the US authorities; what the average delays in mail are; how much exercise the detainees are allowed; and if he will make a statement [125800]

  Mr. Straw
  For reasons of confidentiality it would not be appropriate to give details of the individual health concerns of the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. (This is reflected in Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information). We do keep in contact with the families concerned.

  Mail can take up to four or five months. The detainees are allowed a minimum of two 15-minute periods of exercise outside every week and are also able to exercise in their cells and communal areas. Some of the detainees are allowed to exercise outside more frequently. Although we do not consider the amount of exercise allowed to be sufficient, we understand that the situation is improving. We continue to raise both these issues with the US authorities.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent communication he has had with the governments of(a) Guernsey and (b) Jersey; [125372]

  (2) when he next plans to visit (a) Guernsey and (b) Jersey. [125373]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  My noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have not yet had any communication with the insular authorities in Jersey or Guernsey, but we look forward to doing so and to visiting the islands when this can be arranged. However, regular content is maintained with the interior authorities by officials in my Department and continuity has been ensured.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the reference within the draft constitution prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe to the European 398W
  Union having exclusive competence over the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy covers exclusive competence within the (a) six-mile and (b) 12-mile limits. [125712]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Community has had exclusive competence over the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since 1979. This includes the six and 12-mile limit.

  However, under CFP Regulation EC 2371/2002 the Community permits member states to take their own measures on the conservation of marine resources within the six and 12-mile limit provided they conform with the Common Fisheries Policy. If the proposed measures are likely to have a discriminatory effect on vessels of another member state then the Commission and the relevant member state(s) need to be consulted in advance.

  The draft EU Constitutional Treaty does not alter this situation.

  Darmesh and Rashik Jamiet
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received the papers relating to Darmesh (date of birth 27 February 1973) and Rashik (8 December 1977) Jamiet from Mumbai under Ref R/02/4938–40. [125517]

  Mr. Mullin
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the south-east. [125391]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no immediate plans to redeploy any of our officers although, as with all Government Departments, we regularly examine the feasibility of locating staff where it makes most qualitative and financial sense.

  European Constitution
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the inclusion of the EUR ATOM treaty in the draft EU constitution. [125829]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Convention on the Future of Europe has not proposed to include the EURATOM treaty in its draft Constitutional Treaty. It proposes to keep EURATOM as a separate, free-standing treaty, but to bring some of its provisions, such as those concerning its institutions, in line with changes to the EU proposed by the Constitutional Treaty. These proposals will be discussed in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the representation of British interests overseas of the appointment of an overall EU Foreign Minister. [126001]
  399W
  Mr. MacShane
  The EU already has a High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and an External Relations Commissioner, who represent different aspects of EU business overseas. The draft Constitution proposes the creation of a European Foreign Minister who would combine these two roles on behalf of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would continue to represent British interests overseas.

  Independent Monitor
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have applied for the post of Independent Monitor. [125780]

  Mr. Mullin
  There were 82 applications for the post of Independent Monitor.

  Organ Trafficking
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with European colleagues regarding organ trafficking(a) across Europe and (b) on a global level; and what proposals there are to tackle this practice. [121094]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health, together with colleagues in the Home Office, is negotiating a draft European Union Framework Decision on the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues.

  In addition, the Department has been working with the 45 member states of the Council of Europe, which includes the member states of the European Union, to develop a recommendation on steps to be taken to minimise the risk of organ trafficking throughout the area.

  The United Nations has also developed an Additional Protocol to the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime dealing with the trafficking of persons. It makes it a criminal offence to traffic a person for the purpose of removing an organ. The Protocol has yet to come into force.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies(a) initiated and (b) managed by his Department since 2001 have had an impact on Pendle; and if he will make a statement [124094]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the United Kingdom Government Department responsible for foreign affairs. Its aim is to work for the United Kingdom's interests in a safe, just, and prosperous world. Achievement of these aims will benefit all areas of the United Kingdom, including Pendle.

  More specifically, the FCO is responsible for relations with the EU. Under the 2000–06 European Structural Funding Programmes Pendle is currently receiving £2.6 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for its Objective 2, Priority 2 (People and Communities) Action Plan. This seeks to promote social
  400W
  and economic integration and improved living and working conditions for people in low-income, discriminated and other excluded groups.

  Pendle is also receiving £0.9 million from the European Social Fund for training and employment projects complementary to projects supported under Priority 2, via direct bids to Government Office.

  The wards of Boulsworth, Coates, Craven, Earby, Foulridge and Pendleside are in the Lancashire Leader Plus area which as a whole is receiving £2.2 million from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund to provide a greater range of local services and employment opportunities within rural communities and to open up new market opportunities for rural goods.

  Pendle is in the East Lancashire Objective 2, Priority 1 Action Plan area, which as a whole is allocated £20 millon ERDF to provide business support activity to improve competitiveness across the East Lancashire area.

  Public Diplomacy Team
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the size is of his public diplomacy team. [125521]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 25 employees working in the Public Diplomacy Policy Department.

  In 2002 there were 144 UK based staff and 144.41 locally engaged staff who spend 50–100 per cent, of their time covering this function in our overseas Posts. The figures are not yet available for this year.

  Zimbabwe (Elias Mudzuri)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has made representations to the Government of Zimbabwe about the recent arrest of Elias Mudzuri; what further action his Department intends to take; and if he will make a statement. [126121]

  Mr. Straw
  The British High Commission in Harare have been in close touch with Mr. Mudzuri throughout this episode. He has not asked us to make representations on his behalf. We are well aware of the Government of Zimbabwe's persistent harassment of key opposition figures like Mr. Mudzuri. He briefed FCO officials, during a visit to the UK in June, on the considerable difficulties he faces. We underlined that we would continue to support all Zimbabweans working for a return to democracy and the rule of law. We will continue to monitor developments closely.

DEFENCE

  Service Accommodation (Council Tax)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure is in place to assist those service personnel who are paying both contributions in lieu of council tax and full council tax on a private residence, and require representations making to their local authority for a council tax reduction. [126058]
  401W
  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence writes to the local authority in support of the representation.

  Deepcut Barracks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of the supply and use of illicit drugs at Deepcut barracks over the last five years; how many personnel were tested; how many tests proved positive; what disciplinary action resulted; and if he will make a statement. [125559]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 July 2003,Official Report, column 1030W. Of the 24 individuals who tested positive (two tested twice on different occasions), one has been retained in Service, 14 have been administratively discharged for drug offences and nine administratively discharged for other reasons.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 567W, what the cost of the Defence Medical Services was in each year from 1995–96, in 2003–04 prices. [119196]

  Mr. Caplin
  Further to the answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 567W, the cost of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) in each of the years from 1995–96 to 2002–03 at 2003–04 prices is as follows:

  Cost of Defence Medical Services (DMS)

  £

  Cost of DMS at 2003–04 prices

  1995–96

  405.43

  1996–97

  305.58

  1997–98

  316.11

  1998–99

  328.61

  1999–2000

  353.21

  2000–01

  359.67

  2001–02

  368.23

  2002–03

  407.85

  Note:

  These figures were calculated using the GDP deflator published by HM Treasury.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the pay differential is between doctors serving in Band three in the NHS and doctors serving in Band three posts in the DMS; and if he will make a statement. [118192]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is difficult to make an accurate comparison between the pay of doctors in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) and doctors in the NHS serving in Band three posts as this would depend on a number of factors, such as their stage of training and their incremental level on the pay structure. Account would also need to be taken of the X-factor paid to DMS doctors, the non-contributory nature of the armed forces pension scheme and the fact that DMS junior doctors' pay includes an element for NHS out of hours payments.

  From their assessment of pay comparability following the introduction of the NHS pay Banding system on 1 December 2000, the armed forces Pay Review Body recommended a supplementary pro rata
  402W
  payment of £5,000 to DMS doctors under training for the period 1 December 2000 to 31 March 2002. The question of supplementary payments for subsequent years will be addressed in the Department's annual papers of evidence to the Review Body.

  International Festival of the Sea
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy warships will be taking part in the International Festival of the Sea this year. [126137]

  Mr. Caplin
  HMS Southampton, HMS Tyne, HMS Example and HMS Archer took part in the Leith International Festival of the Sea between 23 and 26 May 2003.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long fresh troops sent to Iraq will have for acclimatisation in Iraq before being committed to operational duties; and what period is recommended in medical advice. [124359]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following an initial acclimatisation period of between three to five days, United Kingdom military personnel deploying to Iraq for operational duties gradually increase their work intensity in accordance with in theatre risk assessments. UK military medical advice does not specify a set acclimatisation period, however, personnel are not considered folly acclimatised until they have spent 10 days undergoing activity of a similar level, in the same environmental conditions, at which they will be expected to continue to work.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of(a) dehydration and (b) heat exhaustion there have been among UK armed forces in Iraq since the start of the recent conflict; and whether, in any of these cases, inadequate time for acclimatisation for fresh troops in theatre has been deemed a cause. [124360]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 286 reports of heat related illnesses among British forces deployed on Operation Telic since the start of the conflict. The majority of these cases are assessed as heat stroke due to the ambient environmental conditions. Other personnel are more susceptible to heat stress as a result of the effects of another illness such as diarrhoea.

  Following an initial acclimatisation period of between three to five days, United Kingdom military personnel deploying to Iraq for operational duties gradually increase their work intensity in accordance with in theatre risk assessments. UK military medical advice does not specify a set acclimatisation period, however, personnel are not considered fully acclimatised until they have spent 10 days undergoing activity of a similar level, in the same environmental conditions, at which they will be expected to continue to work. In addition, all troops are made aware of the guidance on the dangers of working in hot conditions, and the measures that are to be taken to prevent heat illness.
  403W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are deployed in Iraq and Kuwait. [125597]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 11 July 2003, there were 4,219 reservists mobilised to support Operation Telic. While the majority were based in the Gulf region, this figure also includes reservists directly supporting Operation Telic based elsewhere, such as in the United Kingdom, Cyprus, or Germany. A number were also either undergoing pre-deployment training or post deployment leave prior to demobilisation.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers lost their lives during the recent conflict in Iraq. [122006]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 10 July 2003 43 United Kingdom service personnel had died since the start of Coalition military operations against Iraq. 34 were killed in action or subsequently died of wounds received and nine died in non-battle accidents or from natural causes.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Iraqi prisoners of war captured by British forces have been(a) designated unlawful combatants and (b) transferred to other facilities outside Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [125799]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 15 July 2003, the United States is holding one prisoner of war and 71 other persons captured by British forces, who are either suspected of committing criminal offences or are interned where necessary for imperative reasons of security in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. All other British captured prisoners of war have been released under the supervision of British forces, and with the knowledge of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The United Kingdom does not use the designation unlawful combatant.

  War Detainees
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the detainees held at(a) Guantanamo, (b) Bagram Air base and (c) Diego Garcia were originally captured by British forces; and if he will make a statement. [125798]

  Mr. Ingram
  No detainees are held at Diego Garcia. Of the detainees held at Bagram and at Guantanamo Bay, none were captured by British forces.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123141]
  404W
  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Cost of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials

  £ millions

  (January to December)

  Total Cost1

  1999

  2.637

  2000

  2.656

  2001

  2.368

  2002

  3.395

  1 Cost of equipment, call charges and access charges.

  Information for 1997 and 1998 is not available. All figures quoted are exclusive of VAT. The figures also exclude a number of Ministry of Defence users with local agreements who use other networks. Information on this expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 451W, on Porton Down, if he will provide information on specific breeds from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in a similar form to that supplied by the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in a letter to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South of 22 July 1998 (Ref DERA/SEC/S/1/255/98). [119161]

  Mr. Caplin
  As my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) indicated to the hon. Member in his response of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 451W, more detailed information on the specific breeds used is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general terms, the breeds of animals used in scientific procedures from 1997–2002 are as follows:

  Breeds of animals used in scientific procedures 1997–2002

  Species

  Breeds commonly used at DSTL Porton Down.

  Mouse

  Mainly BALB/C, also Porton mouse, hybrids

  Pig

  Large White Cross

  Sheep

  Polled Dorset 2000 and 2001, previously mules and cross breeds

  Rat

  Porton Wistar

  Macaque

  Rhesus

  Marmoset

  Common

  Goat

  No one particular breed

  Guinea pig

  Dunkin Hartley

  Hamster

  Syrian

  Rabbit

  Now all New Zealand White, previously also Dutch belted.

  Service Deployments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Naval Service is (i) preparing for, (ii) recovering from and (iii) deployed on operations. [125621]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel (Alcohol Expenditure)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent investigation he has made of alcohol consumption levels in the armed forces; and what alcohol education measures are being taken. [125506]

  Mr. Caplin
  There has been no recent specific investigation into alcohol consumption levels in the armed forces. The armed forces employ vigorous education programmes—including pamphlets, films and lectures—at all stages of military training and Service to promote sensible drinking, and to ensure that personnel are aware of the dangers of alcohol misuse. The programmes are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary, and are complemented by administrative and disciplinary measures to deter alcohol misuse within the Services.

  Suez Medal
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations have been made to his Department by veterans of the Suez campaign regarding eligibility for a Suez Medal Clasp. [125941]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since 11 June, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in the House that the Naval General Service Medal 1915–62 and the General Service Medal 1918–62 would be awarded for service in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954, the Ministry of Defence received 4,896 representations. These consisted of 4,790 applications for the medal to the four single Service medal offices, eight parliamentary questions, 44 letters from hon. Members and 54 letters from members of the public. In addition, there have been an unknown number of telephone calls to the Ministry of Defence about the new medal.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Territorial Army remains available for mobilisation; how many TA soldiers this represents; and what proportion of the Territorial Army will be available for mobilisation at the start of 2004. [124497]

  Mr. Caplin
  Taking into account those personnel who have,(a) already been mobilised for operational deployment; (b) are considered not yet Fit For Role (defined as the minimum level of training required for mobilisation); (c) are serving on full-time reserve Service: or (d) have already been deployed at some point over the last three years1; some 12,000 soldiers, or 30 per cent. of the Territorial Army remain available for compulsory mobilisation.

  This figure does not take into account those members of the TA who would be prepared to volunteer to be mobilised, which could lead to a marked increase of the overall number of personnel available for mobilisation.

  It is not possible to provide an accurate picture of what this figure will be in January 2004, as too many variables exist. We continue to keep the situation under review.
  1Members of the TA may be compulsorily mobilized for 12 months over a three-year period, extendable in certain circumstances.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126621]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has made 108 written ministerial statements since 29 October 2002 up to and including 15 July 2003.

HEALTH

  Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the conclusions of the 1994 House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics on the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. [126040]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The question of whether of not to legalise euthanasia was considered in great detail by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, reporting in 1994. The Committee concluded that the practice of euthanasia could not be supported, partly because of the difficulties in setting secure limits on voluntary euthanasia and also because of concerns that vulnerable people might feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. The Government's position has been that it shares the views of the Committee, that any proposal to change the law in this area would need to be considered very carefully and that we have no plans to change the current law.

  Aston Hall Hospital
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital resources will be made available to ensure that the reprovisioning of Aston Hall hospital proceeds. [126061]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave him on 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 227W.

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received about boarding provision at(a) Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference and Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools boarding schools and (b) all boarding schools in each of the last five years. [125174]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is available only centrally since 1 April 2002, when the National Care Standards Commission came into operation.

  Since April 2002, there have been six complaints about schools who are members of the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference and Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools boarding schools and nine complaints about other boarding schools.

  Cancer Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to appoint more cancer nurse specialists. [124602]
  407W
  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 1001–02W.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much blood transfusions for cancer patients cost the NHS in each of the last five years; and what the main costs were; [123379]

  (2) how many cancer patients have had their chemotherapy postponed in the last year because of bed shortages; [123380]

  (3) what estimate he has made in the last year of the number of bed days that would be saved if alternatives to blood transfusions were used for cancer patients; [123381]

  (4) what information on blood transfusion and its alternatives is provided to cancer patients who are being treated for anaemia-related fatigue. [123383]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the cost to the national health service of blood transfusions for cancer patients and on the numbers of cancer patients who have had their chemotherapy treatment postponed due to bed shortages is not collected centrally.

  The Department does not collect data centrally that would enable it to make an accurate assessment of the potential economic benefits, such as saved bed days, of using alternatives to blood transfusions.

  There is a national patient information leaflet published earlier this year and produced by the National Blood Service for patients who may receive a blood transfusion. The leaflet includes a section on alternatives to blood transfusions—although this is directed principally at surgical rather than cancer patients. When the leaflet is next reviewed, consideration will be given to providing more information en other possible alternatives to blood transfusion. In addition, guidance on information provision for cancer patients will be included in supportive and palliative care guidance currently being produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We expect the guidance to be published early next year.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting, in hospitals in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire for placements in care homes. [123906]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally at that level. However, at the fourth quarter of 2002–03, there were 47 people occupying an acute hospital bed and waiting for placement in a care home in the Thames Valley Health Authority area.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with local authority social services departments regarding the funding of care homes. [126094]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have not yet had discussions with particular local authorities regarding the funding of care homes. I am, however, aware that the care home sector has been experiencing financial difficulties. That is why we are giving local councils record levels of funding.
  408W
  Resources for social services have increased by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, an average of over 3 per cent. per annum and will continue to increase over the next three years by an average of 6 per cent. per annum in real terms. Local councils will be able to use these substantial extra resources to increase local provision or to rebalance the care home market and increase fee levels if that is what is needed.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to care home proprietors faced with(a) the need to appoint staff to meet statutory requirements and (b) delays in processing Criminal Records Bureau clearances. [125813]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: The Department has not issued formal guidance to care home providers about what to do when the processing application of the application for a criminal record disclosure takes longer than normal. Under the Care Standards Act all care homes in England are regulated by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). It is for the NCSC to satisfy itself that care homes conform to statutory requirements and the commission provides appropriate guidance to providers on meeting the requirements.

  The performance of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has now greatly improved. In the week ending 5 July, the CRB issued 95 per cent. of standard disclosures within two weeks and 94 per cent. of enhanced disclosures within four weeks, against a service standard of 90 per cent. in each case.

  However, for those occasions when, for whatever reason, the issue of a disclosure may take longer than normal the NCSC has published guidance for care provider. This is available on its website at www.carestandards. org.uk.

  Charges Policy
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government policy is on charges for health services.[125417]

  Mr. Hutton
  Treatment provided by the national health service is free at the point of delivery, except in cases where specific legislation has been passed allowing a charge to be made. The current services for which a charge can be made are:

  prescriptions

  dental services

  the supply of optical appliances by the hospital eye service

  treatment of private patients

  treatment of overseas visitors

  appliances such as wigs and fabric supports

  The NHS can also charge for the provision of accommodation and services for private resident and non-resident patients.

  In addition to the above, NHS hospitals can charge for certain patient services using income generation powers. However, a charge can only be made where the service is considered to be additional treatments over and above the normal service provision. Any item or

  409W
  service that is considered to be an integral part of a patient's treatment by their clinician will remain free of charge.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children's hospices(a) within and (b) outside the NHS. [125693]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are currently 28 children's hospices in England, all of which are run by voluntary organisations.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of 3 July 2003,Official Report, columns 477–78W, what arrangements are in place to ensure confidential and personal information not required by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is destroyed or otherwise kept secure. [124868]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on the retention and disposal arrangements for Community Health Council (CHC) records, including secure handling of confidential records, was issued to CHCs on 17 June 2003. Based on the principles of this guidance, more detailed guidance has subsequently been issued locally.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of delays in handling checks by the Criminal Records Bureau on the NHS. [125557]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has faced some minor problems when recruiting new staff—as a result of the operating difficulties at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). We have agreed a number of arrangements with the CRB to expedite the clearance of disclosure applications for NHS staff. The performance of the CRB has now greatly improved. In the week ending 5 July, the CRB issued 95 per cent., of standard disclosures within two weeks and 94 per cent. of enhanced disclosures within four weeks, against a service standard of 90 per cent. in each case. These arrangements and the CRB's improved performance has enabled the NHS to manage delays at the CRB without any significant adverse effect on patient services.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis in children. [124701]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Advice has been issued for groups of people at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis during air travel, where freedom of movement may be restricted for periods of time. Risk increases with age and with the presence of various health and life style factors. These are described on the Departments website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/dvt/. Advice is also available by phoning NHS Direct. Children are not at risk of 410W
  developing deep vein thrombosis unless there is a preexisting medical condition or history which predisposes them to develop this condition. In this event, advice on how to minimise the risk will be provided by the clinical staff responsible for the child's care.

  Dentists
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are taken to recoup the value of NHS-funded equipment from those dentists who choose to go private. [125769]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: General dental service (GDS) dentists are paid fees which cover both their income and expenses. The expense element of the fees covers the cost of the equipment as it is used. The equipment is owned by the dentist. Most dentists who do private work also continue to do GDS work.

  Dentists may also qualify for special capital grants payments through incentive schemes which operate from time to time. Conditions for such schemes have generally included a requirement to maintain or increase national health service commitment and a term allowing recovery of payments, if these requirements are not complied with.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS registered dentists are working within the London borough of Wandsworth. [126180]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of national health service dentists within the Wandsworth Primary Care Trust in the general dental service (GDS), salaried service of the GDS, community and hospital dental services at 30 September 2002 are shown in the table.

  NHS Dental Services: Number of Dentists at 30 September 2002

  Wandsworth PCT

  General dental service (GDS)1

  130

  Salaried service of the GDS

  4

  Community dental service

  26

  Hospital dental service

  18

  1 GDS covers Principals on the Health Authority list, Assistants and Vocational Dental Practitioners.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the new specialist services set up to treat patients with anorexia as a result of the report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on eating disorders in 1998. [125089]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists was published in 2001 and has contributed to two new pieces of work into this very serious disorder.

  The National Development Group for Specialised Services, chaired by Professor Appleby, the National Director for Mental Health, has recently reviewed this issue and will report its findings in the autumn.

  In addition, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is preparing guidelines for the treatment of anorexia. These are expected to be issued towards the end of this year.
  411W
  It is anticipated that proposals for service development will emerge from these three important pieces of work.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many deaths there were of patients suffering from anorexia, broken down by age, in each year since 1997; [125090]

  (2) what the average cost was of treating a patient suffering from anorexia in each of the last three years; [125091]

  (3) what the waiting time for patients with anorexia was to see a consultant in each primary care trust in each of the last three years. [125093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Anorexia is a severe condition, mainly but not exclusively, affecting younger women, which can lead to death in about 15 per cent. of cases. It may affect as many as 1 per cent. of women and is a matter of considerable concern to the Department of Health.

  A new group, the National Development Group for Specialised Services, chaired by the National Director for Mental Health, Professor Appleby, have recently reviewed this issue and will report their findings in the autumn.

  In addition, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is preparing guidelines far the treatment of anorexia and these are expected to be issued towards the end of this year. Unfortunately, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data, which relate to diagnostic information for in-patients in national health service hospitals who have finished their hospital episodes under the care of a consultant specialist, are not collected in a form that reliably permits breakdown of the statistics on deaths following admission to hospital by diagnostic category.

  Treatment costs associated with the care of such patients are normally be spread across primary care as well as secondary specialised services and information about overall cost is not captured in a way that permits analysis by diagnostic category.

  Furthermore, summary information about waiting times to see a consultant psychiatrist is collected, but this is not broken down by diagnostic category.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where specialist services treating patients with anorexia are based. [125096]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Anorexia is a severe condition, mainly but not exclusively affecting younger women, which can lead to death in as many as 15 per cent. of cases. It may affect as many as one per cent. of women, and is a matter of considerable concern to the Department of Health.

  The most recent survey indicates that there are approximately 70 units in the national health service and the independent sector specialising in eating disorders, including anorexia.

  There continues to be a bias in provision towards the south-east of the country, with the south-west and north-east of England, as well as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having the fewest services in proportion to their populations.
  412W
  A new group, the National Development Group for Specialised Services, chaired by Professor Appleby, the National Director for Mental Health, has recently reviewed this issue and will report its findings in the autumn.

  In addition, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is preparing guidelines for the treatment of anorexia. These are expected to be issued towards the end of this year.

  Emergency Planning
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the capacity of primary care trusts to undertake their emergency planning roles. [122102]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has not received any representations on the capacity of primary care trusts (PCTs) to undertake their emergency planning roles.

  The review of major incident planning capacity carried out by the Department earlier this year revealed that PCTs have satisfactory emergency planning arrangements in place against eight set criteria: clarity, coherence, contingencies, collaboration, credibility, capability, communications and commitment.

  The outcome of the review is now being used to develop a programme of work to further strengthen emergency planning in the national health service. This includes revised guidance, currently being developed by the Department, the Health Protection Agency and the NHS. The guidance will be issued shortly.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with plans for a poster campaign advising what to do in the event of a chemical or biological attack; and if he will make a statement on other plans to inform the public(a) in preparation for and (b) in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident. [122101]

  Mr. Hutton
  Public communications on issues including health in preparation for and in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) incident are planned and co-ordinated in a cross-Government context. The Department of Health is working closely with the Home Office CBRN Resilience Team and Government Information and Communication Service (GIGS) in the Cabinet Office. Information about terrorism and sensible measures for emergencies are available on the Home Office terrorism website. Further details on chemical and biological deliberate releases are also available on the Department of Health and Health Protection Agency websites.

  Information and advice to the public will be made available in the event of a discernible threat of a specific incident.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of endometriosis was in the Thames Valley Health Authority in the last year for which figures are available. [124908]
  413W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The incidence of endometriosis for 2001–02, the last year for which figures are available, for the Thames Valley Health Authority is shown in the table.

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD10 N80) Endometriosis: Finished consultant episodes Count of finished admission episodes by selected health authorities (HAs) of treatment. NHS Hospitals, 2001–02

  Health authority of treatment

  Description

  Total episodes

  QA7

  Berkshire HA

  161

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire HA

  211

  QCE

  Oxfordshire HA

  168

  Total

  Thames Valley1

  540

  1Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority was created in April 2002 by the merger of the three HAs quoted above.

  Notes:

  1. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data is ungrossed).

  3. The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health, England.

  Epilepsy
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) proportion of misdiagnoses of epilepsy in England over the last three years. [125010]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have not made an estimate of the number or proportion of people misdiagnosed with epilepsy in England over the last three years. However, recent reports from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group—"Services for Patients with Epilepsy" (2000) and the Chief Medical Officer—"On the State of the Public Health" (2001) showed that around 20 per cent. of people receiving inappropriate and unnecessary treatment. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy, which is due in June 2004 and which will help address any shortfalls in current practice.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Food Standards Agency's strategy for ensuring food safety through the testing of food samples at public analyst laboratories; [123609]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the numbers of (a) tests of food samples and (b) public analyst laboratories. [123610]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to monitor the food sampling carried out under the Food Safety Act 1990 by local authorities. I am aware that the FSA has raised its concerns about the general decline in food sampling and the wide variation in sampling levels between 414W
  authorities. Given the importance of food sampling and analyses as part of a local authority food law enforcement service, I am pleased to note that the FSA is taking forward a number of initiatives in close liaison with local authorities and the Association of Public Analysts to address these concerns and to ensure that food sampling contributes effectively to consumer protection. Initiatives include:
  Working with Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services and the Association of Public Analysts to develop better coordination and targeting of UK food sampling activity;
  Auditing local authorities with low levels of sampling activity and requiring remedial action plans;
  A specific audit programme focused on sampling arrangements including visits to Public Analyst and Health Protection Agency laboratories to help identify key actions necessary to address sampling activity;
  Developing a UK Samples Database to help local authorities and the Agency target sampling programmes effectively; and
  New guidance on food sampling for local authority enforcement officers.

  I am aware that the Association of Public Analysts has expressed concerns about the impact that declining sampling levels have had on the viability of certain individual public analyst laboratories. Relevant initiatives being taken forward by the FSA to improve local authority food sampling activity are being carried out in close liaison with the Association of Public Analysts to help ensure appropriate laboratory capacity and analytical capabilities.

  A paper on food sampling was discussed by the FSA Board at an open meeting on 10 July 2003 at Kensington Town Hall.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications of the Food Supplements Directive for the availability of food supplements. [123617]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not yet possible to determine the true impact of the Directive on the future continued availability of products currently on the United Kingdom market, which will depend on future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients and nutrient sources. The Government recognise that some products will be lost from the UK market from 1 August 2005 because of restrictions on nutrient sources which will apply from that date.

  Article 5 of Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements sets out principles for setting European Union maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements, al though no specific figures have yet been set. Discussion on maximum limits at EU level will follow publication of advice from the European Food Safety Authority. We do not expect the European Commission to issue its proposal on maximum limits before the end of this year.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what way foundation hospitals in England will be accountable to their patients from Wales. [123848]
  415W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: Subject to meeting minimum legislative requirements, as set out in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, national health service foundation trusts will have flexibility to ensure local accountability. A NHS foundation trust would be able to define its membership community to include patients in Wales and would have the flexibility to provide a place on the Board of Governors for Welsh commissioners if that was appropriate.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are per head of population in England. [126069]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of all general medical practitioners, all practitioners per head of population and all practitioners per 100,000 population in England as at 30 September 2002 is shown in the table.

  All General Medical Practitioners1 in England, as at 30 September 2002

  England

  Numbers (headcount)

  All Practitioners1

  32,292

  All Practitioners per head of population

  0.0007

  All Practitioners per 100,000 population

  65.4

  1 All Practitioners includes CMS 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 General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD) 2001 based resident population projections for mid year 2002.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for general practitioners there are in the London borough of Wandsworth. [126179]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are 6.5 general practitioner vacancies in Wandsworth.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of homeless people are registered with general practitioners. [125852]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: This information is not held or collected centrally—data on the number of homeless people do not include information on how many are registered with a general practitioner and general practice registration data do not identify those who are homeless.

  Infant Infection
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about measures being taken to reduce the risk of babies being infected by Group B streptococcus; and if he will make a statement. [123057]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. The 416W
  NSC has advised that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that routine screening of all pregnant women in the United Kingdom and treating those carrying Group B Streptococcus with intravenous antibiotics during labour would be beneficial. The NSC has however commissioned an assessment of the existing evidence on screening against the criteria used to assess potential screening programmes. At the adjournment debate on this issue on 9 July 2003, Ministers asked the NSC to review the position thoroughly as quickly as possible and to consider recommendations at its meeting in December 2003.

  Infectious Patients
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 721W, on infectious patients, if he will publish the results of the risk assessments undertaken in 2000. [124553]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These risk assessments were not collected centrally. Chief executives in acute national health service trusts were required to:undertake a risk assessment to determine appropriate provision of isolation facilities within the trust: and
  agree the level and type of provision with the regional office.

  IT Procurement
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Shires Acute and Community Hospital EPR Procurement Programme was terminated. [120372]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Shires Electronic Patient Records (EPR) procurement did not proceed to final award of contract primarily on grounds of affordability. This was a local procurement that decided it did not have sufficient funds to cover the costs and contract for the first three years.

  The National Programme for Information Technology (NpfIT) in the national health service is currently procuring an integrated care records service, which will provide, as part of its first phase, the functionality that the Shires EPR would have delivered. The national procurement approach will provide better value for money for taxpayers.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on IT procurement policy for the NHS; [123504]

  (2) if he will make a statement on IT procurement policy in (a) the south-west region and (b) the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority area; [123505]

  (3) what role Integrated Line Records Services will play within future IT procurement policy. [123506]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The approach to procurement for the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in the national health service was published in January 2003 and can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/ipu/whatnew/procapp.pdf

  NPfIT is currently managing a national procurement for an integrated care records service (ICRS). An Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC)

  417W
  contract notice was issued on 31 January 2003 and we are now evaluating pre-qualified bidders responses before proceeding to shortlist. It is proceeding as rapidly as good practice allows.

  Phase 1 of ICRS to December 2004 will provide clinicians, whether they are in primary, community or secondary care settings, with the capability to email, browse internet/intranet sites, view basic clinical information relating to their patients (demographics), electronically transfer limited clinical correspondence, laboratory reports and some radiology results. New ICRS solutions will also provide integrated support for national service framework data collection.

  Procurement in the South West will be part of national arrangements designed to minimise risk and maximise value for money in the NHS by the award of contracts to local service providers. For the provision of IT services by local service providers, England will be grouped into five geographic clusters based upon the pairing of geographically adjoining Government Office regions and will each incorporate a number of strategic health authorities (SHAs).

  There will be a total of five contracts awarded and a maximum of five local service providers covering: London; North East, Yorkshire and Humberside; South East and South West; East of England and East Midlands; West Midlands and North West. The first two contracts will be awarded by the end of October 2003 to London and North East, Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Each SHA will have a relationship with a dedicated local service provider to provide a range of applications, systems and services and will be responsible for integrating or replacing the computer systems needed to support the clinical applications being delivered by the NPfIT. Each local service provider will also have responsibility for the management of legacy systems as part of their overall remit.

  Knee and Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 232W, on knee and hip joints, what auditing procedures are in place for charges made to NHS and private patients for the parts used in knee and hip joint replacement operations. [124879]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service trusts are required to have in place financial management and audit arrangements. These aim to ensure that private patients are correctly charged for the goods and services they receive, including prostheses used in hip and knee replacements. NHS patients are not charged for their treatment or for the prostheses.

  Midwives
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age of midwives was in each year since 1990. [124255]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  418W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): average age of qualified midwives in England as at 30 September for specified years

  Headcount

  Average age of qualified midwives1

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): average age of qualified midwives in England as at 30 September for specified years

  Headcount

  Average age of qualified midwives1

  1990

  38

  19912

  —

  19922

  —

  19932

  —

  1994

  38

  1995

  39

  1996

  39

  1997

  39

  1998

  40

  1999

  40

  2000

  41

  2001

  41

  2002

  41

  1 Average ages are rounded to the nearest year.

  2 For 1991 to 1993, the age of midwives is known only within bands.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  MRI Scanners
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended minimum number of radiographers is to each MRI scanner. [125149]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The Department of Health has not issued a recommendation on the minimum number of radiographers required for each mirror resonance imaging scanner. Staffing levels for all clinical and medical staff groups are determined locally, consistent with trust requirements, professional recommendations and other local healthcare needs.

  Neurology Nurse Specialists
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for neurology nurse specialists in the hospital trust areas covering Portsmouth; what the current staffing requirement is for each of the trusts; what the current level of staffing is of each; what plans he has to make changes to staffing levels; and if he will make a statement. [124857]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The non-medical workforce census collects information annually on the number of nurses employed in the national health service as at 30 September each year but cannot distinguish those who are specialist neurological nurses.

  Workforce is recognised as key to the successful delivery of the NHS Plan and the national service frameworks. The long term conditions care group workforce team (LTC CGWT) has been set up to support workforce development in the fields of diabetes, renal and long term conditions. The LTC CGWT addresses workforce planning for neurological nurses. Its aim is to help deliver a multidisciplinary and

  419W
  integrated health and social care workforce to support service improvement. Membership of the LTC CGWT includes representatives of the Neurological Alliance and the North West Clinical Neuroscience Partnership.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many agency staff of all grades NHS Professionals has employed to carry out its central functions and administration in each month; and at what cost; [124303]

  (2) what the (a) start up and (b) quarterly costs of NHS Professionals have been since its inception; how many staff have been employed; and at what cost; [124304]

  (3) which NHS trusts NHS Professionals has had contracts with in each month since its inception; when those contracts were entered into; when they ended; and what their value was; [124305]

  (4) how many agency staff NHS Professionals has deployed in each month since its inception; what the cost was to NHS Professionals of deploying staff; and what the income received from NHS trusts was; [124306]

  (5) how many and what grades of staff have been retained for agency work by NHS Professionals in each month since its inception. [124307]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested on the staffing of NHS Professionals is not collected centrally, but is available from individual NHS Professionals service providers.

  NHS Professionals was allocated £7 million to support the start up of pilot sites. A further £24 million has been invested in 2002–03 to support roll out and we will continue to invest in NHS Professionals to ensure implementation. We have also earmarked up to £35 million to support the establishment of the NHS Professionals Special Health Authority by the end of this year, and continuing development in 2004–05. Thereafter, the special health authority should operate on a self-financing basis delivering more cost effective temporary staff to the national health service.

  The NHS trusts which are using NHS Professionals are shown in the following list. Information on contracts and staffing is not available centrally.

  NHS trusts which host NHS Professionals include the expenditure for deploying agency staff in their accounts and financial returns. The trusts are St. Mary's NHS Trust Paddington, Barking, Having and Redbridge NHS Trust, West Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, John Radcliffe NHS Trust, East and North Herts NHS Trust and North Bristol NHS Trust. NHS trusts which utilise the services of "NHS Professionals" are recharged for these services and will also include these payments in their own accounts and financial returns.

  There are 50,000 staff registered with NHS Professionals. Information on grades of staff is not available.
  420W
  NHS Trusts using NHS Professionals

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust

  Bath and NE Somerset PCT, Bath

  Cherwell Vale PCT, Oxfordshire

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester

  City Hospital Sunderland NHS Trust

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Stourbridge

  East and North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Epping Forest PCT

  George Eliot NHS Trust, Nuneaton

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  Harlow PCT

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust, Newport

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester

  Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield

  North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North East Oxfordshire PCT

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  North Middlesex University Hospital

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford

  Oxford City PCT

  Oxford Learning Disability NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  Penine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Oldham

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  Royston, Buntingford and Bishops Stortford PCT

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  South East Oxfordshire PCT

  South Leeds PCT

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesbrough

  South West Oxfordshire PCT

  South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. Marys NHS Trust, London

  Stockport NHS Trust

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital, Nottingham NHS Trust

  Uttlesford PCT, Essex

  Walsall PCT

  Walton Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust, Liverpool

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  NHS Services (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of the NHS GP survey in Gloucestershire. [121878]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Two areas, acute and primary care, were surveyed as part of the National 2002 Patient Survey Programme. The results have been disseminated on a strategic health authority (SHA) basis. This will allow for the cross-comparison of both the acute and the primary care data for local benchmarking purposes. The approach enables SHAs to maintain an overview of how results are formulated into local follow-up plans.

  Information on the results of the NHS GP Survey in Gloucestershire is available from the Chief Executive of the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority.

  NHS Staff Absence
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the absence rates in the NHS were in days per employee per year in(a) England and (b) each region in each year since 1997. [125293]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for sickness absence in England were not collected by the Department of Health between 1997 and 1999. The table shows the figures published for sickness absence in England and its regions and covers the period from 1999 to 2001. Figures for 2002 will be published in the near future.

  We do not collect or produce information for numbers of days lost per employee, but publish the figures as a percentage lost of the time they should have been available for work. General practitioners and their staff are not included in these figures as we do not collect this information.

  Percentage

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  4.9

  4.7

  4.8

  Regions

  Eastern

  4.7

  4.8

  4.8

  London

  4.4

  4.0

  4.2

  North West

  5.5

  5.1

  5.0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  4.9

  4.9

  4.8

  South East

  4.4

  4.1

  4.4

  South West

  5.0

  4.8

  4.8

  Trent

  4.9

  5.0

  5.3

  West Midlands

  5.3

  5.0

  5.0

  Nursing Homes (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) private and (b) public residential nursing homes are registered in the London borough of Wandsworth. [126178]

  Dr. Ladyman
  At 31 March 2001, there were 58 registered independent general and mental nursing homes in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. There are no registered public sector nursing care homes. Separate figures are not available for Wandsworth.

  Obesity
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of treating obesity related health problems in the last five years. [125142]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for the cost to the national health service of treating obesity related health problems in the List five years are not available. However, the National Audit Office (NAO) report, "Tackling Obesity in England", published in February 2001, estimated that the direct cost to the NHS of treating obesity in 1998 was £9.4 million. The NAO also estimated that treating the consequences of obesity cost the NHS approximately £469.9 million for 1998.

  Overseas Patients
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which countries the UK has reciprocal arrangements for free medical treatment. [126014]

  Mr. Hutton
  The healthcare co-ordination arrangements contained in Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72 apply in all the member states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland. The United Kingdom also has bilateral healthcare arrangements with more than 30 non-EEA countries and territories.

  A fundamental principle underlying all the arrangements is that emergency treatment is provided under the state healthcare scheme to entitled visitors on the same terms as it is available to insured residents of the host country. Most countries and territories make some charges for so me services.

  Overseas Recruitment
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recruit trained(a) doctors and (b) nurses from the Indian sub-continent to Britain. [124629]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has agreed with the Indian Ministry of Health that the National Health Service can recruit healthcare professionals from particular states in India in compliance with the Department's International Code of Practice. A centrally managed campaign is already under way and doctors and nurses have been successfully recruited.

  Doctors and nurses from India can find out more on: www.doh.gov. uk/international-recruitment.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the NHS recruitment seminars held in May and June in(a) Austria, (b) Germany and (c) Italy; and how many applications have been received as a consequence of these seminars. [125951]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of the venues for the recruitment seminars that were held in Austria, in May was £7,587 and the cost of the venues for the Italian seminars, held in June, was £6,718. The recruitment seminars in Germany in May were held in Foreign and Commonwealth buildings and therefore only incurred minimal catering costs. The Department of Health has received 181 new applications from doctors, as a result of these seminars.

  Plastic Surgery
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations apply to doctors who carry out plastic surgery procedures; and if he will make a statement. [125739]

  Mr. Hutton
  All doctors who describe themselves as medical practitioners must be registered with the General Medical Council (GMC). To become a consultant in plastic surgery in the national health service, a doctor must have a Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training in the specialty.

  In the private healthcare sector, regulation by the National Care Standards Commission requires surgeons carrying out cosmetic surgery to be registered with the GMC. Those beginning to practise in the private sector after 1 April 2002 are required to be on the specialist register. Plastic surgeons who were already practising in the private sector at the time the new legislation came into force are allowed to continue practising, provided that they meet other stringent standards in qualification and training.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointees to primary care trust boards have met the disability criteria. [124624]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are currently 294 chairs of primary care trusts and 1,624 non-executive board members. Eight of the chairs and 73 of the non-executive board members are disabled.

  Purley Hospital
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 174–75W, on Purley Hospital, what his definition of the Croydon South locality is; and what the maximum population is that the new hospital will serve. [124907]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed new Purley Hospital is primarily focused on the south of Croydon, geographically defined by the electoral wards of Kenley, Purley, Coulsdon West, Coulsdon East, Sanderstead and Chroam. In practice, some planned services will serve a slightly larger population and some a smaller population dependent on the service.

  Salt
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the savings to the NHS which might follow from a reduction in the average adult intake of salt to no more than six grams per day; and if he will make a statement. [122804]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Population average salt intake in the United Kingdom is currently around 9g per day. Previous studies have suggested that a reduction in salt intake from 9g to 6g per day would reduce diastolic pressure in the region of 2mm Hg.

  The recently published Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report on Salt and Health (2003) states that, "On a population basis it has been estimated that a reduction of 2mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure
  424W
  would result in 15 per cent. reduction in risk of stroke and transient ischaemic heart attacks and a 6 per cent. reduction in risk of coronary heart disease (Cook et al 1995). McPherson et al (2002) have estimated that 6 per cent. of deaths from coronary heart disease could be avoided if the numbers of people with high blood pressure were reduced by 50 per cent.".

  The Department has not calculated the impact of salt reduction on national health service costs. Identifying savings attributable solely to a single intervention such as salt reduction would be extremely difficult. However, the benefits to health are clear, and based on the estimates from the SACN report, there could be substantial cost benefit to the NHS.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proportion of children and teenagers who smoke. [121353]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1998 White Paper "Smoking Kills" set a target to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. by 2010 with a fall to 11 per cent. by 2005.

  Among 11 to 15-year-olds, smoking prevalence has remained unchanged since 2000 at ten per cent. and we are on course to meet our target for reducing smoking.

  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 15, by gender England, 1996 to 2002

  Percentages

  1996

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Boys

  11

  9

  8

  9

  8

  9

  Girls

  15

  12

  10

  12

  11

  11

  All pupils

  13

  11

  9

  10

  10

  10

  Notes:

  1. Regular smokers are those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, on average.

  Source:

  The Department of Health Statistical Press Notice "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002: Provisional Results" http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/spnmar03-smoking.htm

  Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults, aged 16–19 and gender, England 1996–2001

  Percentages

  11996

  11998

  21998

  22000

  22001

  Men

  25

  30

  30

  30

  24

  Women

  32

  33

  33

  28

  31

  All Persons

  29

  31

  31

  30

  28

  1 Unweighted

  2Weighted

  Notes:

  1. Up until 2000, data on the prevalence on smoking from the General Household Survey were only available every two years.

  2. Data for 1998 onwards were weighted to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups: earlier figures were based on unweighted data, and are not therefore directly comparable.

  3. Respondents who answered "yes" to the question "Do you smoke cigarettes at all nowadays?"

  425W
  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2001, published as 'Living in Britain: Results from the 2001 General Household Survey'. Available from the internet at: http:// www.statistics.gov.uk/lib2001/index.html.

  Strategic Health Authority Debt
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of indebtedness of each strategic health authority was in the last year for which figures are available; what assistance the Government is providing to meet(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure relating to those debts; and what assessment he has made of the effects of historic indebtedness on service delivery in each authority. [124867]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities were established in 2002–03. Information from the individual audited accounts of these bodies will be available locally in September and centrally in autumn 2003.

  Tooth Decay
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 355W, on tooth decay, to what extent Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust have achieved (a) Target 1 and (b) Target 2. [124869]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The two national targets for tooth decay in children aged five years are:

  a reduction in the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth to 1.0 teeth by 2003; and

  an increase in the proportion of children with no experience of cavities to 70 per cent. by 2003.

  The survey conducted by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in 2001–02 showed that the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth for five-year-old children in Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust was 1.32. The percentage of children with no experience of cavities was 62.7 per cent.

  Waiting Lists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been removed from NHS waiting lists in each of the past three years. [116879]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of patients removed from the elective inpatient waiting list. Patients may be removed from waiting lists for a number of reasons such as the patient already having been admitted as an emergency for the same condition, the patient no longer requires the treatment, or the patient has died.

  Removals from the elective inpatient waiting list: England

  Removals

  2000–01

  613,931

  2001–02

  594,666

  2002–03

  600,759

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO6

  Xenotransplantation
  Norman Baker
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the review commissioned by UKXIRA from Professor Sheila McLean into xenotransplantation; and if he will make a statement. [125181]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health commissioned a series of three reviews on different aspects of xenotransplantation on behalf of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) between 1999 and 2001. The first two—on infection and on physiology—were published 2001 and 2002. A third review, on the legal and ethical aspects of xenotransplantation, was commissioned from Professor Sheila McLean of the University of Glasgow, who was also a member of the UKXIRA from 1997 to 2002.

  The UKXIRA has considered the review and concluded that it made some useful discussion points and that the summary of the research papers should be placed on the UKXIRA website. While there are no plans to publish Professor McLean's whole review as a Department of Health/UKXIRA document, Professor McLean is free to publish it if she wishes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on xenotransplantation. [125281]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority was established in 1997 to advise the Government on the acceptability of specific applications to undertake xenotransplantation procedures (the transplantation of live cells, tissues and organs from a non-human source into a human). It also acts as a focal point for xenotransplantation issues. Organisations undertaking research into xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom are required to comply with all relevant legislation. No clinical trials involving humans have yet been approved in the UK and currently no relevant organ transplant research is licensed in the UK under the Animals (Science Procedures) Act 1986.

CABINET OFFICE

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 155W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122987]

  Mr. Alexander
  Asbestos is present in a number of historic Cabinet Office buildings going back many years to a time when asbestos was commonly used in the building profession. It is managed in accordance with the current regulations and we are on target to meet the requirements of the "Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002" when they come fully into force next year. The buildings identified as containing asbestos are:

  36 and 70 Whitehall

  2 Little Smith Street

  Downing Street

  Admiralty House

  CMPS Residential Training Centre at Sunningdale.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Office since 29 October 2002. [126612]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since 29 October 2002 I have made 24 written ministerial statements to Parliament.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Payments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the oral answer from the Minister for Work, of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 738, if he will list the (a) objectives referred to by the Minister and (b) time by which each such objective is to be met. [125385]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The Department has a published Public Service Agreement that by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct Payment. The successful introduction of Universal banking services on 1 April 2003 has ensured that customers will continue to be able to access their money at the Post Office if they wish—just as they do now.

  Benefits/Tax Credits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the total United Kingdom benefit and tax credit expenditure which forms the last line of Table 1: Benefit and Tax Credit expenditure by DWP objective (nominal terms) in the Benefit Expenditure Tables found at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/expenditure.htm, if he will list the types of tax credit, benefits payment and other components which comprise the quoted figures; for each type of tax credit, benefit payment and other component, whether, according to the accounting methods employed in the 2003 Budget, they are classified as negative tax revenues, Government spending or a combination of the two; and for each tax credit, benefit payment and other component, what amount of tax was refunded and Government spending was incurred for each year since 2001–02 to the latest year for which figures are projected. [121328]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 3 July 2003,Official Report, columns 378–79W.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the policy of the Child Support Agency is in respect of making applications for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders against absent parents resident overseas; and how many such applications the CSA has made in each of the last five years. [125671]
  428W
  Mr. Pond
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs is responsible for administering reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within Scotland, this function is performed by the Scottish Executive.

  The Child Support Agency does not have jurisdiction over cases where the non-resident parent is habitually resident outside the UK, except if he or she is employed by a British-based employer.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 733, when he plans to make a further report on the performance of the Child Support Agency. [125365]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I stated on 7 July 2003 during oral questions,Official Report, column 733, that I would shortly report to the House on progress in implementation of the new child support scheme. I have today placed that report in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was claimed in disability living allowance in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority. [125555]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Disability living allowance: estimated expenditure in Scotland in the financial year, April 2002 to March 2003, by local authority area

  £ million

  Local authority

  Expenditure

  Aberdeen City

  25

  Aberdeenshire

  25

  Angus

  12

  Argyll and Bute

  10

  The Scottish Borders

  11

  Clackmannanshire

  9

  West Dumbartonshire

  19

  Dumfries and Galloway

  22

  [Dundee City

  24

  East Ayrshire

  21

  East Dumbartonshire

  12

  East Lothian

  13

  East Renfrewshire

  8

  City of Edinburgh

  53

  Falkirk

  23

  Fife

  54

  Glasgow City

  140

  Highland

  24

  Inverclyde

  16

  Midlothian

  14

  Moray

  8

  North Ayrshire

  23

  North Lanarkshire

  70

  Orkney Islands

  2

  Perth and Kinross

  13

  Renfrewshire

  31

  Shetland Isles

  2

  South Ayrshire

  17

  South Lanarkshire

  54

  Stirling

  13

  West Lothian

  27

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  3

  Total Scotland

  800

  429W
  Notes:

  1. Expenditure has been assigned to local authority areas by matching postcodes against the relevant Office of National Statistics postcode directory.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Because of relatively small sample sizes at local authority level, the figures are subject to a greater margin of error than would be associated with national level expenditure estimates; all results are rounded to the nearest £1 million, but may not be accurate to this level.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Information and Analysis Directorate, GB estimated outturn expenditure for 2002–03 apportioned using local authority data from the DLA Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  Entitlement Card
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions his Department has had with the Home Office about(a) the possible introduction of an entitlement card scheme, (b) the use to which such a card would be put on the matters for which he is responsible and (c) the costs and funding of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [124918]

  Mr. Pond
  Along with other Government Departments, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consulted with the Home Office in respect of the possible introduction of an entitlement card scheme. A very high-level consideration of impacts upon the Departments business, should the entitlement card scheme be introduced, has been made. Our initial considerations have focused upon the potential application of the National Insurance number (NINO) to the scheme, and to impacts upon our current and future business processes. However, at this stage, it is not possible to respond in any greater detail.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116093]

  Mr. Pond
  Membership of EU committees and working parties is not fixed, and depending on the subject matter under consideration, the most appropriate policy officials attend these meetings. 141 officials currently serve on 158 EU committees and working parties.

  Of these, 82 officials serve on 116 Health and Safety groups, and 16 officials (serving 14 education committees and working parties) work for the Joint International Unit (Department for Education and Skills and Department for Work and Pensions), which, for administrative purposes, is located in the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the savings his Department has made from the investigation of fraud in each of the last six years; [124499]

  (2) if he will estimate the savings arising from the (a) National Benefit Fraud Hotline and (b) report-acheat-online claim forms in each of the last six years. [124502]
  430W
  Mr. Pond
  The investigation of fraud leads to savings in two ways. The detection of fraud already in the system prevents further losses in those cases and secondly our work to tackle fraud acts as a deterrent to prevent potential fraud happening in the first place. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the total savings resulting from our anti-fraud work.

  However, we know from our continuous measurement of the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance that between 1997–98 and 2001–02 we had achieved a reduction of 24 per cent. We are committed to achieving our target of a 33 per cent. reduction for working age customers by 2004, and a 50 per cent. reduction by 2006.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been made to the national benefit fraud hotline in each of the last six years; and how many have resulted in successful prosecutions. [124500]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  National benefit fraud hotline

  April-March

  Number of calls received

  Successful Prosecutions

  1997–98

  188,038

  n/a1

  1998–99

  170,032

  n/a1

  1999–2000

  162,067

  335

  2000–01

  2208,201

  492

  2001–02

  2205,999

  703

  2002–03

  2159,290

  706

  1 Full information on the number of successful prosecutions resulting from calls to the national benefit fraud hotline is available only from April 1999.

  2 Figures include calls received by the Call Centre Bureau, which since May 2000 has been contracted to answer calls outside normal working hours when the main hotline is closed.

  Source:

  National benefit fraud hotline and fraud information by sector.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of administering the(a) national benefit fraud hotline and (b) report-acheat-online claim form in each of the last six years. [124503]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  Cost of administering the national benefit fraud hotline and the 'report-a-cheat-online'claim form1

  £

  Year2

  Staffing3

  Goods and services

  Total

  2000–01

  494,457

  133,347

  627,804

  2001–02

  529,026

  556,974

  1,086,000

  2002–03

  597,807

  361,470

  959,277

  1 The cost of administering the NBFH and report-a-cheat-online cannot be separated.

  2Cost figures are not available prior to 2000–01.

  3Staffing costs are based on the employment of telephone operators and the admin support needed to assist the operation.

  Source:

  National benefit fraud hotline (NBFH)
  431W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of benefit fraud have been detected in each of the last six years; and how many resulted in successful prosecution. [124505]

  Fraud investigations

  Successful prosecutions

  Cautions and administrative penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  DWP

  Local authorities

  DWP

  Local authorities

  Total

  1997–98

  11,380

  700

  —

  —

  12,080

  1998–99

  9,970

  800

  —

  —

  10,770

  1999–2000

  9,130

  860

  11,030

  390

  21,410

  2000–01

  11,400

  1,100

  15,560

  550

  28,610

  2001–02

  11,180

  1,700

  13,550

  2,600

  29,030

  2002–03

  9,270

  2,500

  14,270

  6,000

  32,040

  Notes:

  1. Administrative penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998. Cautions were made available to local authorities as a sanction from the start of 2001–02.

  2. Figures for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with DWP data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

  3. Management information data for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is not available for all local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 have been rounded to two significant figures.

  4. Information for 2001–02 is from a count of prosecutions and sanctions completed by all local authorities; this data is collected from local authority subsidy returns. Subsidy data may differ from management information data (shown for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01) at local authority level; however, analysis shows a high level of consistency between the two data sources at national level.

  5. The DWP figures are from the Fraud Information By Sector database, which shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All DWP totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  6. In accordance with National Statistics Guidelines all DWP figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Due to rounding process totals may not agree.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2003,Official Report, columns 522–23W. on fraud (Scotland), by what means his Department tracks trends in council tax benefit fraud (a) at national and (b) local authority level. [124858]

  Mr. Pond
  The measurement of fraud and error is complex and expensive and as such it is concentrated on benefits with the highest expenditure and risk of loss, such as housing benefit. Information on the cost of fraud and error is not available for council tax benefit. However, the measures that we are taking to fight fraud and error in housing benefit will also serve to improve the accuracy of council tax benefit.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are available to homeless families in priority need. [124685]

  Mr. Pond
  Homeless people, including homeless families in priority need, have access to the same benefits as anyone else, providing they meet the conditions of entitlement.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was claimed in jobseeker's allowance in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority. [125319]
  432W
  Mr. Pond
  The number of cases of benefit fraud detected is not available. The number of cases resulting in a successful prosecution, caution or administrative penalty is in the table.

  Mr. Pond
  Jobseeker's allowance gross benefit expenditure in Scotland for 2002–03 was £273,597,824.62. This figure is not available broken down by local authority area, but is available by district and local office, and this information has been placed in the Library.

  Pension Credit Hotline
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when information is being provided about the pension credit hotline to people who are likely to be eligible for the pension credit; [125403]

  (2) what the number is of the pension credit hotline; and how many helpline operators there are; [125406]

  (3) how many calls have been received by the pension credit hotline in each week since it first opened. [125407]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service began in April 2003 to write to pensioner households to explain pension credit and to invite applications. The letters include the number of the freephone application line (0800 99 1234) and a separate textphone number (0800 169 0133). By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted in this way. The two numbers will also be included in an advertising campaign scheduled to begin in September 2003. The application line will have around 1,500 whole-time equivalent staff when pension credit is implemented in October 2003. Information on the number of calls received is not available in the format requested. The number of calls received by the application line between 7 April 2003, when the line went live, and 30 June 2003 was 114,000.

  Pension Payments
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the Government will pay pensions after current pension books expire to pensioners who currently use their pension book to collect their pension at a Post Office and who do not nominate a bank account or a Post Office Card Account into which they wish their pension to be paid. [125380]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: Customers will be supplied with information that clearly sets out their account options. This will enable them to choose the account which best meets their needs and circumstances. An alternative method of payment will be available for those who are genuinely unable to open or operate any type of bank account.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what forecasts his Department has made of average pensioner income levels over the next five years. [119234]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not make forecasts of future pensioner incomes. However to project future expenditure on Pension Credit it was assumed that pensioner income brought to account would increase in line with earnings.

  The Pensioner Income Series 2000–01 shows that the average net income before housing costs of pensioner couples in 2000–01 was 301 and the average income of single pensioners was £160 per week (amounts shown in 2000–01 price terms).

  The average net income of pensioners grew by around 23 per cent. in real terms between 1994–05 and 2001–02.

  Pensions
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when and how people whose retirement pensions are paid monthly into their bank accounts have been informed of the availability of weekly payment. [125286]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department has no plans to contact customers who currently receive four-weekly payments into a bank or building society account. Customers will only be contacted if they are directly affected by the change to Direct Payment. Therefore for those pensioners currently paid four weekly directly into their account, payment frequency will remain the same. Any pensioners from this group, who wish to change to weekly payments, will need to contact the Pension Service to request this.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 630W on pensions, what plans he has to update the figures quoted by the right hon. Member of Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 26 November 2002, Official Report, column 210W. [126391]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Departmental analysts are currently working on processing and investigating NIRS2 data covering the financial years up to 2000–01. It is intended that this data will be published in the Autumn.
  434W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner households there are in each region of Great Britain. [125949]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the information in the table shows the number of households in receipt of a winter fuel payment containing a person of state pension age (60 for women, 65 for men) in each government office region of Great Britain.

  Government office region

  Households in receipt of a winter fuel payment containing a person of state pension age

  North East

  300,000

  North West

  900,000

  Yorkshire and the Number

  700,000

  East Midlands

  500,000

  West Midlands

  700,000

  East of England

  700,000

  London

  800,000

  South East

  1,100,000

  South West

  700,000

  Wales

  400,000

  Scotland

  600,000

  Total

  7,400,000

  Note:

  1. Figures include people in residential care

  2. Numbers of pensioner households are rounded to the nearest 100,000

  Source:

  Information taken from the winter fuel payment 2002/03 administrative database

  Policy Simulation Model
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the use of the policy simulation model by his Department; and if he will place its specifications in the Library. [125950]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pension's Policy Simulation Model is a static microsimulation model used by analysts within the department to estimate the budgetary and distributional impacts of a range of hypothetical and actual policy changes. The model is similar in purpose and functionality to those maintained by HM Treasury (IGOTM), the Institute for Fiscal Studies (TAXBEN) and the Cambridge Microsimulation Unit (POLIMOD). An overview of the model has been placed in the Library.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114450]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions reports progress against Public Service Agreement targets in routine publications, such as the annual Departmental Report and Autumn Performance Report. These are also available to the public on the Department's website (www.dwp.gov.uk.) and to staff via the intranet. These incur no significant additional cost to public funds.

  SchlumbergerSema
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the levels of performance against the key performance targets in respect of SchlumbergerSema in(a) March, (b) April and (c) May 2003; whether a financial penalty has been imposed for failure to meet targets in these months; and if he will make a statement. [122466]

  Maria Eagle
  A table showing the levels of achievement against 15 key performance targets in each of the three contract packages for March, April and May 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Service credits for failure to meet contractual service level targets have been applied as appropriate in each of those three months.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his plans are to reform the Social Fund. [121123]

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to reform the Social Fund. [126262]

  Mr. Pond
  As my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed in his recent budget report, we are considering the case for further reform of the Social Fund.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 764–65W, on stakeholder schemes, how many companies the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has fined for non-compliance with the workplace access requirements for stakeholder pensions schemes; and what the average value was of those fines. [126390]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) regulates compliance with the Stakeholder Pensions workplace access requirements by responding to whistleblowers' reports and by using surveys targeted by region and business sector. When cases of non-compliance come to light, Opra focuses on working with the employer to rectify the situation rather than taking a merely punitive approach. Since the requirements came into force on 8 October 2001, Opra has received 440 reports concerning the stakeholder access requirements. To date, 427 of these cases have been closed, either because, as a result of Opra and the employer working together, full compliance was achieved, or because the employer proved to be exempt from the requirements. The remaining 13 cases are still under investigation by Opra.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what remit relating to sustainable development is required by his Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental
  436W
  bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116672]

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on what responsibilities relating to sustainable development are(a) required of and (b) undertaken by his Department's (i) executive agencies, (ii) advisory non-departmental bodies, (iii) executive non-departmental bodies, (iv) tribunals, (v) public corporations and (vi) other bodies. [119127]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All DWP Executive Agencies and other associated bodies are required to follow the Department's Sustainable Development Policy Statement (which is on the dwp website dwp.gov.uk/sus-dev/documents/ policy.pdf). A Sustainable Development Steering Group, comprised of senior officials from across the Department and its Executive Agencies, has the responsibility for ensuring that the policy statement is observed and that a positive contribution is made towards the Departments Sustainable Development Improvement Programme. This includes all the targets from the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124810]

  Maria Eagle
  Since August 2001, when the current planning regulations on mobile telecommunications masts came into force, there have been three planning applications to site masts on the DWP estate.

  There are currently 10 Mobile Telecommunications Masts on the DWP Estate. These were in place before August 2001.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Legislative Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will publish the list of Departments who have bid for Bills in the new session. [124978]

  Mr. Hain
  No. Government do not release papers, information or correspondence relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees or pre-empt the content of the Queen's Speech.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Unmarried Couples (Legal Rights)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to extend property, benefit and pension rights to the bereaved partner in an unmarried co-habiting relationship following the death of their partner. [125973]

  Mr. Lammy
  On 30 June, my right Hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions and the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, published
  437W
  `Civil Partnership—a framework for the legal recognition of same sex couples'. It sets out Government proposals for the establishment of civil partnership registration for same sex couples, while also making clear that it is not proposed to extend these arrangements to unmarried opposite sex couples.

  The Civil Partnership consultation paper proposes to give same-sex civil partners the same rights as married couples in respect of the intestacy rules and of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The paper also sets out proposals relating to property and benefits rights. There are no proposals in relation to opposite-sex cohabiting couples, as they have the option of marriage available to them should they wish it.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations he has received on extending legal rights to unmarried couples. [125952]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Law Commission published a discussion paper on the property rights of home sharers in July 2002, entitled 'Home Sharers'. In addition, the Law Society has published draft proposals for the introduction of increased legal rights of cohabiting couples, entitled "Cohabitation—the case for clear law" also in July 2002.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what plans he has to extend legal rights to unmarried couples; [125970]

  (2) what action he is taking to give property and pension rights to couples who choose not to marry. [125972]

  Mr. Lammy
  On 30 June, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions and the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, published 'Civil Partnership—a framework for the legal recognition of same sex couples'. It sets out Government proposals for the establishment of civil partnership registration for same sex couples, while also making clear that it is not proposed to extend this arrangement to unmarried opposite sex couples.

  However, in recognition of the extent of misunderstanding about the status of 'common law marriage', I am exploring, together with other relevant colleagues, how best to undertake an information campaign so that unmarried couples can be more fully and accurately informed about their position.

  Civil Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to extend eligibility for civil injuries compensation to the bereaved partner in an unmarried co-habiting relationship following the death of their partner. [125969]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, an opposite sex cohabitant of a person who has died as a result of another person's negligence is entitled to claim for financial loss as a dependant if he or she had lived with the deceased partner for at least two years prior to the death. The Government's consultation paper "Civil Partnership: A framework for the legal recognition of same sex couples" proposes that same sex couples who 438W
  register a partnership should be eligible to claim for financial loss and bereavement damages in the same way that spouses can.

  The Law Commission in its report "Claims for Wrongful Death" has recommended that other same sex and opposite sex cohabitants who can show dependency should also be entitled to claim. The Commission has also recommended that same sex and opposite sex cohabitants who have lived together for at least two years prior to the death should be entitled to an award of bereavement damages. The Government is currently considering these proposals.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action he is taking to extend eligibility for civil injuries compensation to the children of parents in an unmarried co-habiting relationship following the death of one of their parents. [125971]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, any child of a deceased person where that person has died as a result of another person's negligence is entitled as a dependant to claim damages for any financial loss suffered. The Law Commission in its report "Claims for Wrongful Death" has recommended that children of the deceased should also be entitled to an award of bereavement damages. The Government is currently considering this proposal.

  Entitlement Card
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Home Office about the(a) possible introduction of an entitlement card scheme,(b) the use to which such a card would be put on the matters for which he is responsible and (c) the costs and funding of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [126220]

  Mr. Lammy
  Work on the possible introduction of entitlement cards has involved significant liaison between the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs and other relevant departments.

  Joint Guarantors
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to make provision for individuals to be able to make informed decisions about the financial soundness of potential joint guarantors. [124495]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no plans to do so. The Data Protection Act 1998 regulates the processing of information relating to individuals through a general framework of good handling rules known as the data protection principles. The Act confers no rights of access to third party personal data. Disclosures of such data may be made consistently with the Act, provided that they comply with the data protection principles or meet the terms of a "non-disclosure" exemption.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to conduct an investigation into abuse of the legal aid system. [125211]
  439W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Secretary of State and I are most concerned about possible abuses of the legal aid system. However we are confident that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has strong controls and measures in place to prevent and investigate fraud and abuse of the legal aid system.

  The LSC has established procedures for handling cases where allegations of fraudulent behaviour by suppliers, and clients seeking funding are made and for taking appropriate action where fraud or abuse is uncovered.

  The reforms underpinned by the Access to Justice Act 1999 have significantly strengthened the control of fraud and abuse by suppliers. All suppliers who wish to provide publicly funded legal services are required to work to a contract and to comply with the LSC's quality standards. The LSC reorganised its Investigations Section in 2002–03 to reflect the fact that fraud control is increasingly achieved via contract management audits, which are the responsibility of the regional offices. Firm action has and is being taken on a n umber of firms where abuses have been uncovered, including the termination of contracts. The LSC is also working jointly with The Law Society and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner to actively investigate recent evidence of abuse by way of giving out inducements to asylum seekers at ports of entry. LSC action includes carrying out special audits of firms and the investigation is still continuing.

  The LSC is also committed to actively investigating where doubts arise about whether a funded client is financially eligible for funding. These investigations are conducted by the LSC's Special Investigations Unit, which also assists regional offices with the means assessment of applicants for funding whose financial positions are complex.

  Private Offices
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what have been the running costs of Ministers' private offices in his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997. [123115]

  Mr. Lammy
  Gross administration costs (formerly known as running costs) for the Ministers' private offices from 1997 to date are set out in the following table:

  Administration costs for Ministers' private offices

  £

  Cost

  1997–981

  0

  1998–99

  1,055

  1999–2000

  1,257

  2000–01

  1,585

  2001–02

  1,620

  2002–032

  2,001

  1 Data not readily available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  2 The increase in running costs between 2001–02 and 2002–03 is a result of the Machinery of Government changes and the consequent expansion of the Ministers' private offices to accommodate the additional areas of responsibility.

  Queen's Counsel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what process was in place to decide who was offered silk prior to the review of the system announced earlier this year; and if he will make a statement. [125200]

  Mr. Leslie
  The selection process for Queen's Counsel prior to the announcement of the review was as follows:

  Application

  Applications were made annually through an advertisement and through the departmental website. The advertisement has for many years usually appeared in early September, and the list of successful applicants was published the following Maundy Thursday.

  Consultation

  Much of the Queen's Counsel exercise was conducted by means of written consultation. Written views were automatically sought from the judiciary, specialist legal associations and other senior practitioners. Applicants were invited to nominate up to six names from the list of automatic consultees who were best placed to provide comments against the criteria. They were also requested to nominate a further six consultees of their own choosing.

  Meetings were held with the Heads of Supreme Court Divisions; the judges in charge of the Commercial Court, the Administrative Court and the Technology and Construction Court; the Presiding Judges; Family Division Liaison Judges; Circuit Leaders and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council. Meetings were occasionally also held to clarify a consultee's views or, where a consultee has consulted others, the degree of consensus.

  Sift

  Following the consultation period, departmental officials conducted a sift of all applicants, to establish how far the evidence demonstrated that they met the criteria for appointment to the required standard. All marks and comments were given individual consideration. No single comment or mark could, in itself, cause an application to fail.

  The sift was a three-stage process. First, departmental officials working independently of each other prepared a written assessment of the evidence. The second stage consisted of two panels, each comprising a senior official and a lay member. The panels reviewed the applications and classified them according to the strength of the evidence that the applicant met the criteria for appointment. The third stage was moderation by Legal and Judicial Services Group's most senior officials to ensure a consistent standard of decision making and recording.

  The results were presented to the Lord Chancellor in the form of a long list. This list was divided into categories relating to circuit or practice type. It summarised the evidence on every applicant who appeared to meet the criteria to the required standard, dividing them into four groups according to the strength of the evidence. The long list also included the name of any other applicant whose fees were in the upper quartile for their particular practice type or circuit. The Lord Chancellor was provided with the detailed comments received for each applicant who appeared in

  441W
  the long list. He was provided with the names of, and the full comments received on, all ethnic minority, female, and solicitor applicants and those who had a specialist practice on provincial circuits. He also received a separate note of those not included in the long list and a brief summary of the reasons. This material enabled the Lord Chancellor and those he consulted to check the validity of the decision to exclude any of the applicants in the above categories from the Long List.

  Appointment

  The Lord Chancellor personally considered the long list and additional detailed material. He did not confine his consideration to the long list alone and based his final recommendations on all the material available to him. Following his initial consideration, he held separate meetings to discuss the applications with the Law Officers and the heads of Supreme Court divisions and their senior judicial colleagues, who also received copies of the same material. The Lord Chancellor then decided which applicants to recommend to the Queen for appointment.

  There was no limit to the numbers of new Queen's Counsel who could be appointed in a particular year, nor was there a quota of appointments to be filled. The Lord Chancellor made his recommendations for appointment on the basis of the calibre of each individual applicant, as reflected in the views given in that year's round. All applicants who fulfilled the published criteria to the necessary high standard were recommended for appointment.

  Feedback

  Unsuccessful applicants were encouraged to discuss the outcome of their application with a senior member of Legal and Judicial Services Group. Feedback was
  442W
  given in confidence and usually by telephone. The aim of the feedback discussion was to help applicants to understand why they were not appointed by reference to the degree of support received and the tenor of the views obtained. They were given a full account of the comments received, edited only to the extent necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the source.

  Complaints

  The Department explored any issues of concern to the applicant during the feedback process. If there remained unresolved problems, applicants were encouraged to write to the Director General, Legal and Judicial Services Group or the Lord Chancellor.

  If the applicant remained dissatisfied with the way his or her application had been considered, he or she could lodge a complaint with the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments, who would investigate complaints of discrimination, unfairness or maladministration in the way the procedures had been applied.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to prevent solicitors canvassing for business in public areas. [125212]

  Mr. Lammy
  Professional rules prohibit solicitors or their agents making unsolicited visits or telephone calls to members of the public. In addition, The Law Society has issued guidance in respect of immigration advice which prohibits solicitors or those acting on their behalf approaching people arriving at ports of entry. The breach of the rule and guidance is a disciplinary matter for the Law Society.

DEFENCE

  Queen Victoria School
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Chief Executive of the Queen Victoria School has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  PUPIL POPULATION
  To maintain the staying on rate at School for S4 to S5 at a minimum of 4 per cent. above the Scottish national average for the current year.*

  EDUCATIONAL
  To maintain a percentage of pupils of the S4 roll gaining 5+ awards at level 5 or better (post-appeal) by the end of S4, at 2 per cent. above the Scottish national average. *
  To maintain a percentage of the S4 roll gaining 3+ awards at Level 6 or better (post-appeal) by the end of S5, at least equal to the Scottish national average.*

  FINANCIAL
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of not more than £15,250 by 31 March 2004. The 2002–03 target was £14,000.
  To generate gross income to the School of at least £300,000 by 31 March 2004. The 2002–03 target was £295,000.
  *All Queen Victoria School statistics to be based on the School's results over the last three years, compared with the Scottish national average for the current year, those statistics being as published in the Scottish Executive Statistical Bulletin.

  Sponsored Reserves
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  On 14 April 2003 a contract was signed between SERCo Aerospace and the RAF for the provision of Sponsored Reserves (contract support personnel who may be called out for service). SERCo Aerospace is a commercial company contracted to provide engineering support to the BAe 125 aircraft of the Comms Fleet, 32 (The Royal) Squadron, based at RAF Northolt. The new arrangement enables personnel to be deployed to an operational theatre with the protection of reserve status. Individual voluntary contracts have been signed and four personnel have been issued with call-out notices to deploy overseas.

  The use of Sponsored Reserves is designed to cover specialist support roles where the call-out is not dependent on a level of crisis. Delegation of call-out powers has been authorised to the Air Secretary and authorised officers on his staff, in the same way as for other Sponsored Reserves. Call-out notices are served routinely every few weeks under existing delegated powers, and there are currently other Sponsored Reservists under contract with the Royal Navy as well as with the RAF. Naval Sponsored Reserves exist as part of the Strategic Sealift project, as well as providing
  34WS
  hydrographic support to Survey vessels, and RAF Sponsored Reserves have signed agreements with the Mobile Meteorological Unit.

  The Duke of York's Royal Military School
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  To achieve 97.80 per cent. of 15 year old pupils gaining 5 or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.

  To achieve 25.20 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.

  To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year old pupil of 58.30.

  To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 255.

  To achieve 35.80 per cent. of GCE passes at grades A or B.

  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £12,542.

  To generate income of at least £700,000.

  To achieve at least 300 applications for September 2004 intake.

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  United Kingdom forces continue to make good progress in helping Iraq become a stable and united state.

  The vast majority of Iraqis welcomed the fall of the Saddam regime. The newly formed Governing Council has given Iraqis a representative voice after decades of oppression. The Coalition will work with the Governing Council to rebuild Iraq. It will hand over to an elected government as soon as possible. The UK is playing a major role, and has seconded experts to work in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad in a wide range of fields: political, financial, legal, security, health, education, roads, forensics, war crimes, prisons, culture and communications. We are also assisting in the training of a new Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police.

  Since the collapse of the former regime, and the announcement of the end of decisive combat operations on 1 May, the Coalition's main effort has been directed towards establishing a safe and secure Iraq. Security is an essential part of the political and economic rehabilitation of the country, and Coalition stabilisation operations continue. Those who violently oppose the Coalition represent a desperate minority. In the south, UK forces have developed close links with local communities, and have helped to improve the availability of water, food, power and medical supplies, which had previously been used as a means of control by Saddam Hussein. Iraqis are making the most of their new freedoms. However, the security environment remains difficult in places, particularly in Baghdad and the surrounding area. We are assisting our Coalition allies in a number of ways, including sharing British expertise in urban operations, derived from many years experience in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

  The roulement of UK forces set out in my Written Statement of 11 June 2003, Official Report, columns 51–52WS. continues. Today, about 11,000 UK servicemen and women drawn from all three Services

  35WS
  remain in the Gulf region and Iraq. The deployment of 3 (UK) Division, 19 Mechanised Brigade and 101 Logistic Brigade is nearing completion. The Royal Navy is maintaining a presence of five vessels in the Gulf. The Joint Helicopter Force of 18 helicopters based at Basra continues to support forces on the ground. We are considering the scope for rear-basing two RAF Tornado GR4 in the UK, leaving six in theatre with a number of supporting aircraft, in line with the reduced requirement for sorties.

  UK forces are already working closely with military contingents from a number of countries, and further forces are due to deploy over the coming weeks. Headquarters 3 (UK) Division formally took over command of the Multinational Division (South East) (MND(SE)) on 12 July. This division is now responsible for Coalition forces in four provinces in Southern Iraq, namely Al Basrah, Maysan, Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna. Nine countries have committed troops, and discussions continue with a number of others. When fully assembled, non-UK multinational contributions to MND(SE) should total some 5,500 military personnel.

  In Al Basrah province, a Czech Field Hospital and a company of military police, over 300 Czech personnel in all, will be attached to Headquarters MND(SE). The Czech Field Hospital has been dosing valuable work in Iraq since May. 38 Engineer Regiment of 19 Mechanised Brigade will work alongside a 140-strong Norwegian company in the Al Basrah and Maysan provinces. We also expect the deployment of around 40 New Zealand engineers with a small support staff for humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. Also in Maysan province, a Danish battlegroup of some 450 personnel including a 30-strong Lithuanian contingent has for some weeks been operating out of Al Qurnah. In Al Muthanna province, a 1,100-strong Dutch battlegroup comprising a Marine battalion, engineer company, medical facility and a military police platoon, will be based in As Samawah. In addition, three Dutch Chinook helicopters will be deployed to Tallil. The Italian mechanised brigade in Dhi Qar province will be 2,800 strong, and will be supported by a Romanian mechanised battalion and military police company (520 personnel), and a 130-strong security force company of Portuguese National Guard in a policing role. These contributions to MND(SE) represent a powerful symbol of the international community's commitment to the future of Iraq.

  The rotation of the UK divisional headquarters, the deployment of international contingents, and the inception of MND(SE) makes this an appropriate juncture to take stock of planned force levels. This process is continuing. If necessary, we will make further adjustments to our deployed forces. We remain committed to maintaining appropriate forces in Iraq for as long as necessary and no longer.

  Armed Forces Initial Training
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 10 February 2003 I published the report of an appraisal of the care of recruits in initial training, carried out by an independent earn. Today I am publishing the report of a follow-up appraisal carried 36WS
  out by the same team, which has continued to monitor progress, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The overall assessment arrived at by the re-appraisal is that the initial training system is proving highly successful in continuing to deliver a large number of high quality, motivated young people for service in the armed forces, most recently in the very demanding combat and environmental conditions of the Gulf. All three services' training organisations, however, are still very tautly resourced, notably in the area of supervisory and instructional manpower, for their very high throughput of trainees. The most significant risks are carried in the larger army training establishments. The team concludes that a good deal has been done, but that further progress will require additional investment of manpower and resources.

  Alongside the re-appraisal report, I am publishing a Departmental progress report, which provides an overview of the action we have taken since February. A wide range of measures has been set in hand to improve processes and procedures, in line with the recommendations of the first appraisal report. These have included work to identify the resource implications of the recommendations. One of the most significant criticisms in February was of inadequate numbers of instructors, especially at some of the large army training establishments. The army has identified a requirement for additional instructors and support staff—106 of these vacancies were assessed as urgent; most have been filled already, and all will be filled by 11 August. This is a significant achievement on the army's part, at a time of major operational commitment overseas, and reflects the very high priority that the army puts on the initial training and care of its soldiers.

  Inevitably, however, as the re-appraisal indicates, it takes time for all the policy changes that we are putting in place to be implemented, especially where extra resources or new infrastructure is required. As the reappraisal notes, the increased numbers of instructors and supervisory staff are still building up. They and other improvements we are putting in place, have the potential to significantly improve the training environment. But we are certainly not complacent and recognise that progress must be maintained and extended. In line with the latest recommendation of the team, we will carry out a further assessment of progress in summer 2004.

HEALTH

  Medical Devices Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The 2002–03 report and accounts of the Medical Devices Agency have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease surveillance unit's 11th
  37WS
  annual report has been published today. The report documents the unit's findings in relation to sporadic, familial and iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), and also variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), up to 31 January 2003. Copies have been placed in the Library, and are also available on the Unit's web site at http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/.

  Clinical Trials Directive
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The draft regulations to transpose the clinical trials directive into domestic law are currently being discussed with stakeholders. The process of developing these regulations fully, at which point they can be laid before Parliament, should therefore be completed some time after Parliament reconvenes in October. I will aim to give a further update at around that time. Member States are required to implement the directive fully by 1 May 2004.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual report and accounts 2002–03 have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  We have received the NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency's annual report and accounts 2002–03, and copies have today been laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Technical notes for the remaining shared Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement (CJS PSA) targets for the 2002 Spending Review period, have been published today. Copies are available in the Library and online at http:// www. homeoffice.gov. uk/inside/aims/index.html.

  In common with those for other targets, the technical notes define the terms used in the PSA targets, their territorial scope, measurement systems which will be used, and criteria for success. The purpose of the technical notes is to enable Parliament, and the public, to judge progress against the PSA targets. The measurement systems will be used by the three CJS departments to manage delivery of the new, challenging targets.
  38WS
  The majority of the CJS technical notes were presented to Parliament, as part of the Home Office technical notes, on 25 March 2003. The remaining technical notes, published today, relate to the targets (i) to improve public confidence in the CJS, and (ii) to increase value for money in the CJS. For convenience, the Home Office technical notes document has been republished to incorporate the revised public confidence technical note. The CJS Value for money technical note has been published a s a separate document.

  The Criminal Justice System PSA targets were presented to Parliament on 15 July 2002 as part of the Command Paper "2002 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements" (Cm 5571).

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the official consultation process report following the public consultation exercise on the implementation of sections 134–139 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These provisions will enable the immigration authorities to require employers and financial institutions to provide information in respect of specified individuals who are reasonably suspected of committing certain immigration offences. Their purpose is to strengthen our ability to deal with illegal working and fraud against the national asylum support arrangements. The new powers are closely drawn and are modelled on existing powers in social security legislation. A consultation paper seeking views on practical questions concerning the operation of the new powers was published on 19 March. The consultation process report summarises the comments received and our response. The new powers will come into force on 30 July, together with section 129 of the 2002 Act relating to the supply of information by local authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fire Authority
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Report on Stage Two of the Quinquennial Review of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has been completed and made available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's web site.

  The conclusion of the Stage One Report, published on 3 February, was that the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland should remain in being as an NDPB.

  Stage Two examined how the Authority operated and related to the Fire Brigade and its sponsoring Department. The consultants invited views from a range of respondents, including Authority members and personnel, the fire fighters' unions, and representatives of local government in Northern Ireland. Their report makes recommendations to improve the Authority's effectiveness and efficiency.
  39WS
  The Report's overall conclusion is that the Fire Authority has already begun to address effectively the problems identified in the Stage One Report. In particular, relations between Authority members and senior officers have improved significantly since last year.

  The Report recommends:

  A more strategic role for the Authority Board.

  A more compact Board.

  A new senior management structure, with greater emphasis on the personnel and financial management functions.

  The Stage 2 Report comes at a good time, when a major programme of change is under way across the UK in how our fire and rescue services are organised and delivered. The recommendations in the Report will help the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland to build on the positive start that it has already made, and to address the challenges of change with confidence and enthusiasm.

  The proposed changes in the composition of the Authority would require legislation. I intend to include them in a paper for public consultation, which I plan to publish later this year. That paper will also outline the Government's vision for the future development of the Fire and Rescue Service in Northern Ireland in light of the broad policy approach outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Statement to the House of 30 June, tailored to Northern Ireland's particular needs and circumstances.

  Police Ombudsman
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland's annual report for 2002–03 is published today.

  Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Life Sentence Review Commissioners
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today arranged for the Annual Report of the Life Sentence Review Commissioners to be laid in the House. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This document will not be published but will instead be made available on the Commissioners' website at http://www.Isrcni.org.uk/.

  Train Derailment
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  The report of the inquiry carried out by an Inspector of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate into a train derailment in County Londonderry on 4 June 2002 is being published today. Copies of the inspector's report have been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Assembly and copies will be made available to the public on request. I have also placed copies of the Northern Ireland Railways internal report on this incident in the Libraries and copies will also be available to the public from Translink on request. The HMRI report will also be placed on the Department for Regional Development's website http://www.drdni.gov.uk/transportpolicy/
  40WS
  The derailment occurred when the 12.50 pm train from Londonderry to Belfast hit a large rock that came to rest on the railway track following a rock fall from an adjacent cliff at Downhill, County Londonderry. Thankfully there were no fatalities and only the driver of the train suffered injuries that were sufficiently serious to require admission to hospital. Following the accident, Mr Peter Robinson MP, the then Minister for Regional Development, made a statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 10 June 2002 advising that he had asked HMRI to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of the accident, to report the findings and to make recommendations.

  The report comes to a number of conclusions about the operations of Northern Ireland Railways that were a contributory factor to the accident and makes recommendations for improvements. It also contains conclusions and recommendations in respect of the Department for Regional Development's Roads Service, the Department of the Environment's Planning Service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other duty holders. The report concludes that rock falls from the cliffs at Downhill were foreseeable, that further rock falls will occur, and that these pose a risk to residents and, to a lesser extent road and rail users.

  The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are actively being considered for implementation by the relevant agencies in Northern Ireland. I will ensure that these bodies liaise closely with each other in this process. I have taken action to ensure that the recommendations are actively considered for implementation.

  I wish to express my appreciation to HMRI for their assistance and in particular to the inspector, Mr Gerald Kerr, for his detailed and careful examination of the issues and for his recommendations. I also wish to commend the public spiritedness of the eyewitness to the rock fall who contacted the emergency services and the residents of Downhill for the assistance they gave to the injured.

  Castlereagh Break-in
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  On 20 March 2002 my predecessor announced that he had launched an inquiry into the implications of the break-in at the Special Branch office in Castlereagh on 17 March. He informed the House that, in parallel with the criminal investigation that was under way, he had established a review to determine how the incident could have happened, to assess the extent of any damage caused to national security, to audit the measures taken in response to the incident and to identify any wider lessons on national security. The review was conducted by Sir John Chilcot, assisted by Mr Colin Smith.

  I very recently took receipt of Sir John's report. I should like to express my gratitude to Sir John and Colin Smith for producing a comprehensive report that provides a solid basis on which to move forward.

  I have today written to the Chief Constable, the Chairman of the Policing Board and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner with an account of the report's findings on matters which fall to their direct responsibility.
  41WS
  My predecessor commissioned the review in recognition of his responsibility for national security issues. In identifying weaknesses in national security arrangements exposed by the break-in, this report makes a number of observations and recommendations.

  There has, over the months, been a significant degree of speculation about who might have been involved in this incident, including allegations of collusion. I can confirm that the review did not uncover any evidence whatsoever that members of Government agencies were in any way involved in this incident, although the police investigation is continuing. The review was also able to provide a satisfactory assurance about the quality of the police investigation, confirming the conclusions of a separate review of the professional quality and standard of the investigation, carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service last year at the request of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  The report came to certain conclusions about how the incident might have occurred and made recommendations about how to avoid any similar incidents happening in the future. I am sure that the House will recognise that I am constrained by the wider aspects and implications of national security from going into any details on these matters. But I shall be considering the matters raised in the report with the greatest care.

  Military Complaints Procedures
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today arranged for copies of Jim McDonald's annual report for 2002 to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report of the independent assessor continues to provide valuable reassurance to both the public and the Government that the army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny. I welcome Mr. McDonald's report and I will consider it carefully. I will respond as soon as possible.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  The Serious Fraud Office Annual Report 2002–03 has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Following a commitment in the 2001 Local Government White Paper, we are carrying out a wide-ranging review of the balance between central and local sources of funding for local government in England. This review is being steered by a high level group, chaired by me, which includes senior representatives of central and local government as well business, the unions, the academic world and the accountancy profession.
  42WS
  To inform the work of the group I am today issuing an invitation to all those interested to submit comments by 30 September. Copies of the invitation letter will be available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

TRANSPORT

  Aerodromes
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I have today laid before Parliament The Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003, which will come into force on 6 August 2003.

  The Regulations transpose into UK law Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports. The Directive replaces the Hushkits Regulation (EC925/ 1999—which introduced a blanket ban on the noisiest aircraft types).

  The Directive and the new Regulations:
  are designed to ensure that consistent procedures governing the introduction of new noise-related operating restrictions at airports are established across the European Union.
  will initially apply to the following airports:

  Birmingham

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  London Gatwick

  London Heathrow

  London Luton

  London Stansted

  Manchester

  London City

  Belfast City

  do not require action to counter noise to be taken but set out a process that must be followed where such action is being contemplated;
  put in place a framework within which a "balanced approach" to managing aircraft noise can be implemented on an airport-by-airport basis.

  The balanced approach comprises four equally important elements:
  reducing noise a t source (taking account of the effect of existing and foreseeable noise standards for engines);
  using operational noise abatement procedures (in other words, flying aircraft as quietly as possible, consistent with safe operation);
  using land-use planning and management policies to prevent or limit noise sensitive development around airports;
  restricting, and in extremis banning, aircraft from operating ("operating restrictions"). If banning noisiest aircraft at non-City airports is contemplated it is limited to those that meet the present International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) noise limitation standard ("Chapter 3") by a margin of 5dB or less. City Airports may impose

  43WS
  more stringent bans provided that they do not affect aircraft which comply with the ICAO "Chapter 4" noise standards.

  The Department for Transport undertook a consultation with UK stakeholders between 31 July—31 October 2002 on those aspects of implementation of the Directive in the UK over which there was flexibility. A Summary of Responses to the Consultation and the Government's view on the issues raised by the responses has been placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Framework Directive
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The Government intend to publish a third consultation paper on the water framework directive at the end of July or early August.

  This third consultation will contain proposed draft transposing regulations, a revised regulatory impact assessment and a summary of responses to the second consultation paper with the Government's response.

  Rights of Way (Crime Prevention)
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  I will shortly announce which areas the Government will include in the first designation order under section 118B of the Highways Act 1980 to enable highway authorities to make orders to close or divert rights of way to prevent crime.

  I shall write to each of the 15 authorities who applied for designation letting them know whether their applications have been successful and inviting those who have not been successful to provide more evidence. Defra will issue a press release to coincide with this and I will write to those MPs whose constituencies are directed affected to let them know what has been decided.

  The legislation provides the Secretary of State with discretion to designate areas for the purposes of preventing or reducing crime that would otherwise disrupt the life of the community. Local highway authorities are then able to make orders to close or divert individual rights of way that are affected by high levels of crime.

  The guidance that Defra issued to local authorities in February this year (Circular 1/2003) stated that whilst all applications for designation would be considered, the Government generally believed that a primary consideration must be that highway authorities were able to demonstrate that:
  there are rights of way in the area in question that are demonstrable causes of a persistent crime problem; and
  the realistic alternative options to tackle the causes of problems have been examined, prior to the application being made.

  In reaching decisions, we have considered, in consultation with the Home Office, whether these two tests have been met.
  44WS
  The quality and quantity of information accompanying applications varied considerably. I plan to include in the designation order those areas for which the applications generally reflected the requirements of the guidance and where the authority provided evidence of a link between the crime which is occurring and the right of way, such as a statement by the police or Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, backed up by statistics wherever possible.

  Applications which do not include the information set out in the guidance and do not contain sufficient evidence of a link will be deferred. Decisions on these will be deferred until October to enable authorities to provide additional information over the summer to support their applications. We will be making contact with each of these authorities individually to tell them what additional information is needed. One or two of those who are now being deferred were invited to submit additional information or evidence but failed to do so and I hope that such invitations will then be taken seriously in the future.

  The designation order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and will be laid in August so that authorities can begin to use their new powers as soon as possible.

  It remains our view that, in general, rights of way do not cause or facilitate crime, but that we need to act vigorously where there is a connection. Their existence is frustrating attempts to deal with serious crime the Government will give local authorities the power to tackle.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Finance
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson)
  The House will know that following the publication of The Future of Higher Education White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that we would be reviewing the income threshold below which a student would be eligible to the new Higher Education Grant.

  I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the upper income threshold for receiving the full £1,000 grant will be £15,200. Those with incomes of between £15,201 and £21,185 will get a partial grant through a taper scheme. Based on the current student cohort we estimate about 30 per cent. of English and Welsh students will benefit from the full grant when it is introduced in the 2004–05 academic year. Approximately a further 10 per cent. of students should benefit from a partial grant.

  I can also provide details of the new package of support for part-time HE students.

  Eligible students will be entitled to a fee grant, capped at the equivalent of 50 per cent. of the full-time fee grant rate: in 2004–05 we estimate this will be £575. They will also be entitled to a grant of £250 for course costs.
  45WS
  Both grants will be available to those on low incomes who are studying at least the equivalent of 50 per cent. of a full-time course. Entitlement will be via a simple means test. Students who are on certain benefits would automatically qualify for full support.

  In 2004–05 the income threshold will be set at £14,600. Those with incomes of between £14,600 and £21,487 will get partial support through a taper scheme.

  Students will be entitled to support for a maximum of eight years depending on course length, rather than six years as is currently the case with loans for part-time study.

TREASURY

  Approved Share Schemes (Armed Forces Reservists)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The Inland Revenue will publish today an Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) to enable employers of armed forces reservists who participate in an Inland Revenue approved employee share scheme, to take action to maintain the reservist's participation in the scheme, for the period they are away on active service.

  The ESC will treat the employment with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) as fulfilling the employment conditions for Inland Revenue approved employee share schemes and Enterprise Management Incentive.

  By concession, employers and scheme providers will also be allowed to take such action as is necessary to maintain a reservist's participation in an approved employee share scheme for the period they are away serving with the MOD, and this action will not compromise the approval of the scheme.

  The ESC applies from 7 January 2003, the date the first call up order was issued by the Secretary of State for Defence.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  High Court Enforcement
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  I have today published a consultation paper detailing proposals for a new system for High Court writ enforcement,High Court Enforcement—The Enforcement Review: Writs of Fieri Facias and Possession. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The thirteenth Report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the Report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 46WS
  website http://www.fco.gov.uk/. The Report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the Report to the House.

  Cayman Islands
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following an open competition, Mr. Sam Bulgin has been appointed as the new Attorney-General for the Cayman Islands. He is currently the Cayman Islands' Solicitor-General, and has been acting as Attorney-General since the early departure of David Ballantyne in March 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I am happy to inform the House that I am today publishing the latest edition of the Forward Look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology (SET). The Forward Look is the Government's publication of Government-funded SET and R&D expenditure data compiled by the Office for National Statistics. Forward Look highlights the outcome of the latest spending review as well as historical trends in government expenditure.

  The theme for Forward Look 2003 is "making a difference". Entries from departments, Research Councils, learned bodies and devolved administrations set out to explain, with examples of tangible outcomes, how SET is helping them deliver policy and public services in their priority areas.

  Forward Look 2003 also aims to illustrate how the economy and society can benefit from science and technology, as we explore new areas of science and look for ways of exploiting technology. It helps Government in its efforts to engage the public in a meaningful way to learn about and express their views about the possible directions of science and its impacts on society. Forward Look 2003 will be of value to all of us interested in science, and government-funded research and science policy in particular. The accompanying tables provide an authoritative reference point to where government research spending his been going, what it is being used to achieve and where future spending is to be focused.

  Forward Look 2003 shows that there has been a further substantial increase in the overall Science Budget as a result of the 2002 Spending Review, with the Research Councils receiving new funding to increase the volume of top quality research and to take forward specific new projects.

  Forward Look 2003 sets out in detail how the Government's significant investment in science is being spent. Funding for science, engineering and technology is increasing from £8.46 billion in 2002–03 to £8.61 billion in 2004–05 in real terms. In particular we are focusing on investing in our excellent science base, because cutting edge science is at the heart of a successful economy.
  47WS
  Copies of Forward Look 2003 have been placed in the Library of the House and have also been sent to the Clerks of both the Commons and Lords Science and Technology Committees.

  Low Pay Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  I am pleased to announce that we have today given the Low Pay Commission new terms of reference. The Government has asked the Commission to consider whether the October 2004 upratings of the minimum wage recommended in their fourth report remain appropriate in the light of economic circumstances, and to consider the possible advantages and disadvantages of a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17 year old workers. The Commission has been asked to report to the Government by the end of February 2004. Copies of the terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Government Payment Performance
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  The overall payment performance of Government is 94.83 per cent. Figures for the financial year 2002–03 show that there has been a slight decrease in overall performance this year. However, there has been a continued improvement in the payment performance of a number of Departments and agencies, with 59 per cent., achieving the average and 19 per cent., paying 99 per cent, or more of their invoices on time.

  Government Departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and to publish the results in their departmental or annual reports. The table lists, by Department, the proportion of bills paid within 30 days, or other agreed credit period, of receipt of a valid invoice.

  The Government take this issue very seriously, and are committed to improving the payment culture in the UK, in order to create fair and stable business transactions. The Government's own payment performance is an important element in this policy.

  Main Department

  2002–03 Paid on Time %

  Ministry of Defence

  100

  Privy Council Office

  100

  Office of Water Services

  99.72

  Inland Revenue

  99.35

  Land Registry

  99.21

  Office of Telecommunications

  99.21

  Government Actuary's Department

  99.17

  Public Records Office

  99.17

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  99.09

  Health and Safety Executive

  98.95

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  98.76

  Charity Commission

  98.24

  HM Customs and Excise

  98.13

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  98.13

  Office for National Statistics

  97.97

  Electoral Commission

  97.84

  Ordnance Survey

  97.53

  Department of Trade and Industry

  97.2

  48WS

  Main Departments

  2002–03 Paid on Time %

  Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners

  96.88

  Forestry Commission

  96.75

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  96.72

  Department for International Development

  96.52

  Office of Government Commerce HQ

  96.28

  NI Court Service

  96.23

  Cabinet Office (OPS)

  96.21

  Food Standards Agency

  96.00

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  95.69

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  95.43

  Office for Standards in Education

  94.76

  Department for Education and Skills

  94.52

  Department of Health

  94.46

  Department for National Savings and Investments

  94.43

  Office of Fair Trading

  94.02

  Serious Fraud Office

  92.77

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  92.46

  Department for Work and Pensions

  92.03

  Scotland Office

  92.24

  Department for Transport

  91.96

  DEFRA

  91.43

  Royal Mint

  90.57

  Crown Prosecution Service

  90.42

  Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

  89.54

  Home Office

  88.64

  Wales Office

  88.48

  Northern Ireland Office

  85.16

  HM Treasury

  84.06

  Government Communications HQ

  83.98

  Average percentage paid on time

  94.83

  Coal Authority
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I have today laid a copy of the Coal Authority report and accounts for 2002–03 before Parliament.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Executive Agencies
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I have today laid before Parliament the 2002–03 annual reports and accounts for each of our four executive agencies: Jobcentre Plus (HC 981), The Pension Service (HC 790), Child Support Agency (HC 844) and Appeals Service (HC 792).

  I am pleased to be able to announce today additional performance targets in respect of the customer facing businesses of the Department for Work and Pensions: Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service, Child Support Agency and Disability and Carers Directorate.

  In line with the Department's public service agreement we are committed to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our services. In order to demonstrate this, we are developing a range of unit cost and other efficiency targets. The full implementation of these targets is dependent on the implementation of a new suite of accounting and resource management systems.
  49WS
  In the meantime, to demonstrate our continuing commitment to driving down the costs of our services, I am announcing a series of interim targets that use a basic measure of the unit costs of the services we provide to customers.

  Details of the targets are in the table.

  Cost Category

  Target

  Jobcentre Plus

  Job placements

  Staff cost per job point1

  £64.60

  Benefit processing activity

  Staff cost per transaction

  £10.20

  The Pension Service

  Staff cost per customer

  £25.00

  Child Support Agency

  Staff cost per live case

  £184.00

  Disability and Carers

  Staff cost per customer contact

  £138.00

  Note:

  1 Jobcentre Plus has a performance measure that awards a different number of points for the job placement of different groups of the population with a greater number of points for those that it is more difficult to find work.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Bodies
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the latest edition of the annual Cabinet Office Publication,Public Bodies. This publication, available in pdf format, has been placed upon the Cabinet Office's agencies and Public Bodies Team website, http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies/.

  Public Bodies 2003 is the latest in a series of publications providing information on public bodies sponsored by Government.

  In addition to giving details of the remit of the public bodies, the publication also provides information about the membership of the boards of public bodies, including the numbers of women, people with disabilities and minority ethnic members.

  Departments continue to work hard to increase the number of appointees from currently under-represented groups to achieve equal representation of women and men, pro rata representation of members of minority ethnic groups and increased participation of disabled people. As at 31 March 2003, 35.7 per cent. of appointments to public bodies were held by women, 5.3 per cent. by people with a minority ethnic background and 3.1 per cent. by disabled people.

  The publication also includes information about the Government's task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews, giving a more complete picture of the bodies and groups working to deliver the Government's objectives.

  Public Services (Inspection and External Review)
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The last few years have seen a rapid expansion in the scope and depth of inspection and external review. In December 2001, the Public Services Productivity Panel published its report on the Role of External Review in Improving Performance and called for further work into the focus and impact of inspection and external review. I have today published Inspecting for improvement: developing a customer focused approach, the report of this further study, which was carried out by the Office of Public Services Reform in close co-operation with the Treasury.

  The report concludes that inspection and external review play an important role in providing assurance on the delivery of national standards and in holding organisations to account for their performance. Inspection should also act as a catalyst for change and service improvement.

  The report recommends that the Government should set out its policy for inspection and external review. I am publishing the policy today. Key principles underpinning it are the pursuit of service improvement, a focus on outcomes and taking a user perspective, inspection in proportion to risk, collaboration and joint working between inspectorates, openness and reporting in public, continually learning from experience and improving value for money and effectiveness.

  The report also recommends that the Government should establish a mechanism for ensuring better strategic direction of inspection activity. On 3 July, the Prime Minister announced a new sub-committee of Cabinet for this purpose. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will chair it.

  The report makes a number of recommendations for departments and inspectorates. Departments should take the lead in managing inspection and external review in their areas, clarifying roles, responsibilities and priorities, setting standards and requiring and facilitating collaboration between inspectorates. Inspectorates should operate within the Government's strategic framework for inspection and external review, providing advice to departments on improving service delivery, working with other inspectorates and gauging their impact and cost effectiveness.

  I have arranged for copies of the report and the policy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The eighth annual Civil Service Fast Stream Report was published on-line http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/reports/faststream and a stock of summary flyers placed in the Libraries of the House. It covers the year from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, and reports the results of Fast Stream competitions completed during that period and the developments that have taken place.

  The standard of entry to the Fast Stream development programme has remained consistently high and the Report shows that the Civil Service has had

  51WS
  increasing success in filling its vacancies. In addition there has again been steady progress in broadening the diversity of Fast Stream recruits.
  Women and men applied in equal numbers, with women being marginally more successful overall.
  Both the proportions of candidates recruited from ethnic minority groups and of those recording a disability rose again this year.
  52WS
  We are gradually improving the percentage of recruits from universities from which we have not traditionally recruited.

  Central Office of Information
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Copies of the Central Office of Information's Annual Report and Accounts have been today laid before Parliament, and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Speech and Language Therapists
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to improve the situation of those speech and language therapists who will suffer financially from the implementation of the Agenda for Change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we recognise the valuable contribution of speech and language therapists. That is why, for five years in succession, they have received pay increases in excess of the rate of inflation. Agenda for Change provides an opportunity for further recognition and development of their skills within a common framework which includes local flexibility where recruitment and retention is difficult. Amicus MSF, which represents speech and language therapists, is among the unions that have collectively agreed to moving to test Agenda for Change in 12 early implementer sites. It will identify any particular problems emerging for staff.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. After I suffered a stroke, very few people could understand me; now, fortunately, there are one or two who can. The speech therapists with whom I have spoken are gravely dissatisfied with the present position. Does my noble friend realise that there is a real link between those who experience a terrible loss of communication and the outside world? Does he also realise that those people are helped enormously by speech therapists, as I have been? Finally, does he perceive that they see the pay currently being offered as a deterioration in their present position'? I hope that he and others in his department will communicate with them and understand their terrible sense of privation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, nobody who has heard my noble friend speak in this House on many occasions can doubt the highly valuable contribution that speech and language therapists have made to his recovery. We are all grateful for that.
I recognise the concerns that my noble friend is voicing. I certainly know from my personal experience that the transition from one pay system to a new one can he difficult because of uncertainty of one kind or another. However, I reassure him that a lot of protection is being built into the Agenda .for Change process, which can last up to 2011 where there are problems. I emphasise again that we are trying out
848
these changes, with the agreement of all the unions involved, in 12 early implementer sites. Amicus MSF has made it very clear to all its members including speech and language therapists that if things do not work out quite as it expects, if there are problems or it wants further confirmation from its membership, there will be a ballot in 2004 when its membership can actually exercise their voice before any national rollout of these changes.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister was right to recognise the concerns of the speech and language therapists. Of course there are concerns, particularly about the job evaluation exercise carried out for the purposes of Agenda for Change. Does he recognise that, currently, the profiles for the job evaluation exercise do not include any equivalents of bands 3, 4 and 5 for the speech therapists, which means that there is a swathe between £30,000 and £60,000 which is not covered? For younger speech and language therapists, that looks as though they will riot be able to earn those types of figures, to which they would have been entitled in the past. Will the Minister correct that and put on the record that that is not the intention of the Agenda for Change exercise?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the purpose of the Agenda for Change exercise is not to do people down but to improve flexibility, to enable people to build better careers, to provide a stable employment basis and to provide a degree of local flexibility which I am sure the noble Lord would agree is often necessary in terms of high-cost areas and recruitment and retention. We know that there may be some problems. That is why, with the agreement of all the unions, we are having these 12 early implementer sites prior to going for national roll-out—so that we can actually debug the system, so to speak, and find out where there are problems before we go into a wider area. We also know that, in particular jobs, there may be a need for local job evaluation to tackle some of the sorts of problems that the noble Lord identifies. There is no reason why that should not be tested in the early implementer sites.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that these specialists have an important role in helping people with paralysing illnesses to communicate and in leading them into alternative ways of expressing themselves?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is why we wish to make a success of the transition for speech and language therapists in Agenda for Change.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account in these changes the unique position of speech and language therapists, not only in helping those who suffer from otherwise crippling illnesses but also in the education of very early speech difficulties in children. That seems to me one of the most important things that they hake to do. Language deprivation and language disability in children, whether it comes from a physical disability or

849
from a very non-communicating background, is one of the real inhibitors for children trying to succeed in the educational system. I believe that these professionals are unique in the range of their abilities and should be treated perhaps in a rather special way for that reason.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we fully appreciate the concerns. We recognise the special circumstances of speech and language therapists, particularly in relation to children where there is often a need for early diagnosis and help so that their development is not impaired. We are well aware of those problems and we are taking them into account.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, for some years I was president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. We always got honeyed words from successive governments. We always elicited sympathy and the promise of action in the future but very little action was actually taken. If the Minister could translate what he said at the Dispatch Box today into immediate action, that would be the best thing he could do for speech and language therapists.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am well aware of the major contribution my noble friend has made in this area. I can reassure him; answers have been given earlier that recruitment of speech and language therapists has improved in the NHS over the past five or six years. That is why we do not want to make mistakes; that is why we are trying to test out the new changes in the 12 implementer sites.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will the Minister give a guarantee that these people will not suffer any reduction in their earnings? They are extremely valuable and they are a scarce resource in the NHS.
Lord Warner: My Lords, there need be no losers under Agenda for Change, although it is publicly recognised that some staff may not gain. There are a number of mechanisms built into the agreement that will operate to ensure that staff are covered in the short and longer term. Those include protection until 2011 for staff on national roll-out.

Marine Environment
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in protecting the marine environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are making progress on the marine environment. Internationally, we are working to follow up commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to tackle
850
pollution and to protect marine biodiversity. At home, we are pursuing the policies set out in our first Marine Stewardship report published last year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In terms of our domestic waters, does the Minister agree that it is a great pity that not only have we had policy statements and talking shops from the Government and no legislation, but also, according to the British Geological Survey's report for the World Health Organisation, we are still firing depleted uranium penetrators into UK waters? Perhaps, when Ministers are enjoying swimming in the sea this summer, they might reflect that it is supposed to be an ecosystem and not a dustbin.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness will concede that there have been significant improvements in the quality of water along much of our coast. The dumping—if such it were—to which she refers, took place some considerable time ago. We are therefore talking about remedial measures in that as in many other areas. The degree to which we are polluting the sea nowadays has greatly reduced, but it needs to reduce further in terms of off-shore pollution and pollution from shipping.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will remember the tragic disaster earlier this year when an inappropriately named oil tanker—"Prestige"—was obliged to leave Spanish coastal waters. As a result it sank in the open ocean with disastrous consequences across Spanish and French coasts over a very wide area. What plans have the Government put in place since that time to ensure that such a disaster could not occur in British waters?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards pollution from shipping, the Government have been very active in the EU Environment Council and the EU Transport Council and in the International Maritime Organisation to achieve tighter rules and environmental standards for shipping. In the UK, we have also established a pollution control zone consistent with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which extends up to 200 nautical miles from our coast. The UK Government are in the position of prosecuting the owner of any ship suspected of committing a pollution offence within that 200-mile zone.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the delight with which the decision to cease the discharge of nuclear waste—particularly Technetium-99—was received in Norway when the Secretary of State gave an instruction to Sellafield that those emissions should stop? Is he further aware of how important Norway regards this in respect of the preservation of its fishing stocks?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without necessarily accepting the totality of the Norwegian Government's

851
position, we have instructed BNFL to stop such discharges for a period while further research and development is carried out. I am pleased that the Norwegian Government appreciate that gesture.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Convention on the Future of Europe has unwisely purported to translate a provision of the European Court of Justice into a constitutional provision giving exclusive competence over marine biodiversity in Union waters to the Union? Will he, and other members of the Government, seek to ensure that this is a shared responsibility enabling coastal states to take action of which they are capable and in which they are interested?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of that interpretation of the convention. Our understanding of the meaning of the convention is that it does not change the boundary of competencies between the European Union institutions and member states.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords—
Lord Berkeley: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have time for both.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware that members of the population of Ireland—both North and South and on the east coast in particular—still believe that the Irish Sea is seriously contaminated from the nuclear station at Sellafield and happenings there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at times I have been made extremely aware of the view of the Irish population, both North and South. However, on this issue, the Irish Government brought a legal case which the British Government won.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, while I welcome the 200-mile zone mentioned by my noble friend, if two tankers were to collide outside this country's territorial limits but within the 200-mile zone, am I right in thinking that a prosecution could be brought only in the countries of registration of the ships concerned, which could be, for example, Liberia?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall probably need to consult my noble and learned friend or the precise answer to my noble friend's question. My understanding of the position is that we could prosecute for the pollution so caused, but the question of any failure of seamanship would normally revert to the flag country. However, if my noble friend will be patient, I shall write to him to clarify the position.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister think that the Government's plans to build vast windmills at sea will improve the marine
852
environment? If not, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the marine environment is not polluted?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the decision of the Government to invest substantially in wind power marks a major step towards further protecting the environment as a whole from, in particular, climate change and carbon emissions damage. Therefore that investment will be of very substantial benefit to the environment. However, when identifying particular sites on which to locate wind farms, obviously it is important that we minimise any effect on the marine environment.

Survey of National Infrastructure
2.51 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they last conducted a survey of the national infrastructure; and whether they will consider the appointment of a chief government engineer to ensure that there is a co-ordinated, long-term and sustainable approach to its renewal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are committed to providing a sustainable public sector infrastructure to ensure the delivery of high quality public services and are substantially increasing public sector net investment to a planned level of 2 per cent of GDP by 2005–06. The UK's national infrastructure covers areas as diverse as energy, water and flood management, transport and waste. In many of these sectors the assets are owned by private companies. The Government do not believe that it would be desirable to give responsibility for these diverse sectors to a chief government engineer or to conduct a national survey of infrastructure because it would add nothing to current monitoring and enforcement activities.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, not least because on the previous occasion when this matter was raised in Parliament—four years ago in another place—that Minister ran out of time before he could respond.
Has the Minister read the admirable report entitled The State of the Nation 2003 prepared by the Institution of Civil Engineers? It gives a detailed report on the various parts of the infrastructure and stresses the need for an overall government approach to be taken to it. Does the Minister really think what he said in his Answer will ensure that the shortcomings revealed in this report will be put right in the near future?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have read the report from the Institution of Civil Engineers because I responded to a Question on it on Monday. I

853
thought that I had better read it, whereas normally I might not have done so. The question of a national survey is raised in the report but, as I have said, I do not think that such a survey would do any good in terms of dealing with any defects we have in this area. Moreover, having read the report, I cannot see any arguments put forward which would make me change my view.
To my way of thinking, there is nothing to be said for trying to co-ordinate the infrastructure on gas with water or, say, telecommunications with transport. These are completely different sectors and so nothing would be gained from a total survey other than more delays and bureaucracy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his response has given a great deal of pleasure in so far as it indicates that the Government have decided—remarkably—not to increase the amount of bureaucracy when asked whether they would like to do so?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted as always to give the noble Earl pleasure in this or in any other area of argument.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, what happened to the plan discussed a few years ago to map every street for gas, water and electricity supplies, which would have been a most wonderful piece of bureaucracy? Did not the government of the day decide that the exercise would be too expensive? Is it necessary today, or do all the infrastructure companies dig up the roads in the right place, at the right time, and to the maximum convenience of road users?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, any information that exists on that is so deeply buried in the bureaucracy that it has not come to my attention.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that, even though the Government have decided that they would not wish to proceed with the appointment of a chief government engineer, as suggested by the Institution of Civil Engineers, nevertheless they should consider whether there should be some greater coordination of infrastructure development? For example, have they considered the success of the French Commissariat du Plan which, over the years, has delivered so much to the French infrastructure? Should we not learn from the experience of others?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the thrust of the argument set out in the report from the Institution of Civil Engineers was that if a chief government engineer was appointed, all these questions could be taken out of politics and decided on the basis of independent expert advice. Having dealt with Questions in this House on matters such as energy, I am very sceptical whether an independent government engineer could in some way resolve the many issues we have to consider politically, such as different forms of
854
energy or road transport funding. I do not think that such matters can be taken out of political decision-making or, indeed, out of the overall economic framework. Therefore I do not think that this would be productive.

Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made to implement the reduction of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament in line with proposals agreed by Parliament during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, following the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998, the Boundary Commission for Scotland published its provisional recommendations for parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, proposing 59 constituencies in place of the existing 72. The commission has now considered the reports of all eight subsequent public inquiries and, to date, has published revised proposals in relation to six of these. If necessary, the commission will publish revised proposals shortly in relation to the two remaining public inquiries.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Can he confirm the statement made by the right honourable lady, the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who on 18th December 2002 said in the other place that she planned to fight the next general election on the new boundaries? Does the Minister expect any objections to come from local authorities about the allocation of the new Westminster constituencies to the Scottish regions for the purposes of the list system of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me two very complex and slightly interconnected questions. If I am to respond to them properly, I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a little time to do so.
The first question the noble Baroness asked was whether my right honourable friend expected to fight the next general election on the revised Westminster constituency boundaries for Scotland. In essence, the matter lies with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. What is clear is that the legislation is in force to do so. As I indicated in my first Answer, the Boundary Commission for Scotland has the process well under way and therefore I think that there is every reason to expect that the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster from Scotland at the next general election will be 59 rather than 72. But, as ever, I would add to that the cautionary reminder that those issues are

855
completely under the control of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in terms of when it is ready to report and I shall not be so hubristic as to imply that nothing is ever uncertain as regards when the next general election is to be held.
I turn to the second question concerning the changes to the regional boundaries for the additional Member system for Scotland. By putting the two together, the noble Baroness has asked a very clever Question devised to completely confuse me. The Scotland Act 1998 also required the Boundary Commission for Scotland, at the same time as it made its recommendations on the boundaries for the revised, reduced number of Westminster MPs, to look at the impact of that on the regional boundaries for the additional Member system for Scotland. Therefore if one is travelling in hope, it seems likely that the commission will complete its work on the MPs for Westminster very shortly and will then start the process of looking at what, if any, adjustments are needed to the regional boundaries as a consequence.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, first, do the Government have any plans to exclude MPs representing Scottish constituencies from voting on all issues put before the United Kingdom Parliament? Secondly, when the Boundary Commission for Scotland comes to consider the rural and remote areas of Scotland, will it depart from the arithmetic purity of 60,000 head of population per constituency in order to avoid creating oversized constituencies, but adopt that arithmetic purity when dealing with the smaller urban constituencies in central Scotland?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as to the noble Earl's second question, I shall have to refer to the explicit terms of the Scotland Act. From recollection, the Boundary Commission for Scotland was charged with meeting the test of parity of representation with England in aggregate rather than in every constituency. If, as I suspect, that is what Parliament required, it was for the very good reason that, given the different population densities of Scotland, it would not make sense to require every single boundary to contain 70,000 electors.
As to the noble Earl's first question, which was a more fundamental constitutional one, we have no such intention whatever. This is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. Long may it remain so. We believe in the Union. We believe in a Parliament where all Members are equal. That is our policy and it will remain so.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats should suddenly echo the Conservative and Unionist Party in another place and are now complaining bitterly about the results of a national general election where people were elected to the United Kingdom Parliament? Are they aware that they are playing with fire and into the hands of the Scottish Nationalist Party, which challenges the integrity of the Union?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn too much into this area because it is nearly school
856
holidays. I did not really detect the implied degree of malignancy in the question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. If anything. I believe the noble Earl was pleased with the answer I gave that the United Kingdom Parliament should remain as such for ever and a day.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to reject the reports that have appeared in some newspapers that the Government now have an agenda to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission's proposals as a reward for those Scottish Members of Parliament who saved the Government's bacon when implementing a policy on health in England for which there was not a majority among English MPs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. I read the article which alleged this in, I think, The Sunday Times Scotland. I had hoped that I had made it clear from what I said previously about the powers and independence of the Boundary Commission for Scotland that we have no influence whatever over this process. Nor should we. The only way in which a politician—the Secretary of State for Scotland—is involved is when the recommendation comes before him. There is then a further legislative challenge to the Secretary of State to present the document, the report and the order consequent upon it as soon as may be. It is not an open legislative window. The process is clear. It is set out in statute in the Scotland Act and in the Boundary Commission Act. It is a completely fictitious report.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what is the Government's calculation of the number of Labour seats that will be lost?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am confident that at the next general election we will have another resounding success.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that if the Boundary Commission completes its work, either by the end of this year or certainly by Easter of next year, the Government will activate the order to give effect to its recommendations in time for the next election?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not know—I cannot think why—when the next election will be. I believe I gave that undertaking in what I said previously. I indicated that as soon as the Boundary Commission for Scotland had reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the current legislation—which we have no intention of changing—places him under a charge to report to Parliament as soon as may be. That is not an open-ended timetable.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, further to what the Minister said about the Scottish elections, does he recollect that his noble friend Lord Sewel, when speaking in the Scotland debate, said that the

857
Government accepted that it is no longer possible to justify the level of representation that Scotland has enjoyed in another place over the years? Does the Minister know that his noble friend went on to suggest that it might be necessary at some point to review the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 if it was found that the number of Scottish MPs was still excessive?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall have to look at exactly what my noble friend said so that I do not do him any injustice. What we committed to, and what the House legislated for, in the Scotland Act 1998, if I recollect, was to do just that and to bring the level of representation of Scottish MPs elected to Westminster onto exactly the same basis and proportionality as that of English MPs. That seemed to this House and another place to be utterly fair and reasonable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, following on from the answer given by the Minister that this issue will be decided by the Secretary of State for Scotland, am I right in assuming that that is Mr Alistair Darling and that his is one of the constituencies that would disappear?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord may have more information than I have on this issue, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, whoever it is at that time, will report. Given his period in government, the noble Lord will know that extremely strict rules always apply when any Minister is faced with a potential conflict of interest. One would expect the civil servants to ensure that the rules were properly adhered to at such a time.

Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes
3.6 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston Lord Russell-Johnston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Taking into account the allegations made on Thursday 10th July at The Hague that President Chirac of France negotiated a secret deal to protect Ratko Mladic, what steps are being taken to apprehend Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and have them conveyed to The Hague for trial.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of a secret deal by President Chirac to protect Ratko Mladic. It is a matter for the French Government. The international community continues to exert pressure on Serbia to hand Mladic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We are working with international partners to trace indictees, particularly Karadzic. In April, the EU introduced a visa ban on individuals known to assist indictees, and the Office of
858
the High Representative on Bosnia-Herzegovina has also frozen assets of individuals suspected of supporting Karadzic.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, it is seven years to the day since the slaughter in Srebrenica ended. There were five days of slaughter which left 8,000 Muslim boys and men dead. Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of President Chirac's involvement, it is shameful that the international community, including, in particular, NATO members who have the capacity, has failed to do anything in seven years to apprehend those primarily responsible for that massacre? Does the Minister agree that Karadzic moves around freely, with quite a large protection entourage, in a small area and that it is nonsense to suggest that no one knows where he is? If the same energy had been directed towards the apprehension of Mladic as was directed towards the apprehension of Eichmann—and he is in the same class as Eichmann—he would have been in The Hague ages ago. Carla del Ponte said the other day that there is no will. I agree with her. But I do not know why and the Minister did not seem to explain why.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, a great deal of commitment and energy is going into apprehending and detaining war crimes suspects. Of the 75 people indicted for war crimes, only 18 individuals remain at large. So work is going on. As the noble Lord indicated in his response to my Answer, he knows that there are difficulties in apprehending some of these individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, noted earlier this year that in the region in which Karadzic operates, Tito managed to tie down six German divisions with only 15,000 partisan troops. There are problems but our international partners, including SFOR and the Office of the High Representative, are doing everything they can to apprehend these individuals.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, it is odd—is it not?—that General Mladic who, after all, is considered to be one of the butcher-architects of Srebrenica, which was one of the worst atrocities committed on European soil since the Second World War, is around and about and his whereabouts are said to be known. It is true that the French Government totally deny the suggestion that there has been any deal and people are not quite so sure about what Mr Karadzic might be charged with, as I think he is in a slightly different category. Can the Minister assure us that enormous efforts will be put into nailing this particular individual and bringing him to justice in The Hague, where he surely should have been long ago?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that enormous efforts are being brought to bear to, as he said, nail this individual. Mladic is thought to be in Serbia, but since no NATO troops are based in Serbia, it is entirely the responsibility of the Serbian authorities to hand him over to the tribunal. The international community

859
continues to put great pressure on them to do so. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, raised our strong concerns on this issue with the leadership of Serbia and Montenegro during his April visit to Belgrade.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
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 Lord Chancellor be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Irvine of Lairg.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey:)My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 41 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 3, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—

(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and

(b) in that Context, to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets; and to do so where appropriate by promoting competition.

(1A) Where it appears to OFCOM, in relation to the carrying out of any of their functions under Chapter 1 of Part 2, that the requirement specified in subsection (1)(a) conflicts with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b), they may give priority to the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b)."
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
1A Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
1A
"(1) It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—

(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and

(b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition."

1B Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
"(6A) Where OFCOM resolve a conflict in an important case between their duties under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), they must publish a statement setting out—

(a) the nature of the conflict;

(b) the manner in which they have decided to resolve it; and

(c) the reasons for their decision to resolve it in that manner.

(6B) Where OFCOM are required to publish a statement under subsection (6A), they must—

(a) publish it as soon as possible after making their decision but not while they would (apart from a statutory requirement to publish) be subject to an obligation not to publish a matter that needs to be included in the statement; and

(b) so publish it in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in OFCOM's opinion, are likely to be affected by the matters to which the decision relates."

1C Page 4, line 27, after "subsection", insert "(6A) or"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A to 1C in lieu thereof.
As we come, thankfully, close to the end of parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill, we return to an issue that has produced some of the most interesting debates. It is entirely appropriate that we are debating duties that will set the scene for Ofcom's work. I am sure we will do so in the positive spirit which has carried the Bill since its introduction into the Chamber over four months—and, I understand, 83 hours on the Floor—ago.
In introducing these amendments, it is important to repeat what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in another place. When this House considered Ofcom's general duties, we decided that Ofcom should be given a principal duty to the citizen and consumer, and within that duty, citizen interest should take precedence. We also decided that Ofcom should discharge its duty to the consumer and citizen where appropriate by promoting competition.
The Government are keen to reflect the spirit of the amendment carried in this House. Having listened to what has been said throughout the debate about putting the word "citizen" on the face of the legislation, we recognise that we explained our concerns about using this as a legislative term because of the fear of confusion with legislation concerning nationality. But it is clear that the House of Lords believes that this is the right term. We think that the courts will understand that the phrase "citizen interest" runs through the Bill in a civic sense, applying to such areas as high standards in television and radio, public service broadcasting, universal service for telecommunications and the optimal allocation of spectrum. So the Commons Amendment No. 1A retains the word "citizen".
We want to be sure that the general duties will actually work and there are potential difficulties, which I pointed out at the time, in Lords Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, explained on proceedings after Third Reading that the amendment created,
"different duties in different parts of Ofcom's activities, which will cause difficulty. It will make Ofcom subject to judicial review . It will be the big players, not the small players, who will take advantage of that".—[Official Report, 8/7/03; col. 260.]

861
The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Currie. By introducing a hierarchy of duties, the Lords amendment would introduce increasing risk of judicial review. Like existing broadcasters, Ofcom must strive to further the interests of both consumers and citizens, as appropriate, and with equal vigour. Ofcom needs the flexibility to achieve the objectives that Parliament is giving it. We absolutely believe that the consumer interest is normally best served by competition, but in citizen interest issues, competition is not the only solution. More often than not, Ofcom will need to act under licensing powers. The Commons amendments seek to remove the potential for legal challenge against Ofcom.
I can assure the House that the Government understand the difference between the interests of the consumer and the interests of providers, an issue that was debated. I want to make it clear that we are not in any way equating the interests of consumers with the interests of the market, nor are we equating the application of competition with an unchecked free market. Ofcom will act for consumers and citizens.
The Commons amendments remove potential dangers contained in differing interpretations of the amendments carried by this House. As well as keeping the word "citizen", we are keeping the concept of a principal duty to further the interests of both citizens and consumers, and these interests shall be equal.
In addition, the Commons amendments bring further measures of transparency and accountability. Where the duty to consumer and citizen come into conflict in important cases, Ofcom will publish a reasoned statement as soon as possible after any decision explaining how the duties came into conflict, how Ofcom resolved the conflict and the reasons behind its decision.
Your Lordships have rightly said time and again that the communications industry is not like any other industry. We believe that our amendments will ensure that communications continue to contribute to a strong and healthy society and democracy.
We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Currie, who helped to frame these amendments. Their support has been invaluable in this, as it has been throughout the passage of the Bill, because we welcome the knowledge and experience which comes from the Joint Committee and from the experience of the chairmanship of Ofcom. Also, because of their positive approach, I believe that we have before us amendments that will protect the interests of the citizen and the consumer from the beginning to the very end of the Bill. I believe that these amendments reflect the strong feelings expressed in this Chamber, and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 A to 1C in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should say at the outset that these Benches will be supporting the Government's amendments. The Minister mentioned the long journey that we have travelled. I urge people to look at some of the ministerial language that was used at the start of that journey, particularly by Dr Kim Howells and Tessa Jowell, and then study tomorrow the Minister's comments in Hansard. They will then understand just what a journey this has been. We believe it has been very welcome in tilting the Bill back towards public interest and citizens' interest.
Sometimes when the House of Lords passes an amendment, we wonder whether we have done the right thing. Our original amendment, which was carried with such a fine majority and had support from all Members of the House, was the direct precursor to the Government suddenly finding the will and the imagination to concede the Puttnam amendment. If they had not, they would have lost another three votes in this House. I have no quarrel with that, but it shows how sometimes letting the Government know the will of this House early in a Bill's proceedings affects the seriousness with which they listen to subsequent arguments.
We also appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Currie. I echo a comment that was made yesterday about the self-regulatory nature of this House. If we had had too firm a Chair on the relevant evening, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, would not have been able to make the helpful statement that he did. But because this House has the common sense to listen when someone has something worth saying and not to stick too closely to the rule book, we received sound advice about the faults in the original amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, circulated a letter—he is becoming quite a letter writer—to supporters of the original amendment which states:
"I believe the Government has understood and taken on board the spirit of our amendments, and in one substantial respect has even improved them. The drafting changes mean that OFCOM will be better equipped to deal with a legal challenge to its decisions".
We welcome that.
The dangers are still out there. I read today on the Internet a speech of Howard Dean, the leading Democrat presidential candidate, who is making the kind of speeches in the United States that Tony Blair used to make in the United Kingdom. Howard Dean said:
"The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information".
That is the nature of the task ahead for the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues. Despite what the Minister said at Third Reading, this is an untried and untested regulator. We do not know whether we are getting Elliot Ness and The Untouchables or Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. Only time will tell. I say for the Minister's benefit that that was a joke. I know how he loves to store my jokes.

863
The hopeful point about the legislation is that the reputation that is first on the line is that of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, in regard to the powers he will have and the firmness with which he will use them. We on these Benches have every confidence in him. The amendment is acceptable in that context.
Lord Luke: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say anything at all at this stage except that we on these Benches support all three amendments.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Puttnam is absent as he is undertaking duties as Chancellor of the University of Sunderland. At his request I should make it clear—it appears to me that this message has been passed round the entire Joint Scrutiny Committee—that this amendment has his full support. Indeed, he had a heavy hand in its drafting.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to add one point to what has been said. I join in the happiness at the unanimous agreement. I slightly take issue with what the Minister reported of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The Minister did not misreport the noble Lord, Lord Currie, but I slightly take issue with the purport of his remarks; namely, that the Commons amendment will make life easier from a legal point of view. Be that as it may, whatever has been lost—here I speak as one who doubts the cultural efficacy of markets, if I can put it that way—by taking citizens' interests from a position where they were, so to speak, prior to consumer interests to the position we now have, I believe has been made up for by the fact that the furtherance of the interests of citizens is no longer to be subject to the qualification to do so.
"where appropriate by promoting competition".
It seems to me that we have a clearer separation of consumer interests, which are now not hitched to promotion of competition at all, whereas under the Puttnam amendment they were. As I say, I think that we gain with one hand whatever we may have lost with the other.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am pleased that the amendments of my noble friend Lord Puttnam have been accepted by the Government in principle. I know that he is also delighted. He is especially delighted with the statement by the Secretary of State which accompanied the moving of the government amendments. The guiding principle of my noble friend Lord Puttnam is that the citizen should have equal rights and equal consideration with the consumer. I congratulate my noble friend on his enormous achievements in the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord McIntosh on his magnificent input into the Bill. I also thank Tessa Jowell for accepting the amendments.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I read carefully what was said in the other place. It is clear from that and from what your Lordships have said today that these amendments, even if not entirely satisfactory to everyone, are workable.
864
I confess to being one of those who retain some doubts, for example, about how potential conflicts of interest between citizens and consumers will be satisfactorily resolved. It may well be that placing such inherently conflicting issues under one regulatory roof makes that inevitable.
However, as others have said—this is crucially important—the word as well as the concept of "citizen" and "citizen's interest"—which is often very different from that of consumers—is now firmly on the face of the Bill. Here I rather share the view of Brian White in the other place who suggested that perhaps an alternative parliamentary legal view is required when disputes about the meanings of words such as "citizen" occur.
So, I confess to being a sufficient "groupie" of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to put my remaining doubts about these clauses to one side!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) the desirability of encouraging the best means of access to systems of delivery of high speed data transfer throughout the United Kingdom, and, as appropriate, encouraging competitive markets in such systems;"
The Commons disagree to this amendment, hut propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
3A Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high speed data transfer services throughout the United Kingdom;"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A in lieu thereof.
The Government's commitment to broadband is unequivocal. We have set a clear target to achieve the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. As Stephen Timms said in another place, it is important to explain our concerns about whether we needed to include reference to broadband on the face of the Bill. That is the issue before us, not the issue of commitment or the issue of lack of importance to the UK economy, nor that Ofcom would otherwise have no role in encouraging the fair development of the broadband market. The Bill already requires Ofcom to secure availability of a wide range of electronic communications services. That will include broadband services. Therefore, the reservations concern only whether it is necessary to specify broadband on the face of the Bill. There were those on both sides of the Commons who thought that that was not necessary.
However, your Lordships, on the urging of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, put forward an amendment to refer to broadband in the general duties. The noble Earl convinced the Government that he was right. Commons Amendment No. 3A ensures that what was agreed by this House fits with the structure of the general duties.

865
In the light of the points made in debate in this House, the measure covers both roll-out and take-up. It will require Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging roll-out and take-up of high speed data transfer services.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of
Haringey.)
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, needless to say I am extremely grateful to the Minister not only for explaining the terms of the amendment in lieu but also for his courtesy and generosity in keeping me and my co-signatories to the original amendment informed of developments in the Government's thinking. I am content that the formula arrived at by another place meets the concerns expressed in our debates on broadband during our scrutiny of the Bill. As I say, I thank the Minister and the Government for allowing us to arrive at what is a satisfactory meeting of minds and I therefore support the Government's amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
42 Clause 216, page 192, line 16, at end insert—
"(4A) The licence must contain the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that persons with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both are able, so far as practicable, to make use of the service for all the same purposes as persons without such disabilities."
The Commons disagree to this amendment, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
42A Page 268, line 10, at end insert the following Clause—>
"Assistance for the visually impaired with the public teletext service
The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing, so far as it is reasonable and practicable, by the inclusion of features in that service, to do so, that persons with disabilities affecting their sight are able to make use of the service."
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E.
At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 42, which would have required Ofcom to include conditions in the public teletext service to secure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities were able to use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. I explained that there were some technical issues to be addressed with regard to the drafting and the placement of the amendment in
866
the Bill, and Amendment No. 42A does that in a way which we believe preserves the spirit of Amendment No. 42.
At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 72, which requires Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance as to the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with a dual sensory impairment. I indicated at the time that we would need to make some minor amendments to ensure that the remainder of the provisions on the code were consistent with the change. Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E are therefore minor consequential amendments to make provision for consultation on the code and accessibility of the code to apply to people who have a dual sensory impairment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Addington: My Lords, I agree that the form of wording in Amendment No. 42A is clearer and more direct. I thank the noble Lord for making sure that, as regards Amendment No. 72, we have a way of ensuring that dual sensory impairment is brought in throughout the whole structure. I thank the Government.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, positively my last word on the Bill is of heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The long-standing problems have now been dealt with in a very efficient and effective way. It will transform the lives of deaf, blind and deaf, blind people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
72 Clause 298, page 264, line 41, at end insert—
"(iii) persons with a dual sensory impairment,"
The Commons agree to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill—
72A Page 264, line 40, leave out "and"
72B Page 264, line 41, at end insert "and"
72C Page 266, line 42, leave out "or (ii)" and insert ", (ii) or (iii)"
72D Page 267, line 1, leave out "and"
72E Page 267, line 2, at end insert "and
(c) persons with a dual sensory impairment,".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 72.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 72.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
115 Clause 312, page 275, line 37, leave out "unsuitable advertising" insert "advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive"
116 Clause 314, page 277, line 45, leave out
"312(2)(g)" and insert "312(2)(a), (g)"
The Commons disagree to these amendments but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
116A Page 275, line 37, leave out paragraph (g) and insert—
"(fa) that advertising that contravenes the prohibition on political advertising set out in section 314(2) is not included in television or radio services;
(g) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
(ga) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with:"
116B Page 277, line 45, leave out "(g) and" and insert "(a) and (fa) to"
116C Page 278, line 4, leave out from beginning to "advertisement" in line 6 and insert—
"(2) For the purposes of section 312(2)(fa) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is—
(a) an"
116D Page 278, line 8, leave out "any" and insert "an"
116E Page 278, line 9, leave out "any" and insert "an"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E in lieu thereof.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 concerned the scope of the codes under which broadcast advertising would be regulated. Many noble Lords expressed concern that the drafting of the Bill would widen the scope of the codes and proposed that the scope should be narrowed to cover only advertising which may be, in the all-hallowed phrase, misleading, harmful or offensive. The Government accept that amendment, hut the House will recall that we had some concern that the formulation would not embrace all the matters which it would he proper to regulate by way of the code, including matters subject to the current codes.
We had further discussions with the current regulators and the advertising industry, which have been helpful. We think that two specific matters should be added to the list of matters in Clause 312(2) to ensure that they could be regulated under the codes. They are the ban on political advertising provided for in Clause 314, and the United Kingdom's international obligations.
It was suggested on Report in this House that Clause 312(7) already provided for Ofcom to take account of the United Kingdom's international obligations. However, the scheme of the Bill is such that all matters subject to the advertising code must fall within the objectives set out in Clause 312(2), and Clause 312(7) applies only to matters falling within the standards objectives. We consider that it should be put beyond doubt in the Bill that the international
868
obligations can be met by way of the code, whether or not they appeared demonstrably to meet the test of being "misleading, harmful or offensive".
Amendment No. 116 added to the standards objectives specified in Clause 314 that the standards objective concerning the protection of children should apply to the specific provisions in that clause for advertisements and sponsorship. That proposal sought to meet earlier concerns expressed by the Government about the narrower scope of Amendment No. 115. Clause 314, as drafted and by way of Amendment No. 116B, picks out the standards objectives applying specifically to advertising, so the reference to the first standards objective—the protection of children—in Clause 314(1) is an exception in specifying one of the general standards objectives. I should make it clear that, in fact, all the standards objectives of Clause 312(2) apply to all television and radio programmes and advertisements, so far as they may be relevant. Amendments Nos. 116C to 116E are simply designed to tidy up the wording.
The Commons amendments accept the amendments made in this House, but go on to address two specific areas of government concern about the scope of the advertising standards codes. They reflect the wish of this House that matters subject to the advertising code should be more clearly specified in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said and to the Government for agreeing with this House on the immediate question to which the original amendment gave rise, which was the rather unsuitable use of "unsuitable" in relation to the regulations regarding advertising. I am glad that, on that narrow but very important point, the final Act will return to the now-hallowed words that have been used in the code for a long time.
With regard to the other matters mentioned by the Minister and the opportunity that the Government have taken to deal with some wider issues, for my part, I think the Government wise to propose what they propose. One of the most important aspects of the role of broadcasting in our society is that the use of money to buy political advertising is prohibited. That is one of the sources of very great health in our democracy. One has only to look at what happens in the United States, where the excesses of money collection have led to many abuses. It is important to regulate that matter properly.
As I understand it—I was not wholly clear about the full implications of the changes that the Minister mentioned—political advertising is now to be brought sensibly within the code of standards in advertising, whereas in my time it was curiously exempt. Although it is a delicate matter to apply standards of taste and

869
decency to political advertising, with politicians accustomed to getting away with things that the conventional advertising industry would never have dreamt of trying on, I welcome the concern that the Government have shown on the matter and the steps that they have taken.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, on Report I was persuaded—I am glad to say that so was the House—that the amendment to which I put my name along with the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Borne, Lord Saatchi, and others, was an improvement on the Bill as it had come to us from the Commons. I am equally persuaded that what the Government have come forward with now is an improvement on what we put forward then, so I am very happy with the Government's amendments and thank them for making them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the world's leading expert on political advertising, I do not think that I should respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I make an exception to say that, as in the measure we accept that what we are doing is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, we are grateful to have support for it from those on the Opposition Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
130 Clause 340, page 295, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"( ) Paragraph 2 of that Part (disqualification for religious bodies) shall cease to have effect."
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
130A Page 295, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"( ) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of that Part (disqualification of religious bodies etc.), for the words before paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"2 (1) The following persons are disqualified persons in relation only to licences falling within sub-paragraph (1A)—"
( ) For sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph there shall be substituted—
"(1A) A licence falls within this sub-paragraph if it is—

(a) a Channel 3 licence;

(b) a Channel 5 licence;

(c) a national sound broadcasting licence;

(d) a public teletext licence;

(e) an additional television service licence;

(f) a television multiplex licence; or

(g) a radio multiplex licence.

(1B) In this paragraph—
'additional television service licence' means a licence under Part 1 of this Act to provide an additional television service within the meaning of Part 3 of the Communications Act 2003;
870
'Channel 3 licence' and 'Channel 5 licence' each has the same meaning as in Part 1 of this Act;
'national sound broadcasting licence' means a licence to provide a sound broadcasting service (within the meaning of Part 3 of this Act) which is a national service (within the meaning of that Part);
'public teletext licence' means a licence to provide the public teletext service (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Communications Act 2003);
'radio multiplex licence' means a licence under Part 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to provide a radio multiplex service within the meaning of that Part; and
'television multiplex licence' means a licence under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to provide a multiplex service within the meaning of that Part.""
130B Page 296, line 28, leave out "or 2A"
130C Page 296, line 29, leave out "or both of them"
130D Page 296, line 30, leave out "either or both of those paragraphs" and insert "that paragraph and any enactment referring to it."
130E Page 298, line 3, after "Act", insert "and requires approval for the holding of certain licences by religious bodies etc."
130F Page 436, line 3, at end insert—

PART 3A RELIGIOUS BODIES ETC.
Approval required for religious bodies etc. to hold licences

1 (1) A person mentioned in paragraph 2(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act (religious bodies etc.) is not to hold a Broadcasting Act licence not mentioned in paragraph 2(1A) of that Part unless—

(a) OFCOM have made a determination in his case as respects a description of licences applicable to that licence: and

(b) that determination remains in force.

(2) OFCOM are to make a determination under this paragraph in a person's case and as respects a particular description of licence if, and only if, they are satisfied that it is appropriate for that person to hold a licence of that description.

(3) OFCOM are not to make a determination under this paragraph except on an application made to them for the purpose.

(4) OFCOM must publish guidance for persons making applications to them under this paragraph as to the principles that they will apply when determining for the purposes of subparagraph (2) what is appropriate.

(5) OFCOM must have regard to guidance for the time being in force under sub-paragraph (4) when making determinations under this paragraph.

(6) OFCOM may revise any guidance under sub-paragraph (4) by publishing their revisions of it.

(7) The publication of guidance under sub-paragraph (4), or of any revisions of it, is to be in whatever manner OFCOM consider appropriate.

Power to amend Part 3A of Schedule
14B The Secretary of State may by order repeal or otherwise modify the restriction imposed by this Part of this Schedule."
130G Page 454, line 7. at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (4), at the end there shall be inserted "and who would not be in contravention of the requirements imposed by or under Schedule 14 to the Communications Act 2003 if he held such a licence.""
130H Page 551, line 9, after "51", insert—
"( ) Part 3A of Schedule 14 to this Act is to have effect—

(a) in relation to times before the television transfer date as if references to OFCOM were, in relation to licences under Part 1 of the 1990 Act or Part 1 of the 1996 Act, references to the ITC; and

871

(b) in relation to times before the radio transfer date as if references to OFCOM were, in relation to licences under Part 3 of the 1990 Act or Part 2 of the 1996 Act, references to the Radio Authority."

130I Page 551, line 10, leave out from "Act" to end of line 13 and insert "which is in force immediately before the commencement of Part 3A of Schedule 14 to this Act is to have effect on and after its commencement as a determination under paragraph 14A of that Schedule to this Act."
130J Page 551, line 16, leave out from first -or to end of line 18 and insert "Part 3A of Schedule 14 to this Act is to have effect on and after its commencement as guidance published under paragraph 14A(4) of that Schedule to this Act."
130K Page 551, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) Anything done under paragraph 14A of Schedule 14 by the ITC or the Radio Authority which is in force immediately before the relevant transfer date is to have effect on and after that date as if done under that paragraph by OFCOM."
130L Page 562, leave out line 32
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof. We do not think that it is right to remove the few remaining restrictions on religious ownership in their entirety, but we have listened carefully and sympathetically to the many points raised in debate in this House and in another place. The amendments offered in lieu address many of the concerns raised by those who wish to remove the restrictions.
Before I explain why we think the restrictions should be reintroduced to the Bill, even in a greatly modified form, I shall repeat some of the points that the Government made in another place so as to emphasise that the Government are not opposed to religious broadcasting or religious broadcasters. In cutting short my speech on this subject at Third Reading, I was perhaps guilty of not informing the House adequately about the Government's position and I unreservedly apologise for that.
The Government believe that the faith communities play an integral part in the life of the United Kingdom and should have a place in the broadcast media. We also recognise that religious broadcasting is an important element of public service broadcasting. I hope that we have amended the Bill to ensure that its importance can better be reflected in the Bill's definition of public service broadcasting. Our changes were strongly welcomed in the statement by senior Church leaders that was issued yesterday. I am pleased, too, that they have concluded that, taking the measures in the Bill together, the legislation,
"marks a sea change from the previous regime under the 1990 and 1996 Acts".
We have also made it clear that we regret the reference in the communications White Paper, some time ago, to religious broadcasting's "particular capacity to offend". That was an unfortunate and unnecessary phrase, which we would not use today and it is not the basis for our proposals for continuing restrictions.
872
More generally, we are confident that Ofcom will take seriously its role in maintaining and strengthening public service television broadcasting, and will not wish to see religious broadcasting marginalised. Our policy is to have as few restrictions as necessary. We allow religious bodies to hold different kinds of broadcasting licences where that is consistent with satisfying as many viewers and listeners as possible and giving equal respect to everyone's beliefs. We wish to avoid a situation where, through scarcity of broadcasting spectrum allocated to a particular kind of licence, some religions achieve access to the airwaves but others do not.
Where there is no broadcast spectrum scarcity, as is the case with cable, satellite and digital terrestrial broadcasting, there are no restrictions, because there are enough opportunities for several religions to offer services and for other non-religious services to co-exist with them in offering a diversity of services. It follows that restrictions could be removed in the event that significant new broadcasting spectrum were to become available. That would not require primary legislation and could be done by order. I shall go further than saying that it could; I can assure the House that it would.
It follows that in the event of any new classes of licences being introduced, we would carefully consider whether religious organisations should be able to hold them; there would not he a presumption that they cannot. The decision will turn, as now, on questions of broadcast spectrum scarcity and we are proposing to amend the Bill to reinforce that point.
The Bill will remove all unnecessary restrictions on religious bodies holding licences and will greatly increase broadcasting opportunities by allowing religious bodies to hold licences to provide both national and local digital radio services, and digital terrestrial television services, as well as TV-restricted services. The only remaining restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences will relate to Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, national analogue radio licences and multiplex licences.
To put all that in context, under our proposals religious bodies would not be able to hold the 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences now held by Classic FM, TalkSPORT and Virgin—20 licences in all. However, they can hold any of almost 900 different cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. As a matter of fact, religious bodies currently hold around 40 UK broadcasting licences of one kind or another.
I am aware that there are some who are disappointed that any restrictions at all remain, but, again, I am grateful to the senior Church leaders who have given a "cautious welcome" to the ownership provisions in the Bill, on the grounds that they are a step on the way to the complete removal of restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcast licences.
I shall concentrate on the case for the continuing restriction on national analogue radio licences. As I have said, there are only three now—Classic FM, TalkSPORT and Virgin 1215 AM. At present, there is

873
not enough spectrum to allow more nation-wide services of that kind. Given that fact, it would not be appropriate for one of those licences to go to a religious organisation. One should remember that that could happen if a rich religious organisation were to make an offer to Classic FM, to TalkSPORT or to Virgin that they could not financially resist. We do not believe that a religious radio service, however popular it would be with many, would have sufficient appeal to justify it having one of only three national licences. We have been very careful in reaching a decision about the national analogue radio licences to ensure that there is a variety. That is why we have insisted that one of them should not be pop music and that one of them should be mainly talk and not music at all.
We are also concerned that it would be invidious, and perhaps unfair, for only one religion or one religious tendency to have a national station, and others not. We therefore take the view that, as a religious organisation will not provide a service which has a sufficiently wide appeal to justify using one of only three such licences, it is more honest and more transparent to set that out in the Bill rather than leave it to Ofcom. Of course, we could leave it to Ofcom—we could apply internal criteria in the granting of licences—but that would not be the open and honourable course. If we take a particular view, it is better to say so: Parliament should take the decision, rather than it being at the discretion of a regulator.
In any case, Ofcom's discretion is limited in the case of national analogue radio licences, since they are normally awarded to the highest bidder, as I have just pointed out. That would mean that a well-funded religious organisation could out-bid all the other organisations in order to broadcast a national radio station serving one particular faith community and one only—unless they were to buy all three of the national analogue channels, which would be an extreme case.
The rationale for the bidding system for national licences is that it enables the market to develop a popular and sustainable service. The highest bid is a proxy for popular appeal. In the case of a religious organisation, non-market factors would apply—in other words, faith would be the main consideration. A well-funded religious body could not just out-bid other organisations; it could run its national service on a non-commercial basis through subsidy, subscriptions and other forms of support. That would not necessarily produce a popular service. The need to rely on subsidies rather than advertising would suggest the opposite.
Conventionally commercial bidders for a national analogue licence will aim to provide a popular service with wide appeal so as to ensure a financially viable business, but if some bidders deliberately set out to do that on a non-commercial basis there would be a risk of national analogue services, which are of enormous importance to large sections of the public, not appealing to the largest possible number of listeners. Is
874
it right to put Ofcom in the position of having to use the power that it has to rule out a religious body? Surely Parliament should do that.
The Government believe that the need to treat all religions fairly and to use scarce spectrum in a way designed to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, combined with the particular way in which national analogue radio licences are awarded, means that we need to retain the restriction on religious bodies holding such licences. We have therefore looked at ways of making the restrictions work in a way that tries to meet the concerns of religious broadcasters. Our amendments would reverse what one might call the "default position" in the case of religious bodies.
At present, religious bodies are disqualified persons for all licences but, at Ofcom's discretion, can hold certain licences listed in the legislation. In theory, that would mean that if a new category of licence were introduced, religious bodies would automatically be disqualified. The amendments introduced in another place would make it clear that religious bodies are disqualified only in relation to licences specified on the face of the Bill; in other words, they are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. Again, I was pleased to see that senior Church leaders welcomed that change.
The communications White Paper recognises that the restriction on religious bodies holding local digital sound programme services is an anomaly. Therefore, we propose to implement those parts of the Bill which remove restrictions on religious broadcasters two months after Royal Assent. It is still our intention to implement all other ownership changes in December. I hope that means that religious broadcasters will not have to wait any longer than necessary—I am thinking literally about 17th September—before they can take up new broadcasting opportunities. Government Amendments Nos. 130H to 130K are necessary to achieve that. They allow the ITC and the Radio Authority to stand in the shoes of Ofcom for these purposes until Ofcom acquires their substantive licensing powers at the end of this year. Again, I am pleased that that has been welcomed by senior Church leaders.
The Bill, taken as a whole, ushers in a new era for religious broadcasters with greatly increased access to broadcasting licences as the scarcity of spectrum has decreased. If the Bill is agreed, the restrictions on local and national digital programme licences and the digital services licences needed to provide radio on Freeserve should be lifted by the middle of September.
Once this happens, new opportunities open up. Local digital radio multiplexes are still being licensed so religious broadcasters can obtain some of those spots. In the case of existing radio multiplexes, there should still be chances for religious bodies to obtain slots on those multiplexes which are currently unfilled or become vacant in the future, and there are opportunities to take up radio slots on Freeserve. We remain convinced that while spectrum scarcity continues, the case for some restrictions remains. But

875
where restrictions can be removed, they have been removed. This Bill offers huge opportunities for religious broadcasters.
Finally, the Secretary of State intends to convene a forum later in the year to have a high-level discussion with religious broadcasters about the future of religious broadcasting. This will provide an opportunity for those with an interest to have a dialogue with the Government. It may be that a number of the issues that have been debated but not always agreed in this House can be more fully aired in this context. I commend the Commons amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.45 p.m.
130M Baroness Wilcox rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 130M as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to insist on Lords Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed.
We on these Benches do welcome the steps the Government have taken with these amendments. They provide greater assurances to religious broadcasters for, in the words of the Minister today and of the Secretary of State in another place, Tessa Jowell, they are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately, however, ours is not a stance that can be softened by tweaking the emphasis on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of principle. There is a principle at stake here and no amount of compromise drafting will make a difference. It is absurd and a violation of human rights, whether currently included in existing human rights legislation or not, to single out religious organisations in primary legislation and ban them from entering the competition for certain categories of broadcasting licence.
We have covered this ground many times before, but with the addition of the plurality test there is even more force to the argument that the Bill as it stands provides more than enough safeguards. We are told that the issue is one of spectrum scarcity. The fact that that argument is not advanced about any other type of broadcaster, however questionable their moral stance, or in any other country, speaks volumes.
There is evidence that with better spectrum management there could he a fourth and a fifth national analogue frequency for which religious organisations and persons will still not be allowed to compete. For free and fair competition in a democracy, a principle which this Government endeavour to embrace, everyone should be able to put
876
a bid forward. Even if there is only one national analogue frequency or one apple in a basket, religious groups should be able to put forward a bid alongside everyone else. Everyone else, be they, as it is now, pornographers or criminal organisations, can apply—but not religious groups. I certainly do not see why the Government are so worried about religious groups.
We supported the Bill because we believe that it is fair. It encourages competition—open, fair and free competition—with safeguards enforced by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who we have become used to seeing and hearing in this Chamber. He has been present for every stage of the Bill, which is most encouraging for the future. But the government amendments are riot fair. This is not a fair deal.
As past chairman of the National Consumer Council and now president of the National Consumer Federation, I have fought long and hard so that consumers should have access to the widest possible choice. The government amendments would deprive them of this opportunity. For consumers of goods and services to be king, government restrictions must always be kept to a minimum. While I am pleased to see that many restrictions have already been abolished by the Bill, for some inexplicable reason the Government feel it necessary to hang on to this one. We have argued time and again that the Government's logic on this issue is flawed and it is difficult to understand the Government's motivation on this issue.
I echo the words of the shadow Minister in another place, John Whittingdale:
"There is almost certainly no religious organisation that has any great interest in applying for any of the categories of licence that the Bill sets out. In promoting the amendment we do not intend that ITV should be bought by a religious organisation or that a national radio analogue licence should be bought by a religious organisation. All that we, and the religious organisations, are saying, and have been saying ever since this matter first arose, was that they should at least be allowed to put in an application, and that that should be judged according to the usual procedure".
I listened to the Minister as he repeated things over and over again, and I believe that he protests too much and that something is amiss here.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130L in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130"—(Baroness Wilcox.)
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is unable to be in his place today. He and his wife are hosting, I hope, a dry lunch for 140 guests at his house, which is part of a programme of welcoming people in his new diocese of Manchester to their home. He is sad not to be here as he has burnt the midnight oil and followed the progress of the Bill most closely.
On his behalf and mine, I shall begin by referring to the comments made by the Secretary of State in another place. She spoke of the value of religious

877
broadcasting and the integral part played by the faith communities in the life of the United Kingdom. I welcome her comments, echoed today by the Minister. The life and work of these communities can never be taken for granted and it is welcome to hear it being so well acknowledged. Faith communities want to involve themselves in their wider communities and the new full deregulation of digital radio licence ownership provided in this Bill for religious bodies will provide them with greater means of serving those communities and enhancing them. In the same way, the improvement of the provisions for public service broadcasting, especially religion on television, will permit this vital aspect of national life and culture to interact with the whole community. We are grateful for those changes.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's comments in another place, repeated here today, about the early lifting of digital licence restrictions for religious bodies, which should bring some relief to them because they have hitherto been excluded from this marketplace.
I turn now to the amendments before the House. From these Benches, we continue to support the complete lifting of the disqualification on religious bodies. There are two elements to the disqualification. The first is that certain licences are not available to religious bodies, and the Minister set out which they are. I believe I can give the assurance that, in any event, the Church of England could not afford to buy any of them and therefore we would not be directly affected in the immediate future. However, for the reasons given, the danger that that could happen is genuine. The second element is that there is, as it is termed in the legislation, a determination to be faced by religious bodies before they can apply for licences.
We look forward to the ending of both disqualifications, although the one relating mainly to analogue services will naturally fall out in due course. However, we recognise that the amendments are a step in the right direction. Therefore, despite certain reservations along the lines of the principles set out by the noble Baroness, we want to give a cautious welcome to the amendments, as echoed in yesterday's statement by religious leaders across the board. Our reasons are as follows.
First, the licences still restricted are relatively few, numbering 20. I believe that in a sense we can discount that restriction in the short term, especially as they are analogue licences. Secondly, the notion that religious bodies will face a determination is less satisfactory. In some ways, it is unfortunate that that is on the face of the Bill. We look forward to the time when the availability of spectrum means that those restrictions can be released.
On the other hand, we believe that some controls need to be retained in order to protect children and vulnerable people from exploitation. That might well be done through the normal processes of Ofcom. However, we should not underestimate the need for a
878
certain amount of caution as we deregulate broadcasting and allow religious bodies access across the board.
At present, that is to be achieved through ownership restrictions. We believe that ideally there would be another and better way. It is hoped that the ministerial review, announced yesterday and referred to again by the Minister, will address what the long-term safeguards for religious broadcasting should be like. But we need to be honest that religion can be a force for both good and bad in the world. While I fully accept the basic principles enunciated by the noble Baroness, I believe that we must be fairly down to earth and honest about the role of religion in the modern world. To my mind, that is not an argument against religion. The best things in life can be converted to the worst, and that is a general rule.
Why are the amendments a step on the way? They are cast in terms, exactly as the Minister said, which create a positive climate in favour of religious broadcasting. In that sense, we reverse the presumption against it. That is why, while acknowledging the force of the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, ultimately I am not persuaded that this House should seek to insist on its original amendment.
This legislation marks a sea-change from the previous regime under the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. I remind the House that yesterday's statement involved the right reverend Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth and Roman Catholic spokesman for communications in England and Wales, the reverend David Deeks, Co-ordinating Secretary for Church and Society for the Methodist Church, and other Church figures, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In their statement, they welcomed the Government's amendments as being good progress towards our ultimate goals.
When I was a teacher in higher education, I remember that if I had a student whom I considered to be at least on the way to where he should be, I used to give sympathetic understanding if I felt that he was not yet quite there. In a sense, that is how we feel about these amendments. Perhaps I may also add that my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who is chairman of the Archbishops' Council communications group, has also indicated his support for the position set out in yesterday's statement.
For those reasons, while caught a little by forces pulling me in two directions, ultimately I wish to give the Government my support on this occasion.
4 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my name appeared with that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester at an earlier stage of the Bill when we tabled amendments to what was then Clause 261. Our objective was that more positive regard should be paid to religious broadcasting. We are grateful that the Government responded to that and we now have a far better Bill in that regard. Like others who have spoken, I believe that progress has certainly been made.

879
It is odd to disagree on this matter with a right reverend Prelate, who should, after all, be my master. However, I cannot help feeling—perhaps it is my East Anglian background—that he was a little too supplicant in what he said. The analogy of the student was somewhat odd. The Government are not our student; they tend too much to be our master.
I believe that a principle is involved here. Although, as a good lawyer of the common law school, I believe that one should err in favour of pragmatism rather than principle, because principles can throw dust in one's eyes, I do not accept a pragmatic reason for overturning the amendment that we put into the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind the House what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, in introducing the amendment, as he did so fully. He said:
"The highest bid is a proxy for popular appeal".
That is a very modern statement, is it not? It does not matter who it comes from—pornographer or crook; money is the answer. Then he said that it was different if the moneybags was a rich religious organisation. Thus, apparently, money is no longer the dominant indicator of popular appeal.
If we are talking about popular appeal, it is just as well to remember that according to the latest census, which has recently been published, well over 80 per cent of the people of this country still describe themselves as "Christian". Noble Lords may wish to dissent from that, but that is how people see themselves.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, perhaps I may dissent and say that the figure was 71.8 per cent. However, in Cheshire it was more than 80 per cent.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate had waited, I would have gone on to say that it was Cheshire to which I referred.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, honesty forbids me from pursuing that line. However, 71 per cent is not bad. I believe I was confusing the figure with that for all religious denominations, including Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on, which came to well over 80 per cent.
I am perplexed as to how, whether in logic, principle or pragmatism, one can hold the view that money talks when it comes to such bodies, except if it is religious money. I say that particularly in an age where, even if one is not religious—whether one is a convinced atheist or an agnostic—there is a general sense of a lack of spirituality in the life of the nation and an excess of materialist influence. It is odd that an eroticist can purchase one of these radio channels and that that is all right.
The truth is that provisions in the Bill will allow Ofcom to cut out anyone who is not "a fit and proper person" or someone who is not going to be responsible or who is going to be exploitative. That is the answer
880
to the fears expressed by the Minister regarding the potential for a religious purchaser of one of these channels. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a long shot. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Commons amendments.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, am very concerned about the Government's proposals and I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. We certainly have not had a clear explanation as to why this particular group should he treated differently from some fairly dubious other groups, which apparently would be looked upon equally favourably.
Also, we have been told again and again that the regulation of this country—we have just heard two examples of how tough it would be—is sufficiently strong to deal with almost anything: for example, unsatisfactory foreign owners coming in. We have the plurality/public interest test available, quite apart from the other aspects. We are told that this concerns only a few licences. I think I heard the Minister correctly in saying that restrictions will be removed as and when. If they are going to be removed eventually, why not now?
I praise the Government for the considerable thought they have given to this matter. That is not a contradiction in terms. Obviously, they agonised over this and have gone a long way to include the religions of this country in what they are doing in the Bill. Also, I see the attraction of setting up a government body in which these as well as other religious issues will be discussed, no doubt in a slightly less frenetic setting. I have still not heard a good reason as to why the particular restrictions which exist cannot be removed.
I remind noble Lords—I rather hope that we shall be reminded again in a moment or two—that many people regard the continuing of these restrictions as a human rights issue and one where, clearly, if they persisted the Government could be called to account. I very much hope the Government will think again, although I congratulate them on certain concessions they have made.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I welcome the changes, of which the Minister told the House, in the amendments proposed by the Commons. However, in so doing I register with the House the concerns that led to a change of thinking by the Government, which they very generously stated had occurred.
The first was the very simple proposition that if one has a system of broadcasting which is opened up to all to apply, it is unreasonable and discriminatory to isolate any particular group in society from the right to apply. The only two exceptions provided for by the Bill, other than religious broadcasting, are political parties and advertising agencies, each of which, in a democratic context, it can readily be accepted can justifiably be excluded.

881
The first point of concern is that of discrimination. I seriously invite those on these Benches to consider how they would feel if a trade union or a group of trades union, and a gay and lesbian organisation wanted to acquire a radio licence and were told that they were not allowed to apply. Surely, that would be regarded as basically discriminatory. I do not see why, logically, those involved in religious broadcasting should be any less advantaged than others.
Secondly, that is why, when they defended the claim before the European Court in Strasbourg about this question a couple of years ago, the Government accepted that this law was a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act but explained that it was necessary in the particular context of our society for the one and only reason of spectrum scarcity.
Thirdly, the question arises of whether spectrum scarcity, within the words of the Human Rights Act, is representative of a pressing need and necessary in the interests of democracy so as to justify this exclusion from application by religious broadcasters. I am gratified to see that in these amendments the Government have gone a considerable way to extend the area in which application can be made.
However, I want to raise three technical points. The first is that of analogue and only three channels. France and the Netherlands have just changed their analogue system dramatically, considerably to increase the number of channels available. If the reason for spectrum scarcity is really technical and temporary—transient—it is difficult to see how a legislative disqualification should be permitted to continue. If it is to continue, what are we doing about analogue channel distribution?
Secondly, there is the question of multiplex. If there are several hundred of these channels and one creates a multiplex system in which every eight or 10 are put into a multiplex unit, common sense justifies the owner of the multiplex acquiring it and distributing the slots as he or she thinks fit in commercial terms. But the Bill denies a religious organisation the right to have a multiplex licence. It puts the religious broadcaster at the commercial mercy of the multiplex owner and makes it very difficult to understand in market terms how a religious broadcaster will acquire an individual slot. I have mentioned analogue and multiplex digital systems because we are basically talking of radio.
The embarrassment we face, not politically but as a state of affairs in our country, is that at present people are talking of going outside the UK to get licences in Spain or France to broadcast back to the UK—an absurd position—or we face foreign owners outside the European Union broadcasting in, especially on cable or satellite. Otherwise, we would be caught by the disqualification requirements. All I ask is that we give continued and urgent consideration to that particular problem if, as I understand it to be, the key question is spectrum scarcity.
My next—penultimate and short—point involves the question of equality. The House may not understand that when we talk in this context about
882
religious organisations, the statutory definition is really any company or people in a company, who have significant religious connections. That is what is meant: companies. I should like noble Lords to consider the following facts. Mr Rupert Murdoch's organisation, News International, is a major international company in the media field. In the United States of America it, or its associates, owns Zondervan, the biggest and most reputable Bible and religious publishing company. Zondervan is closely connected in this country with HarperCollins UK and has a portion of an interest in an Anglican publishing house called Fount. The word I mentioned is "equality". Is Mr Murdoch's application for a licence for anything to be considered equally with the religious broadcasters when he has those associations to his company? It might be said that these limitations do not apply to people abroad. If that is correct it does not sound equitable. If it is said that they do apply to people in this country, why is he not caught?
I merely give an example of how experts in the field, civil servants, can get themselves into a mindset which eventually can reach a stage which borders on the ridiculous. I do not think that the Government want or intend that. So, I vastly welcome the consultation that they promised, which I hope they will allow experts to attend. I understand that a few weeks ago the Government were sent expert comment about spectrum scarcity—including some from an expert they use themselves—saying that it was not a real issue. No reply has yet been received. It is very important in this field for Ministers to use their own judgment when dealing with experts and advisers. I think that is why, when the Minister and the Secretary of State cast their minds to this topic, they made such a significant change; but, surely, there is more to come.
This is a memorable little parliamentary occasion because of its irony. The Benches opposite, which now proclaim the value of human rights and that the dignity of the citizen should apply, were in their time the very Benches that introduced this legislation. I admire their Damascene conversion. It may be belated, but I hope it will continue when we look at other Bills in this House which involve human rights and discrimination.
I hope also that the ingenuity and flare of the Minister, which he has displayed so well during the passage of the Bill, will continue to be directed at getting rid of this last little piece of law in this country, which uniquely is the only country in Europe that has this limitation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with his usual acuity, has brought us back to the issue. With his unrivalled track record in dealing with human rights questions and issues of discrimination, he has reminded us that this is ultimately an issue that involves discrimination. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spelt that out at Second Reading. I said in a speech at the time that if she brought this issue to a Division, I would support her in the Lobbies. I shall do so today.

883
My noble friend Lady Howe has also rendered the House a service by reminding us, as has the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the issue comes down ultimately to a question of discrimination. I think that a double discrimination is involved here. It is not simply that we are debarring people from having the same opportunities as others merely because of their religious beliefs, but, ironically, it is possible for people outside this country—a matter alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a moment ago—to broadcast into the United Kingdom over the heads of the authorities in this country via satellite. Some of the very worst kinds of religious broadcasting that should exercise the minds of your Lordships are able to come into the United Kingdom via satellite. So it is double discrimination.
We prevent people in whom we would have great confidence, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who spoke earlier, from our own Church of England and other churches in this country, from having the opportunity to broadcast, while we allow the Televangelists or others who often focus on matters such as fund-raising and so on to broadcast into the United Kingdom.
So I think that the Government have recognised there is a problem here. In his speech earlier the Minister said that we have made much progress and have moved a long way from the position we were in at Second Reading, which is a demonstration of why the amendments considered in Committee and on Report have been of real worth. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the fact that the Government have moved their position, but I think the basic issue of discrimination, raised by the noble Baroness at Second Reading, will still stand if the Bill were to proceed in an unamended form. We should bring that issue to the attention of another place and ask them whether they will go that extra bit of the journey referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan.
So, without being unnecessarily provocative and recognising that ultimately another place will have its way in the matter if it so decides, and welcoming the progress that has so far been made, I think it is worth trying to go further on this basic issue of discrimination against those in this country with a religious outlook.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the trouble with the conference that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, looks forward to with such hope and confidence is that it will take place after the Bill has reached the statute book. We are actually making the law for now, not as it may be in a few years' time. We are legislating, it seems, for the spectrum that is available now rather than as it will be in a few years' time. The question I cannot avoid asking myself, and therefore the Minister, is: if the other provisions in the Bill are insufficient to regulate religious broadcasters, how will they be sufficient to regulate anyone else? If the provisions are not sufficient to regulate anyone who broadcasts, the Bill itself is defective and should not be on the statute book anyway.
884
If Ofcom is not sufficient to regulate religious broadcasting now, how will it become so when the Minister proposes to remove restrictions when more spectrum is available. There seems to be a conundrum: either the thing works or it does not. If it works, it should control everyone; if it does not, it is not lit to control anyone. All that is against the background of the threat to human rights and the proposed referral to the United Nations Commission at Geneva under Article 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has obliquely referred.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind also what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said at the beginning. He said that we are living in a period when the whole tone of social understanding and behaviour is very much influenced, if not governed, by the media and what goes on in it. The Minister made a strong comment at the beginning about the availability only for the time being of three programmes on analogue terrestrial radio and said that not one of those should be dominated by a religious faith, but nothing about a multiplex which was open to all faiths. Why not a multi-faith broadcast on a multiplex station?
All faiths have a right to be heard on air and the debate between them should be free for people to make up their own minds. I think therefore that the Bill is defective. It is also a gag which should not be applied in this respect.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in the early stages of the Bill we supported the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. However, during this debate we have listened to two very important statements: one from the Minister himself, which I think was none the worse for its fullness and for the degree of movement it showed in the Government's thinking; and the other from the right reverend Prelate.
At this stage of a Bill, it is incumbent on this House to listen to statements such as that made by the Minister. I know that will bring some disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who were hoping for our support today, and indeed to colleagues such as my noble friend Lord Phillips who is looking for a certain consistency. It will also come as a disappointment to the Centre for Justice and Liberty, which has been a vigorous campaigner for change.
Anyone listening to the debate would concede that considerable progress has been made and that both the Government and the Churches are approaching this issue in a constructive spirit. I have more confidence than the noble Lord about the promised conference. I certainly hope that that conference will deal not just with the position of specialist radio and television stations, but with the perhaps even more important fact that we want mainstream religion to be kept on mainstream channels. We do not want it to suffer the same fate as politics and be pushed out into the ghettos and the further extremes of the schedules because we have been reminded that there is still a great religious undercurrent in this country.

885
In such circumstances, I always fall back on the advice of probably one of the greatest general secretaries of the TUC, George Woodcock, who said that good trade unionism consisted of a series of shoddy compromises. And sometimes so does good politics.
The religious arguments have been well made during the Bill's passage. The Government have responded constructively. I hope that the Conservatives now feel that enough is enough. If they do not, in the light of what the Minister and the right reverend Prelate said, it would be frivolous to send the Bill back to another place and we shall support the Government in the Lobby if there is a Division.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I continue to be surprised at the Government's opposition to the amendment. They have certainly moved; we appreciate that.
When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that 80 per cent of the country was Christian, he was quickly corrected by the right reverend Prelate, who rightly said that 71 per cent was Christian, and 80 per cent in the diocese of Chester. But of course, the Bill is not just for Chester; it is not even just for England and Wales; it is for the United Kingdom. If Scotland and Northern Ireland are still to be considered as part of the United Kingdom, because Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are strong in both countries, I can quickly upgrade the percentage from 71 back to 80; 80 per cent of this country is Christian.
I noticed that the Minister four or five times claimed assistance from Church leaders. The right reverend Prelate said that Church leaders across the board were giving a cautious welcome to the Government's position. What exactly does "across the board" mean? Who are these Church leaders "across the board"?
There is an interesting development here in Britain—not so much in the United Kingdom, but in Britain—of a great growth in evangelical Churches involving many in the black community. There is also a council of free churches, including the United Reformed Church. Are any of those Churches included in "across the board"? Do they support the Government's position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a deeply serious debate and I am grateful to all who have taken part in it. Perhaps I may start by referring to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because something he said so misunderstands the Government's position that it would be wrong for me not to correct it at the outset. Just before he sat down, he described our position as discrimination against those who have a religious outlook. Nothing could be further from the case.
My personal position is well known—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows it; he knows that I am not a religious believer. But that is entirely irrelevant. If we consider the Bill's progress through this House and
886
legislation since 1990 and 1996, it will be seen that in every respect regard for religion, for religious broadcasting and for the rights of the Churches to be heard has been high on the Government's list of priorities. I think that the noble Lord. Lord Alton, understands that point.
On the issue of ownership of broadcasting channels, which is, after all, what we are debating, apart from three national analogue stations for which there is spectrum scarcity—and only while there is spectrum scarcity, not thereafter—we believe that restrictions should be maintained. Only for the 16 ITV franchises—which are, after all, monopolies of independent television first choice, so to speak, in their geographical areas—and for Channel 5. which is a national channel, are we proposing to retain restrictions. For all the other channels—and there are about 900 of them—restrictions that existed under the 1990 and 1996 Acts will be removed by the Bill.
On the question of the religious content of broadcasting. which is by no means the same thing as religious ownership of broadcasting channels, I believe that there is universal recognition that the role of religion in our society has been fully recognised in the definition of public service broadcasting and in the standards required of all public service broadcasters—not just the BBC but all those who aspire to public broadcasting status, which, unlike in other countries, includes the vast majority of broadcasting in this country in terms of audience.
We have listened and introduced amendments to protect the interests of religion in broadcasting and—I say to myself and to my noble friend Lady Whitaker if she is present—and other beliefs. The issue of respect or otherwise for those who have a religious outlook is not before us.
Specific points have been made and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and others deserve a specific answer. She and others, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to human rights. We have rules on these things. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has approved our position. We respect its judgment on that; it is respected across both Houses and across all political persuasions. Applications to the European court for a ruling that our position is wrong have been declared inadmissible by the court. There is no case to be made under the European Convention on Human Rights that we are outwith those rules.
The noble Baroness mentioned the plurality test as being an influence on our judgment. The important point is that the plurality test applies only to mergers. We are here discussing the possibility of acquisition by the highest bidder of a particular national analogue station, which would fall outwith the merger regime. Therefore, the fact that we have applied and strengthened the plurality test during the Bill's progress does not detract from our argument about the restrictions.
Points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about pornographers and criminals, by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about eroticists and by the

887
noble Lord, Lord Elton, about others who would be inappropriate to own television or radio stations. Of course that is the case. Ofcom has the responsibility of deciding who is a fit and proper person. Surely it is not being argued—we are certainly not arguing—that religious organisations are not fit and proper persons. They may comprise admirable people. Our point is quite different: it would be unfair in those limited cases of spectrum scarcity or local monopoly to allow religious organisations to bid and not to make clear to them that it is Parliament's decision that they should not be allowed to bid. That would be putting off onto the regulator that which should be a decision of Parliament.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am very seized of the point about equal treatment of all. Why, when the only issue now appears to be spectrum scarcity, pick on this one category to exclude from bidding? That must be discriminating against them and in favour of the rest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, because the others can be excluded on the grounds that they are not fit and proper persons. I should be shouted down if I said that religious organisations were not fit and proper persons. Forty religious organisations hold broadcasting licences in this country. They are and can be fit and proper persons. That is not our argument. Our argument—to which I shall turn next—concerns the widest possible choice, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. That is the point about those local monopolies and national analogue radio stations.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester very fairly recognised the dangers of a rich sect buying a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, disagreed, but it was a fair point. It could happen; there are sects, particularly in the United States, representing, perhaps, a minority view in a religion but with the financial power to buy out TalkSport, Classic FM or Virgin 1215. I do not think that any noble Lords would think that that supported the range of religions in this country, let alone the range of popular choice.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and am sorry for interrupting his flow. He talks of the rich, American, nutty religious organisation buying in that way. Does he not accept that they would be caught by the "fit and proper person" test if they were sufficiently exploitative and nutty? However, if they comply with that test, what is the difference between such a sect and a commercial bloke with real attitude who wants to put across a whole set of ideals and values that might be, in the eyes of some, unhelpful to the public weal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not use the words "exploitative" or "nutty"; the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, did. We have had the bidding procedure for 13 years and it has worked perfectly well until now. There have not been the kind of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, anticipates. The motivation for bidding high to run a national analogue station is
888
to reach a large audience. That is what makes for popular radio and what people want. We fear that the involvement of those with non-commercial instincts in those matters might restrict the range of choice for customers.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made several points, to which I shall attempt to respond. He started by talking about political advertising. I want to take the opportunity of what he said to clarify a remark that I made earlier, perhaps in jest, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that the Government believed that the ban on political advertising is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I should have said that we were unable to make a statement on the front cover of the Bill that the provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in the terms required under the Human Rights Act. It is a significant restriction. We believe that there are strong legal arguments that the ban would survive challenge. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, we made that caveat to the statement that we normally make.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that other countries do not have spectrum scarcity of analogue radio as they have broken it up. That is why we are talking about only the three national analogue stations. There are no restrictions on religious broadcasting on the many local analogue stations. The noble Lord said that religious organisations would be at the mercy of a multiplex owner. The evidence of that is to the contrary. There are religious organisations holding licences under multiplexes owned by others.
The noble Lord talked about equality. I did not quite see the point of the argument about Mr Murdoch, but I knew that he had to come into the debate at some stage—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refrained from mentioning him.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I must tell the Minister that the idea of Mr Murdoch being refused Channel 5 on the grounds that he is a religious broadcaster has many attractions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall leave the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Brennan, to fight that out.
The procedure has worked unchallenged since 1990, and I see no reason why it should not continue during what I hope will be the relatively brief period of spectrum scarcity. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that we were the only country in Europe. I could go wider than Europe; hut, to take one example, in the Netherlands all broadcasters must produce programmes that reflect the full range of religious and philosophical tendencies. That would be difficult for some religious broadcasters. I think that the noble Lord would agree that that would be what others have called discrimination.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. I was not dealing with countries that do not

889
allow religious broadcasting in the public sector because it is against their constitutions and so on. My argument was directed at the independent sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is exactly in the independent sector that we allow religious broadcasting. There is no conflict. I have provoked several noble Lords to their feet by attempting to answer as literally as I can the points raised in debate. I must return to the fundamental point.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I point in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, because it appeared that the Minister was beginning to make his winding-up speech without answering the noble Lord's very pertinent question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester listed those who took part in the statement issued yesterday. It included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and representatives of the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church. I do not think that I used the phrase "across the board". I am sure that in the time available it was not possible to reach all branches of the Christian religion.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, my question was not who was included, it was who was excluded. The right reverend Prelate said that there was support "across the board" for the Government's position. I wanted to know whether the council of free churches, the evangelical churches or the United Reformed Church were involved. They are important sections of the Christian community in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not claiming that all parts were involved.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, the group comprised the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, who speaks for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales; the Reverend David Deeks, the co-ordinating secretary for church and society in the Methodist Church, in which he holds a very senior position; Peter Blackman, the director of the Churches Advisory Council for Local Broadcasting, which is soon to become the Churches' Media Council—clearly, he would hold a remit for a whole range of organisations, although I do not know the details of his contacts—and Andrew Barr, chairman of GRF Christian Radio, who was previously head of education and religion in BBC Scotland. Given the nature of the event, the group cannot include everybody. However, it is quite wide-ranging given that it was put together at very short notice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than what has been said.
890
Clearly, there are those within and outwith the Christian religion who have not been involved in these debates. If I may so, I do not think that that detracts from the very powerful speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and his recommendations to the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says, there are issues of such profound principle that we go back to the House of Commons and say, "Do not only think again once, but think again twice". That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is asking today. The noble Baroness based her arguments on a point of principle rather than one of detail, and I respect her for that. However, the issue of principle that we are discussing is that, so far as is reasonably practicable, we should encourage the greatest possible diversity and plurality, and the highest standards of broadcasting, in this country. We would be making a mistake if prematurely—I say "prematurely" deliberately—we removed remaining restrictions from those few licences that still suffer from spectrum scarcity, thereby running the risk of purchasing by sects that did not reflect the wide variety of demand for high quality broadcasting in this country. I urge those of strong religious belief, in particular, that they should recognise the extent to which the Government have gone to heighten and to encourage the role of religious broadcasting, and not to send the issue back to the House of Commons.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, both today and at earlier stages in the Bill. Nothing alters the fact that the Government are bringing in a Bill that is flawed. It is discriminatory to single out religious organisations in primary legislation and ban them from even entering the competition for certain categories of broadcasting licence. We stand by the principle and I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130M) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 165.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byford, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Craigavon, V.

Bell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Biffen, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blackwell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Boyce, L.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

891

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Naseby, L.

Freeman, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Garel- Jones, L.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Patten, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanham, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Plumb, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Plummer ofSt. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Rees, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of ldlicote, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hylton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Kildooney, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharpies, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Laird, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Soulsby of Swaflham Prior, L.

Luke, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mar, C.

Ullswater, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Waddington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Montrose, D.

Wakeham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ahmed, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Alderdice, L.

Crawley, B.

Alli, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Andrews, B.

David, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Barker, B.

Dean of Thorn ton-le-Fylde, B.

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dixon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dormand of Easiiigton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dubs, L.

Bhatia, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elder, L.

Borne, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bridges, L.

Brightman, L.

Falkender, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falkland, V.

Brookman, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Filkin, L.

Burlison, L.

Flather, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Carter, L.

Gale, B.

Chester, Bp.

Golding, B.

Christopher, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Goodhart, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

892

Goudie, B.

Paul, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pendry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Hamwee, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Radice, L.

Harrison, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rooker, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Roper, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Russell, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sandberg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jones, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sheldon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Laming, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Layard, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Strange, B.

Lipsey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Livsey of Talearth, L.

Taverne, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mclntosh of Hanngey, L.

Thornton, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Tope, L.

MacKenae of Culkein, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tumberg, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McNally, L

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

MarandKellie,E.

Walmsley, B.

Marsh, L.

Warner, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Warnock, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Methuen, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mitchell, L.

Whitty, L.

Morgan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Newby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Palmer, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Parekh, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
5.1P.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lords Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 16 ["Capital expenditure"]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 7. line 18, leave out ", or as not being,"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment takes us to the subject of capital expenditure. Clause 16 defines that term and provides that the Secretary of State can, by regulations or direction, provide that expenditure is or is not capital expenditure.
When we debated the clause in Grand Committee, the Minister helpfully explained why it was good for local authorities to treat revenue expenditure—or be directed to treat it—as capital. That will be familiar to local authorities, provided that they have the revenue to treat as capital. Clause 16(2) is interesting—it allows the Secretary of State, in effect, to designate expenditure as capital expenditure or not—when read with subsection (1), which refers to expenditure,
"which falls to be capitalised in accordance with proper practices".
That is how the subsection approaches the matter.
In Grand Committee, the Minister was silent on the subject of providing for expenditure not being capital expenditure. The draft regulations seem to be silent on the point as well. I hope that the Minister can respond to the amendment, the purpose of which is to probe the Government. Why is it proper for the Secretary of State to be able to direct or, by regulations, provide that any expenditure that, in normal terms—particularly when proper accounting practices are applied—would be treated as capital expenditure should not be? The Secretary of State will need to justify that view, and it is important for local authorities dealing with budgets to be able to assess in advance what is capital expenditure. They should not have the ground taken from under their feet, when the Secretary of State says, "Sorry, chaps. This time round, it's not". I realise that the Secretary of State must be reasonable, but the view should be justified, and it was not justified in Grand Committee.
Before the Minister tells me so, I realise that, for consistency, I should have deleted the same words from the following paragraph. No doubt, the arguments would be the same. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 32A, as the noble Baroness said, relates to Clause 16, which defines the term "capital expenditure". The clause begins by saying that the term is normally to be interpreted in accordance with proper practices, as defined in Clause 21. Clause 16(2)(a), however, enables that definition to be varied by regulations. The Bill will allow regulations to be used to widen or narrow the accounting definition of capital expenditure. The amendment would remove the power to exclude from the definition any expenditure that is currently treated as capital expenditure.
The power is a continuation of one that has existed under the present system since 1990. It has not been exercised often. The main occasion was when it was used to solve a problem relating to local authorities' investments. Numerous authorities lost money when
894
some commercial banks holding their investments went into liquidation. In due course, they received reimbursement from the liquidators. For highly technical legal reasons, that reimbursement would have counted as capital expenditure for the authorities and would have had an adverse impact on their resources. The regulation-making power was used to ensure that the reimbursement did not score as capital expenditure, thus protecting the authorities concerned. That problem is, fortunately, now in the past, but it illustrates the desirability of preserving the regulation-making power.
Clause 16(2)(b) will enable the same result to be obtained by issuing directions to individual local authorities, but that is not a satisfactory way of dealing with an issue affecting a large number of authorities. I hope that, with those reassurances and the example that I gave of why we need the powers. the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation and, particularly, for the example. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be good if parliamentary counsel could come up with something that, more or less, said "for highly technical legal reasons" and not "as a general matter".
It was useful to have that little exchange. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Local authority companies etc]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert—
"(5) A local authority may make and issue a guarantee in respect of membership of a company incorporated under the Companies Acts either operating in its area or operating as a local authority association."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I would like, first, to thank the Minister for his helpful remarks in previous debates and in correspondence since then on the subject.
The amendment relates specifically to parish councils. I am grateful for the clarification, in Committee, that the power of well being in the Local Government Act 2000 is the appropriate power for such activity by the principal authorities.
Companies limited by guarantee are often used as the corporate vehicle in the voluntary sector and for other partnership working under a number of regeneration funding schemes. Membership of such a company is available only to those persons—legal persons as well as individuals—that are capable of giving a guarantee that, in the event of insolvency and winding-up, they will contribute a stated sum.
Unlike a share where the cash is paid when the share is originally purchased, the guarantee is payable only in the last resort. The inability to give a valid guarantee therefore rules all parish and town councils out of full membership of such companies. Such companies include local regeneration partnerships, some local strategic partnerships which are taking the formal corporate structure and the many local charitable bodies such as rural community councils, councils for

895
voluntary service, citizens advice bureaux and similar. Many parish councils support these active charities in their area and find it somewhat patronising not to be able to take the further step of achieving membership and voting rights. Parish councils are already required to manage risk in accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003.
I understand that the Minister is concerned that the sums involved may be significant. In most cases, the amount of guarantee will be of the order of £1, £5 or £10. Even in the case of larger parish councils, the total would be unlikely to reach more than £1,000. The amendment recognises that an overall;knit might be appropriate, perhaps based on the size of the relevant electorate.
The additional situation that the amendment also addresses is the problem of the legal capacity of the national and county local government associations which, as unincorporated associations, face some difficulty in carrying out their daily business. As I am sure noble Lords can imagine, it is not easy to explain the legal structure of an unincorporated association of corporate bodies when trying to open a business account with a high street supplier of, say, computer equipment and consumables. The paperwork assumes an individual or an incorporated company.
I hope that these fairly technical remarks have been helpful in clarifying the purpose and effect of this amendment. I am trying to help the parish councils. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is willing to look at a more detailed submission on this subject from the relevant bodies, with a view to consider making the necessary changes. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I can he helpful in respect of this amendment. Amendment No. 33 seeks to add a new subsection at the end of Clause 18 which would give authorities powers to issue guarantees in respect of companies, subject to certain safeguards.
In Grand Committee, on 4th June, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved a similar amendment to Clause 18 about the power of local authorities to become involved in companies limited by guarantee. That debate helpfully clarified that the intention was to assist parish councils. It is not always possible for us immediately to discern the exact purpose behind an amendment. That is a genuine issue. It is not always possible, partly because of protocol, to pick up a telephone in order to clarify the purpose. That Grand Committee debate clarified the intention behind that amendment. However, as the intention was not evident from the wording, my reply did not deal specifically with parishes.
Since that debate, we have, as the noble Lord said, had an opportunity to consider the proposal further. I have written to noble Lords about that. We are clear that the amendment raises important questions about the role and powers of parishes. However, before deciding on legislation, we would need to explore the full implications in consultation with parish councils and their representative associations. I hope that noble
896
Lords will appreciate that, at this late stage in the Bill's progress, it would be impossible to complete that work in time to include a new provision. However, we would be happy to consider separately any further views that noble Lords or parish councils might wish to put to us.
Local government Bills are like buses—one is always coming along. I have no idea what is in the Queen's Speech, but we can be certain that another local government Bill will be coming along fairly soon. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I think that the position has been clarified, and we appreciate the help that has been given. I am sure that there will be further discussion, particularly between the local authority associations which represent parish and town councils and other small bodies, so that the position can be clarified in future legislation for their benefit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Minimum reserves]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 34:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will appreciate from previous discussions in Grand Committee, this is a very important part of the Bill, about which all parts of local government have very strong reservations. This clause gives the Secretary of State the power to set a minimum level of reserve for a local authority. It is a power that it is wrong in principle for the Secretary of State to seek to take and it is a power that will be ineffective in practice.
Ministers have said that they are seeking this power as a reserve to enable them to deal with a small number of authorities. I will return to the issue of a reserve power in a moment. First, however, I want to address the question of whether this power will actually do anything to prevent local authorities from getting into financial difficulties in the future.
The Select Committee did not think that these powers would prove effective. It said:
"We did not receive any evidence that had these particular measures been in place they could have prevented financial imprudence".
It would be interesting in the light of that to hear from the Minister under exactly what circumstances these powers might be exercised. However, I note from the ODPM's memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that these circumstances,
"cannot be foreseen at present".
So the Secretary of State is taking power which no expert thinks will work, which local authorities and the LGA oppose, and which he is not quite sure how to exercise.

897
The memorandum to the Select Committee stated that the exercise of this power would be through the negative resolution procedure,
"as the powers might have to be exercised rapidly".
However, as an examination of the Bill reveals, these powers cannot be exercised rapidly.
The Bill does not prevent an authority from running down its reserves to a level below that set by the Secretary of State during the course of a year. The Bill refers only to an out-turn position at year's end. By that time the damage will have been done. We might then have a situation in which local authorities required to meet a statutory obligation at year's end have to scramble around to make the necessary savings. It is conceivable that, under those circumstances, the focus will be on meeting the short-term target and not on the long-term implications for the community or the financial health of the authority.
One can see some extremely painful decisions being taken by local authorities—such as the closure of elderly people's homes, the withdrawal of grants to voluntary bodies, reductions in services—simply to meet a figure stipulated by the Secretary of State. In the long term, breaching this minimum level of reserve might actually save an authority money if the alternative is to take drastic action in the short term to meet it.
That is why reserves are a highly sensitive local issue—a point recognised by CIPFA in its evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. I wonder how the Secretary of State is going to set the level of reserve and whether he will take into consideration and take responsibility for the effect on services that having to meet this requirement could mean. Local people will find it extremely hard to understand why homes are being closed and services cut because the Secretary of State believes that the authority should keep a certain amount of money in the bank.
Finally, I should like to clarify the Minister's intention in introducing this provision. In Grand Committee the Minister said that this was a reserve power that he hoped would never have to be used. However, he then went on to refer to an Audit Commission paper that suggested that something like 20 per cent of county councils and 30 per cent of metropolitan councils had inadequate reserves. The Minister stressed the word "inadequate". They were, he said, not low levels of reserves but inadequate levels of reserves.
The Minister suggested that the Government would be acting irresponsibly if they did not act on this finding of the Audit Commission in the Bill. If we take at face value those comments from the Minister, then it seems to me that a very large number of authorities are likely to be affected by this provision and that these powers are not reserve powers at all. One thinks of rate capping; it was introduced for one or two authorities but eventually we were all rate-capped. Perhaps he can confirm that having an inadequate level of reserve, as identified by the Audit Commission, will not be the
898
trigger for invoking these powers, in which case it is hard to see how the Government can meet the concerns of the Audit Commission.
I hope that the Minister has listened to the representations I know he must have received from experts on this issue and that he will think again about the need for the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Maddock and I have added our names to Amendment No. 34. In a Bill about freedoms and flexibilities, this is perhaps the most indigestible clause. I was looking for an appropriately courteous adjective—having initially written "offensive". Now I have used both. The Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred with regard to minimum reserves was quite clear. It quoted evidence from CIPFA at some length. With regard to the adequacy of reserves, the CIPFA witness said:
"there is not a general problem".
On the issue of specifying reserves and balances, we believe that it is a very local decision and judgment as to the level at which balances should be set. The Select Committee report continued:
"Some councils may choose to operate with low levels of reserves—provided that they are prepared to take appropriate action as and when necessary".
It made the point that:
"A clear national statement from Ministers about what is an 'acceptable' level of reserves may also make it far harder for individual authorities to deviate from national standards".
I thought that was interesting in the light of the Minister's comment in Grand Committee that the Government should like CIPFA's guidance to be followed, but that it is not. Admittedly, he acknowledged that that was in a small number of cases, but it does not seem to lie wholly easily with the evidence quoted by the Select Committee. I confess that I have not read the whole of CIPFA's evidence.
I think that the Minister referred to the existence of balances when he rather critically said that authorities go to their balances in order to meet problems. The fact that they have balances tends to support our view that they are in control and on top of their spending. I made the point in Grand Committee that sometimes authorities build up rather more of a war chest than some people might like to see, but perhaps that is a political rather than a technical managerial issue.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, gave very practical and powerful examples about how reserves can become a sensitive local issue if the authority is scrambling around to make savings at the behest of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh—I am sorry that he is not in his place to add his voice—put it rather well when he asked whether this is a power that the Government really want because it would be very difficult to exercise.
In Grand Committee, the Minister suggested that some of us were paying lip service to what he called a mythical system of democracy. I know that democracy in action is never quite what some of us would like to

899
see. Nevertheless, it is an important principle. The principles of democracy and autonomy are very important to us. They are so important that a clause—the provisions of which we are told are no more than reserve powers, but which could be applied generally and widely or even universally—needs justification, which so far we have not heard.
Autonomy requires capacity building. We were asked for reasons why we did not like this clause. So to give another reason, the capacity of individual councillors and councils is undermined by a clause such as this which states, "Look to central government. We will make sure you keep on the right lines". I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: M y Lords, I should like to add to this debate. I do not think that I did in Committee. On recollection from when I was the leader of a council, the advice from our director of finance was that two months' salary was the minimum a council should have in reserves so that there is always money with which to pay the staff. We would have at least that, but my Labour opponents would tell us continually that we should spend all the reserves and that we should not have any. There are variable views on what minimum reserves should amount to and on what they should be based. That is a proper democratic debate. That is how a council and local authority should run.
The questions being raised for the Minister today are: how does one assess what a minimum reserve should be? How or why should it be the responsibility of the Audit Commission to define that? As with all budgetary control, the emphasis for responsibility is laid on the shoulders of local authority members. If they are given the responsibility to do everything else, there is no reason why they should not be responsible enough to decide how much is needed in minimum reserves. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very apposite. I support what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support my noble friend in all that he said. The reason why I pricked up my ears is that I understand this is a reserved power which the Government hope they will never use; it would be convenient to have it. I believe that, as a matter of principle, governments should not be given powers unless they have a fairly clear idea of the circumstances in which they would use them and that they would like to be able to use them for a useful purpose. As I understand this clause, it gives Ministers a power which they do not know if they will ever use and do not know how they would use it if they had to. If I am wrong, I hope that the noble Lord will correct me. But if I am right, it should not be in the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in a Bill that is essentially deregulatory and confers freedoms and flexibilities on local government beyond their wildest dreams, I do not really feel that I have to apologise for Clause 26. I should like to say, almost colloquially before I turn to the technical aspect. that it refers to reserves that are required to be put in the budget, but are not necessarily
900
held throughout the year. I do not think that the analogy exists that an old folks' homes might have to be closed in order to maintain the reserves. That does not stand the test. It may be that the reserves are needed to keep the old folks' homes open. That may be what was needed because the budget ran over. There is a defence to be made of this clause and I shall seek to do so.
Clause 26 is a vital element of the financial management framework established by Part 2 of the Bill. Most authorities know that adequate reserves are essential to the smooth provision of local services. The noble Baroness gave an example from her own experience. They are not a luxury or the imposition of the auditor. Authorities have to make their budgets in the face of uncertainty about demands which are sometimes caused by last-minute decisions of government—if I might put it that way. Budgets are made a long time in advance of the year and conditions change. So they do not always know the demands their services will face. Reserves are a means of allowing for uncertainty. Any well-managed authority would wish to be able to deal with uncertainties. Most authorities make sensible provision for reserves, but they cannot work out every eventuality. That is the whole point of the exercise. They do not know exactly what they will need to cover, but they can make reasonable provision on the basis of a responsible assessment of the risks. That is all that is asked of them.
CIPFA's guidance and Clause 25 both reinforce good practice processes for deciding on the appropriate level. But we all have to face the fact that a significant number of local authorities are not making sufficient allowance for reserves. Moreover, as I have said, in the context of the deregulatory effect of this Bill, it is quite sensible for the Government to include Clause 26.
A myth seems to have developed that the clause has been inserted because of the deficiencies of a very small number of notorious cases, so I shall not apologise for repeating the figures. Two years ago the Audit Commission reported that 10 per cent of authorities were considered by their auditors to have inadequate reserves. Last year the figure was 12 per cent. which represents no fewer than 58 local authorities. Some 21 per cent of English county councils were included in that figure, along with 31 per cent of the London boroughs, that is, 10 out of the 32 boroughs. By any calculation, those are significant numbers. Unlike some of the suggestions made in Grand Committee, we are not prepared to dismiss these assessments as auditors being overly cautious so that we may disregard their words. No responsible Government or Ministers could do so, which is why the clause has been included in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the Minister tell us what proportion of

901
either the percentage or number of authorities reported as having inadequate reserves ran into difficulties?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is not the point. It is hoped that none of them ran into trouble. Even though they were holding inadequate reserves, it is hoped that none did so. The noble Baroness seems to be making the case that if no authority ran into trouble then it did not need the reserves in the first place. That, I think, is a wholly irresponsible approach from someone as senior in local government as the noble Baroness has purported to be throughout our debates.
I do not want to bring in a note of discord, but I was goaded into making that remark. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to speak.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Hansard would not have recorded that I sought to put quotation marks around the term "inadequate". My point was that I wished to draw attention to inconsistencies between what really happens and the inevitable very cautious approach of professional auditors.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the classic phrase to use in response to the noble Baroness is to say, "If we did not do this and something went wrong, the public in those local authorities would say, 'You saw this coming and you did nothing about it". That would be the charge laid against the Government and we are not prepared to be put in that position.
We have made it clear that Clause 26 will be applied only to councils that are disregarding the advice of their chief financial officers and heading for serious financial difficulty. There would be no blanket minima and the advice given by the chief financial officer and any observations made by the auditor would be taken into account in setting the minimum. The authority would be consulted before the minimum was set.
I turn now to the other myth that has developed about this clause. The suggestion has been made that the minimum applies to the reserves that an authority must actually hold throughout the year. It does not. It applies to reserves which an authority must allow in its budget. Those with far more expertise in local government than I—everyone has far more expertise than I because I have never been in local government—will understand the distinction. Reserves are put in the budget to be used if they are needed to deal with unexpected contingencies that may arise during the year. There is nothing in Clause 26 to stop that happening. That is the whole reason for having reserves and insisting that authorities make adequate allowance for them.
Let me say a little more about why the Government have included this clause. The current concerns I have already outlined, but when the new freedoms and flexibilities contained in the Bill—which have received almost universal welcome—come into force, there will be a new situation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that they represent an absolute bonfire of red tape up and down the country, giving authorities the
902
freedom to borrow, to charge and to trade. However, all those activities involve financial risks. Therefore it is essential that authorities operating the new freedoms have fundamentally sound finances. This is the purpose of Part 2 as a whole, and Clause 26 forms a vital part of that.
In the December 2001 White Paper, in which we announced the new freedoms, we also set out our policy on authorities that got into financial difficulties. We made it clear that in the most extreme cases financial assistance would be available from central government. But in return the Government are entitled to expect that authorities will themselves hold sufficient reserves to deal with less serious problems.
We would like to think that the CIPFA guidance and Clause 25 would be sufficient. We are sure that in the majority of cases that will be so, but the CIPFA guidance has been available since 1995 and we still have the situation described in the Audit Commission reports. Given that, no responsible government, when putting forward the extent of the new freedoms in this Bill, could ignore these concerns. By the way, I believe that this was understood in the other place, where no Division was called on this clause. Members saw this as a quid pro quo for the bonfire of regulations currently in place on local authorities.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords. I am interested to hear that. However, I have always suspected that red tape is one of the most non-combustible materials known to man.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the bonfire of red tape goes beyond the wildest dreams of those in local government as regards what they will be able to do with their new freedoms—without government interference or diktat. That is the whole thrust of the Bill and there is wide consensus on it between all the parties concerned in both Houses of Parliament as well as outside in local government. So a major change in local government finance is being brought about, starting, it is hoped, in the next financial year if the Bill receives Royal Assent in time.
This clause represents a modest, technical protection just in case things go wrong in a small number of authorities.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, speaking for a moment as a local authority leader, I think that the Minister has exaggerated the effect this legislation will have on the wildest dreams of local authority leaders. If he would like to see a piece of legislation that goes beyond the wildest dreams of local authority leaders, please let me write it for him.
Obviously certain parts of the Bill will allow more flexibility, in particular on borrowing under the prudential arrangement. But I am disappointed that the Minister does not seem to realise that this clause negates a tremendous amount of goodwill that the Government have generated through the Bill. All parties in the Local Government Association regard Clause 26 as offensive and not really necessary.

903
The Minister said that he does not understand local government finance. When a local authority sets its budget at the beginning of the year, it has to say how much it has in its reserves and how much it expects to have in its reserves at the end of the year. Along with trading, payments and other activities, that is a part of the budget process. Because Essex is a large authority. its reserves as stipulated by the Audit Commission would be around £15 million, which is a lot of money. If we hold £15 million at the beginning of the financial year, we might aim for a reserve of £17 million according to our trading performance. The reserve might rise or fall during the course of the year, but that is the way in which most local authorities operate. That is why we feel that the clause is unnecessary.
The draft Bill appeared some time ago now, and whatever one thinks about comprehensive performance assessments, they have had an effect. I say that because before I came to the House this afternoon, I spent an interesting morning with the newly appointed monitoring auditor from the Audit Commission to my own local authority. During the CPA process, those monitoring auditors now talk to leading authority members and officers about the level of reserves. Indeed, we are given performance stars on it. Whether we like it or not, it is a part of the CPA process. Since we are all striving for more stars—fortunately my own authority has four stars in this respect—that alone provides a new protection. Audit Commission monitoring auditors talk to local authority members about the level of reserves and look at the way the money is being managed.
That is why it is so very offensive that the Government want to take the power in Clause 26 when the Bill is supposed to be a deregulatory measure. I was pleased to hear the new chairman of the Audit Commission say that he would "die for deregulation" and that he wants to see more of it. But this provision means further red tape. It is very disappointing that the Government are persisting with this power, which they keep on saying they do not want to use, but could be used. It should be remembered that if money has to be used to top up the reserve, it has to come out of services. The money cannot come out of thin air. If it is essential to retain the level of reserves, that often means reducing the level of services. We think that that should be a local decision, made with the guidance and assistance of auditor.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has completely ignored my point. We have made it clear that Clause 26 will be applied only to councils that disregard the advice of their chief financial officer. That is what we are talking about here. I repeat: it will be applied only to councils that disregard the advice of their own chief financial officer.
Lord Hanningfield: M y Lords, apart from two or three authorities that I know of—and I have been involved in this—none has ever done that. Therefore, why do we need this kind of clause in the Bill? I repeat, it is offensive to local government. It is seen as an extra piece of unnecessary red tape when the Bill is supposed to provide freedoms and flexibilities. It would not have
904
received unanimous condemnation from all political parties in the LGA if they believed it was a piece of legislation the Government should put into the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Alderdice, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ampthill, L.

McNally, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maddock, B.

Attlee, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barker, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blackwell, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blaker, L.

Methuen, L.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bowness, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Montrose, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Moynihan, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Newby, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northbrook, L.

Byford, B.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Chan, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chester, Bp.

Palmer, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Rennard, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roper, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Russell, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Falkland, V.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Ferrers, E.

Selsdon, L.

Flather, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stewartby, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Henley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Tope, L.

Hooper, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Ullswater, V.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Vivian, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Waddington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Luke, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lyell, L.

Wilcox, B.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

905

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bach, L.

Jones, L.

Barnett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Layard, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Brett, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Burlison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mitchell, L.

Carter, L.

Morgan, L.

Christopher, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Parekh, L.

Crawley, B.

Paul, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Plant of Highfield,L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Rooker, L.

Eatwell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Elder, L.

Sewel, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Simon, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Slim, V.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Filkin, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Thornton, B.

Gale, B.

Turnberg, L.

Golding, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Warner, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Goudie, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Hayman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Clause 27 [Budget calculations: report on inadequacy of controlled reserve]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 12, line 11, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause lays down in statute a requirement on a local authority to have regard to a report from its chief financial officer when making decisions on the level of its reserves. That takes us back to the argument that we have just had. As I said at the last stage of the Bill's proceedings, of course a local authority will have regard to the views of its chief financial officer on such matters. That is why we employ chief financial officers. We would not employ someone in that role whose advice we did not seek and respect. Frankly, to lay this down in statute seems ridiculous.
I cannot see how these provisions can possibly be effective or warranted in principle. In a spirit of open-mindedness, however, we have put down amendments that seek to work with the Bill and clarify how these provisions will operate in practice.
In Committee, we had a helpful discussion about how the Government intend Clause 27(2) to act as a mechanism for retrospectively reporting on the previous year's finances. However, I remain unconvinced of the need to make this a statutory requirement. The idea that this will not form part of the normal budgetary monitoring process seems naïve.
We must also take into account the fact that, putting to one side sensible budgetary monitoring, the level of reserve for a previous financial year may have no bearing on the level of a reserve that the authority intends or needs to set for the forthcoming financial year. I reiterate the point that I made in Grand Committee. If we are to have this provision, why is it not directed at the levels of reserve that the authority intends to set? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is an argument that we have been around before, and it is no less relevant because of that. It has a great deal of bearing on the previous debate. The purpose of Clause 27 is to establish a degree of accountability for responsible budgeting by authorities that have been made subject to a minimum reserve requirement under Clause 26. As my noble friend Lord Rooker explained, that power will he used very rarely indeed. We have already explained that a Clause 26 minimum applies to the budgeted reserves of an authority. The authority is free to make use of those reserves in the year if circumstances require, even if the reserves fall below the minimum.
All that Clause 27 requires is that if, when the authority is deciding on the following year's budget, the chief financial officer predicts that actual reserves in the current year—the year to which the minimum applies—will fall below the minimum, he must report the reasons to the authorities. The purpose is so that the authority can understand the reasons why it has not been able to maintain reserves above the minimum, when it had budgeted so to do. It is a check on those authorities that might deliberately set a budget which will require the use of reserves.
Clause 27 reports will, we believe, be rare events. They should be rare events if the authority is well financially managed. Only authorities subject to a

907
Clause 26 minimum would be required to make them, and so they should be very few. Even then, a report will be needed only if actual reserves at the end of the current year are predicted to fall below the minimum.
The collective effect of the amendments is to require the chief financial officer of every authority to consider whether the reserves for the coming year are inadequate and, if so, to report to the authority. Unamended, the duty in the clause will apply to very few authorities; amended, it applies to every authority. Frankly, I think that is barking mad, and I am sure that noble Lords opposite would see it as utterly pointless. It would duplicate in any event the content of the report that the chief financial officer is required to make under Clause 25. So the provision is there already—the amendment would be replicating something. It is unnecessary, pointless and, in any event, because of the effect of Clause 26, it will not apply to more than a few authorities at any given time.
Having heard the explanation for at least the second time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment; he really should do so.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we continue to have this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was leader of a local authority, will remember how involved he was with his financial officers in drawing up reserves for that authority. I repeat: it is common practice. It does not seem right to legislate for something that is common practice. This goes back to our previous debate—the Government are trying to introduce something into legislation which local authorities find unnecessary and more regulatory than helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Budget monitoring: general].
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 41:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we are going over familiar ground, I wish to move this amendment. This clause requires authorities to monitor their budgetary position and take action where they think their budgetary situation is deteriorating. In my authority, Essex, we have a large number of experienced staff who work in our finance and performance department. What does the Secretary of State think these people do all day? I can assure him that at least some of them are monitoring the budget.
As I understand it, one purpose of the clause is to ensure that members are fully apprised of their responsibilities regarding the setting of budgets. But I can assure noble Lords that councillors take their responsibilities very seriously and that local authorities already have competent financial teams that report regularly to members.
908
I would be extremely surprised if the Minister could name a single authority where there was not regular financial reporting to members. Does he really believe that these days there are local authorities which do not monitor their budgetary position during the year?
We accept that there may be financial problems in some authorities. We do not accept that these problems are caused by ignorance of the budgetary position. That is breathtakingly simplistic. The Bill's provisions are purely cosmetic. As the Select Committee noted, they will have no real impact.
Where local authorities find themselves in financial difficulties, that is largely the result of the interaction of a number of different factors. In some cases, there may be a problem with the processes of financial monitoring, but the Bill does not address such problems. Often the problem is not awareness of the budgetary position, but a lack of political will to take quick and decisive decisions to sort the situation out—perhaps because an authority is hung, for example. I challenge the Minister to name a single authority that has found itself in financial difficulty as a result of no financial monitoring at all.
It is the tone of the clause that is so wrong in a piece of legislation that is supposed to be so wonderful for local government. The Government are passing down their wisdom to local authorities, which actually adopted those practices many years ago. The Government do not need a legislative peg on which to hang good practice guidance. Local authorities are amenable to examples of good practice. We are prepared to take on board new ways of working. Local authorities welcome the opportunity to work with authorities that are not as strong as their own where that is for the benefit of local communities.
Perhaps the Minister is not aware that the authority of my noble friend Lady Hanham was recently awarded a triple A credit rating by Standard & Poor's. That basically puts the financial stability of Kensington and Chelsea on a par with the Bank of England. Yet the Government seem to feel that they have to legislate to ensure that local authorities monitor their budgets regularly. I wish that local authorities could legislate so that the Government monitored their own budgets regularly.
Local authorities operate sophisticated financial systems. They are big multi-million pound—in some cases billion pound—businesses. If the Government really believe that this measure will have any effect whatever in ensuring financial stability, they are mistaken. Rather than building on the lessons of the past, the measure ignores them. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should just like to echo what my noble friend has said. If an authority was remotely responsible and competent, this clause would not be necessary. If, on the other hand, an authority was really slap-dash and very, very careless

909
indeed, I do not think that the clause would have much effect on it. I refresh the noble Lord's memory of subsection (3) of Clause 28 which states:
"If as a result of carrying out a review under subsection (1) it appears to the authority that carried out the review that there has been a deterioration in its financial position, it must take such action, if any, as it considers necessary to deal with the situation".
Presumably, the situation by that time is fairly serious. But, nevertheless, so far as I can see, there is nothing effective that the authority could do. Perhaps the noble Lord will spend a little time explaining to me how useful that subsection would be.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his intervention. I take up the point he raised with regard to how valuable the subsection is. I believe that it is extraordinarily valuable. I was leader of Brighton, and then Brighton and Hove City Council, for a total of some 13 years. In 1990 we had to implement the nonsense of the poll tax. It was nonsense. I believe that that is now the universal view. A strange alliance of political forces wanted to defeat our annual budget. On the one hand, there was the core of the Labour group and on the other an alliance of what I later described as "Trots and Tories" who were determined to vote down our first budget. The Conservatives thought that the rate set was too high and they wanted to knock a pound off the poll tax, if I remember rightly. The Trots were fundamentally opposed to the poll tax. They defeated our first budget resolution. We were in a state of financial gridlock for 15 hours. We abandoned the council meeting that had gone on through the night and had to meet again the following day to try to secure a budget for the authority.
It would have been extremely useful to have had the clause we are discussing on the statute book at that time as it would have been much easier for me as leader of the authority to remind those colleagues who were playing with the budget of a council that provided services and, therefore, were playing with people's lives, of the potential impact of their intransigence on the financial position of that local authority. I summoned lawyers to talk to both the groups involved in that strange alliance. Some Conservative members resigned their Whip as they thought the position that was adopted was bonkers, and they were absolutely right. That reduced the majority that the Trots and the Tories had. After being faced with what I can only describe as some fairly menacing threats from the lawyers with regard to going ultra vires with the budget, the Conservative members who were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the situation withdrew their opposition to the budget and let it go through with only the Trots voting against it.
That is one account of an authority in a critical situation at a critical time of change of financial system when the extremely controversial poll tax was introduced. However, I argue that subsection (3) would have been extremely useful in enabling me to remind colleagues of the importance of ensuring that proper monitoring took place, that we stuck to budget
910
resolutions once they were made and that those budget resolutions had a real effect on the viability of the authority and its ability to provide services. At the end of the day, that is what they are there to do.
It is no good saying that that is history because ignorance of the budget position was exactly what got Hackney into a mess during the past few years. It is right that local authority members are reminded, first, of their responsibilities, secondly, how budget processes work, and, thirdly, of the value and importance of carrying out effective monitoring. Clause 28 seeks to enshrine in law a fundamental principle of good financial management. Having heard what has been said on the Benches opposite, I do not believe that there is much disagreement on the matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does not disagree with it. What we seek is not to impose a burden on authorities but to put into place in law, and make it plain in the legislation, that what we require is good financial management. The clause enshrines that.
I say to noble Lords opposite that to argue against the clause is to argue against something which is plain common sense and is included for the good of local government, not to place burdens upon it or to make its life more difficult. I hope that, having heard that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for that reply but I am disappointed in it. I try to strike a balance between my love and affection for local government and my duties as a Member of this House. Whatever happens in the future, I intend to try to support local government. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in his response rather neglected his affection for local government. As I said in moving the amendment, local government takes on board the concept that we are discussing. I believe that local government finds it offensive to put a measure in a Bill that is unnecessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I will not have it said that I have withdrawn my affection for local government—far from it. It is because I feel strongly that local government should conduct itself well that I believe this clause is an important part of the framework that we have set out in the legislation.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord and I must beg to differ on that. The view of the chairman of the Audit Commission, Mr Strachan, is to deregulate. Including such measures in legislation is not, as I see it, deregulation. However, we have debated the issue on several occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Power to pay grant]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14, line 29, after "authority" insert "in England"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, I wish to speak also to the five amendments with which it is grouped.
These amendments would remove Clause 32 from the Bill which enables a Minister or the National Assembly for Wales to seek any information necessary when considering the award of a grant to an authority under Clause 31. It would also allow Ministers to require retrospective information on the way a grant had been used.
The wording of Clause 32 provides that a local authority must supply such information. Concerns were raised in Committee about the wide scope of this power. In the light of those concerns the Government agreed to look again at the power. We agree that it is too wide. By contrast, Clause 31(3) allows conditions to be attached to the payment of grant. A condition could be attached to the payment of a grant that the receiving authority supply certain information, if ever necessary. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is much more limited in scope being linked to the actual payment of the grant. Having reflected on this, we are therefore happy to remove the wider Clause 32 power from the Bill.
As this would make it unnecessary to retain a separate clause in order to allow the National Assembly for Wales to use the grant-making power, we have also proposed removing Clause 34 and including the provisions of that clause within Clause 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 42A:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert "provided that the grant is available to all other local authorities of the same category on the same terms and those terms have been publicly certified as equitable by the accounting officer of the Department and that all documents and correspondence relating to decision on such grants are made available annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a number of important points were raised in Committee on the topic of grants as set out under Clause 31. The amendments focus on one particular aspect of that. When I spoke to amendments in Committee, I was aiming to remove what I see as a potential danger in Clause 31—that the clause allows for the possibility of grants being given to favoured councils for undefined purposes.
As I made clear, we already have the Bellwin formula, which allows for specific grants to be given to particular local authorities in response to emergencies. We discussed matters such as flooding, foot and mouth and so on. We therefore do not have any need for the new power, which leaves any Minister, not only the Secretary of State, to make grants to individual local authorities with no specification as to the purpose for which the grant is made. I am riot averse to devolving power to local authorities to use grants for purposes for which they think fit, as is the case with block grants.
Would the Ministers like me to stop while they consult on the matter, or will the reading of the reply be sufficient?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise if I am disturbing the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 42A does not appear anywhere in my speaking notes, nor in those of my noble friend. It does not appear on the list issued by the Whips Office either, but it is Amendment No. 44, as we have just discovered.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 was renamed Amendment No. 42A. You tell me. I do not know why either—pass.
I shall start with a problem, which always seems a good way to come back to a matter. My problem with the clause is with the inequality of the situation. Good and excellent authorities may suffer at the expense of badly managed and ailing authorities in terms of the amount of grants that they receive.
We have had a discussion on the principle at least once during the passage of the Bill, and I shall not go through it again. However, the purposes of the grants still remain obscure. The Minister kindly sent me a commentary on the matters raised under all the amendments moved in Committee, and I want to say how much I appreciate that. On Clause 31, it said that it makes it easier, subject to Treasury approval, for government departments to make grants without conditions. That means either that they are general grants that can be used for any purpose—if that is the reason, why are they being distributed under this method?—or that they are grants for specific purposes.
The Minister also indicated that the Government intend to reduce ring-fenced grants to below 10 per cent by 2005–06. That will be welcomed, of course, as the grants come with very stringent conditions and are limited to specific purposes. However, the reduction to 10 per cent will be meaningless if it is counterbalanced by the grants in the clause, as it will mean that only a limited number of authorities receive them.
The inconsistency and inequality in relation to grants to individual local authorities could, under the provisions, be misconstrued as preferential and/or prejudicial. To try to avoid that, the two amendments seek to ensure that grants made under the powers are available on the same terms to all authorities of the same category, under the watchful eye of the relevant department's accounting officer, who would have to certify the grant process and its purpose. Amendment No. 47 would ensure that no grants were made in circumstances where they could be construed as being given political purposes. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords. we are debating Amendment No. 42A, which the House will see is Amendment No. 44 re-tabled. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the mysteries of this place continue to amaze and irritate me, because it is not so precise as the other place. I apologise for disturbing the noble Baroness's speech.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister was not disturbing me; I simply thought that he was not listening.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 42A, which started life as Amendment No. 44, aims to ensure that grants made under the new powers in Clause 31 are available to all authorities of the same category on the same terms, that those terms have been publicly certified as equitable by the accounting officer of the department, and that documentation on grant decisions is passed each year to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I understand the need to ensure that the use of that grant-making power is seen to be fair. Treasury approval will, of course, be needed for all grants made under Clause 31. Parliamentary approval will also be needed for the ambit of the department's vote under which the grant will be paid. I also confirmed during discussion in Grand Committee that we will be publishing a list of the expenditure grants made under the clause. The grants so made will set out the amount of the grant and the manner of its payment. We do not therefore see any need to go further and require the arrangements set out by the amendment.
In any case—this is a fallback, because it is a technical issue—the amendment is defective. It includes the expression "same category", which would need to be defined if the amendment were to make sense. It also requires the accounting officer to certify that the conditions are "equitable", which we have to presume means fair. However, we are not certain how the accounting officer would be meant to judge that. The amendment would also limit the use of the power. There will be cases in which it would be appropriate to use Clause 31 to make a grant to one authority only. The amendment attempts to preclude that.
Amendment No. 47, to which we are speaking with Amendment No. 42A, would restrict the timing of the use of the grant-making power in Clause 31 according to the parliamentary and local elections which may occur. That would mean that no grant could be made under the power more than four years into the term of a Parliament, up to six months before any local, regional or European election, while the parliamentary constituency within which a local authority sat was without a Member, or when there was a gap among the members of a local authority to be filled through election or by-election.
That would mean that an authority eligible for a grant, perhaps at short notice, might not be able to receive that grant through absolutely no fault of its own. The Government would be forced to revert to using Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—I constantly referred to it in Committee as the poll tax Act—or some other specific power, if it were available. That would be likely to cause delays in the payment of the grant to the affected authority, and affect the flexibility with which the grant might be used.
In the light of those assurances—they are indeed assurances—I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. If the position has not been made clear, we obviously have another opportunity to come back to the matter, but there are assurances. I
914
have given some practical reasons why Amendment No. 47 could not be accepted, and I have pointed to a technical defect in Amendment No. 42A. I do not rest the case on that, but there are issues about drafting amendments to put into law. The issue is not only about "equitable" but how the accounting officer is meant to operate the powers and the requirements in the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, could the Minister give some idea of what the grants will be for? We have the Bellwin formula, which already provides for emergency grants. We have specific grants that have always been there, and we hope to see the reduction of them. But what will the grants be for? If we are going to give them to one authority, what is the purpose for that? If they are to be given to all county councils, what sort of grants might be given to county councils that will not be given to anyone else? My trouble with Clause 31 is that I do not see what it will be used for. If the Minister cannot answer me today but could write to me before Third Reading, it would be extremely helpful. He may be able to answer, so I shall bow to his great knowledge and give way.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer, but I should be able to. I should be able to give some kind of example. I have just asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, if the notes on clauses offer any clues. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness because there is an interval between now and Third Reading in which I shall be able to make the position clearer.
It may be that the answer might still be that I do not know, but I shall look into the matter in order to satisfy the quite legitimate question about what the grants would be given for, bearing in mind the fact that there are other kinds of grant. As I recall from our debates in Committee—and I remember my referring there to Section 88B of the Local Government Act 1988—there are some rules about the way in which the powers in Section 88B are used, so we would be seeking to use Clause 31 instead of Section 88B. As I pointed out in relation to Amendment No. 47, if we wanted to give money to the local authority for any particular reason—and that would be known about, because they are not secret grants—we could not do that under Clause 31 and we would have to revert to Section 88B. It is clear that Section 88B will become a second choice for assuming grant-making powers, if Clause 31 reaches the statute book. To that extent, the clause is probably a replacement for Section 88B because of the inconvenience of the way in which that section operates. I will write further to the noble Baroness after today's debate.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank him for agreeing to let me know. I have been picking away at Clause 31 to find out what it is for. I acknowledge that the amendment is defective. I shall wait for the Minister's letter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) A Minister of the Crown, or the National Assembly for Wales, may pay a grant to a local authority in Wales towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 had been retabled OS Amendment No. 42A.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 14, line 32, leave out "Minister of the Crown concerned" and insert "person paying it"
Page 14, line 33, leave out "Minister of the Crown concerned" and insert "person paying it"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Power to require information]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 48:
Leave out Clause 32.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Wales]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 49:
Leave out Clause 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) No power under this section is to be exercisable in relation to a regional assembly in England."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister's reply in Committee to our probing amendment on this matter was short and, if I give him the benefit of the doubt, not sharp, but crisp. He deemed the question as to whether regional assemblies would be able to benefit from the grant regime, by being included in the list of those prescribed as doing so in Clause 35, as virtually irrelevant.
We have agreed on innumerable occasions that regional assemblies are not local authorities, so presumably they are to have a separate funding regime—probably one which is financed by top-slicing the local government grant, although we did not go into that in any depth. However, since the Committee stage, an announcement has been made about regional assemblies and the referendums. Those may now become an entity, if the electorate can be gulled into accepting them. If they do, they will have, as we know, precepting powers.
Can the Minister envisage any occasion where a regional assembly might be the recipient of grant money that would otherwise, or as well, be going to local authorities? If not, will the Minister confirm that regional assemblies cannot, and will not, be included in the list of those authorities able to receive grants under Clause 31? That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness anticipated my first line of response, which
916
was to say that the amendment is unnecessary and irrelevant, so I congratulate her on that. This is not the place to discuss the funding mechanism of elected assemblies, but since the noble Baroness has asked about it, I shall try to respond as best I can.
Funding arrangements for the regional chambers and elected regional assemblies have already been made clear. Regional chambers receive a government grant of more than £11 million a year to carry out their scrutiny and planning activities. The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, detailed the arrangements for elected regional assemblies, which will be funded primarily through a government block grant. All issues relating to the financing of elected regional assemblies will be properly dealt with by a Bill which sets up those bodies. Such a Bill will be introduced following a "Yes" vote in a referendum about whether to have an elected assembly, and when parliamentary time permits.
Elected regional assemblies will, as we are both now agreed, not be local authorities. They will be new, regional bodies with strategic powers over activities that are currently carried out at regional level by central government, its agencies and quangos. The funding arrangements will be set out in a Bill, which will follow on from there being a "Yes" vote. Funding will not be conducted through Clause 31, because regional assemblies are not local authorities and because there will be separate legislation governing funding.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I do not think that I need to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Loans by Public Works Loan Commissioners]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Payments towards local authority indebtedness]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Arrangements with respect to business improvement districts]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert ", and
(c) those projects to be financed (in whole or in part) by a levy (an "owner levy") imposed on those holding property interests other than non-domestic ratepayers ("property owners")."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments relate to proposals to extend the responsibility for contributing to a levy for business improvement districts to owners of land occupied by business premises. Under the provisions of the Bill, the responsibility for making a contribution under a levy would lie solely with the business owner. My noble friend Lord Jenkin, who is unfortunately unable to be here today and offers his apologies, explained in detail in Committee our concerns and those of others—particularly major landowners—that there appears to

917
be a lacuna in the legislation in that there is no provision for owners who are not occupiers, lessors or freeholders to be brought into the statutory scheme. He explained that that was the practice in the United States, where the BIDS concept originated, and that there the liability lay with the owners of properties who, in many cases, passed the cost of the levy on to the occupier through rent reviews and service charges.
My noble friend drew attention to the department's draft guidance on BIDS, in which it was accepted that owners would have a vital role to play in its success, and that there was nothing in the legislation to prevent them from making a voluntary contribution to the scheme. I know that that has already been done in some of the urban environmental improvement schemes around the country. Indeed, many of those schemes would not have left the starting block if such an influential interest had not been readily given. My noble friend drew the Minister's attention to the report prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle for an umbrella organisation for BIDS, known as the Circle Initiative, in which it gave two models for the involvement of landowners and the equitable allocation of the levy.
I shall not go into detail. The Minister will have read Hansard and I know that he listened carefully at the time. But that report and others have demonstrated the real advantage, if not necessity, of the landowners being involved in and committed to the projects. They would give financial and practical support to the schemes proposed, as well as confidence to their business occupiers.
There was something of a spat at the Committee stage when the Minister made it clear that should there be a vote in favour of the amendments being put, he would withdraw Part 4 of the Bill to prevent it becoming part of a ping-pong process. That meant that the Government were not minded to agree to these propositions, their rationale being based in part on whether the levy was a tax; and if it was a tax, their owners, unless they were owner-occupiers, would not be eligible to pay it. That is what I understood it to be about.
During the course of the Minister's long reply, it became apparent that he was not about to concede the principle that my noble friend was addressing. Therefore, some further thought has to be given to this extremely important matter of how landowners become statutorily involved in the bids, and the amendments on the table put forward a viable solution to the problem. One amendment leaves the power ultimately in the hands of Parliament, but delayed until a time of the Secretary of State's choosing, for further provisions to be made to introduce the imposition of an owner levy. The other amendments provide a legislative backing for the administrative detail which would have to be followed.
This is a generous concession to the Minister's problem. It seems likely that the Minister in the other place has had further discussions on this matter with the British Property Federation, although I am not privy to any discussions and I have no knowledge of them. However, it seemed plain from comments on
918
one of the papers sent to me that that was likely to happen. It may be that the Minister has considered views on this and that as a result he will be able to accept our amendments as a sensible, straightforward way of dealing with the situation.
If he will not accept the amendments, any further consideration to include the owners on a statutory basis would mean that there would have to be further legislation. Our amendments would ensure that that was not necessary. The permissiveness to put forward the owners as part of the owner levy and the statutory scheme would appear in legislation.
The Government would have the ability to act on what we believe will be an inevitable consequence of these new and welcome schemes. They will not work satisfactorily without the landowner's involvement. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in Committee, the Minister referred to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as being incredibly seductive. He then went on to explain why that was not enough. However, the fact that they are seductive is important because in respect of such innovative schemes, which will require cash and a commitment to make them work, it is important to win hearts and minds. The other parts of the anatomy can follow. His phrase was therefore appropriate.
I am still having difficulty understanding why a new tax on property occupiers is okay but it is not okay when it is on owners. I thought that his arguments in Committee about administrative difficulties were most telling, but that should not be the driver and certainly not the complete answer. The Land Registry can give us information and I wondered whether the Inland Revenue had been asked to comment on the practicalities of the proposals. It might have useful comments to make.
We are all agreed that the introduction of the scheme is important and we ought to find ways of meeting the requests of property owners. It is extraordinary to have a group which is clamouring to pay a new levy or tax and these amendments, in particular the central Amendment No. 52B allowing regulations to be introduced, are wholly reasonable.
The Minister said earlier today that local government Bills come along like buses, so there will be another opportunity to tack on an issue. The trouble is that sometimes there are long gaps between their arrival, or they are only single deckers when one needs a double decker. The Bill provides the opportunity to enable the extension which is being widely requested. That is why I have put my name to this raft of amendments.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in introducing my reply, I have good news and bad news. I will let noble Baronesses work out which is which. The role that property owners should play in the business improvement districts, which are henceforth referred to as BIDs, stimulated a great deal of debate in this

919
place in Grand Committee and in another place. We are well aware of the support that exists for including property owners in BIDs on a mandatory basis and we have received many representations from those in the property industry and others to that effect. As the noble Baroness said, it is unusual for people to queue up to say, "We want to be part of a new tax"—or, "We want to be the reason for the new tax".
I can assure your Lordships' House that my colleague, Nick Raynsford, has given a great deal of thought to the views expressed in this House and put to us widely on the subject. While we recognise that property owners will play a key role in developing, encouraging and taking forward business improvement districts, we remain convinced that the Local Government Bill, as drafted, gives property owners ample opportunity to be involved at every stage of the BID process.
The amendments seek to include the property owners in the mandatory BID levy, in the BID ballot and in the appeal procedures. The mechanism for doing this is set out in Amendment No. 52A, which seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to include property owners in BIDs by order.
Clause 45 enables property owners to make voluntary financial contributions to the BIDs. As we stated in the White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services,
"there are significant practical difficulties in extending a BID levy to property owners outside the rating system. This would, in effect, he a new tax on property ownership".
That is why there is a distinction to be drawn as regards it being the same tax on the occupiers of the property or the owners, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It will not be the same tax; it is a completely new tax.
The Treasury has confirmed that any mandatory levy on property owners would be defined as a new tax. My ministerial colleague, Nick Raynsford, wrote to Ian Henderson, chairman of the British Property Federation, on this issue. I want to quote from Nick Raynsford's letter to clarify the matter for this House. He stated:
"As you may know, the national accounts are drawn up in accordance with international guidelines (ESA95) which we are bound to follow by law. The ESA95 states that we need to distinguish between transactions in goods and services and transactions that are essentially unrequited or not directly linked to a service received by an individual fee-payer. This second definition is the definition of a tax.
The BID levy falls into the second category because the individual paver does not receive an individual service in proportion to the amount they are charged. All ratepayers, and in theory if they were subject to the levy, all property owners, contribute to a collective service or project. They are not paying for a specific product. Therefore in ESA95 terms the bid levy is a tax and will be classified as such in the national accounts".
I know that there has been some debate on whether it is appropriate to classify the BID levy as a tax. However, I can assure the House that these are the classification rules by which we are bound and arguments about whether they are appropriate are, frankly, fruitless.
920
Legislating for a new tax on property ownership would be a significant change to the basis of our current local taxation system. That would be very difficult to justify for the sake of business improvement districts alone when many town centre schemes have flourished on the basis of voluntary contributions from landlords.
We do not consider it appropriate to make such a significant change to local government finance through an order made by the Secretary of State, as the amendments suggest. I realise that they are seeking to be constructive; nevertheless, I am a little surprised that amendments have been tabled which would give order-making powers to a Secretary of State to invent a new tax. I have to say that I would be laughed out of court if this were put to the other place. A brand new tax by statutory instrument? Come off it! I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House would throw it out hook, line and sinker. Secondary legislation is not the way to introduce a new tax. I must make it absolutely clear that we are talking about a taxation issue. It would be a significant change and, if we were minded to do so, we could not possibly contemplate doing it in this manner.
We remain convinced that BIDs will be successful without the inclusion of property owners on a mandatory basis. The Local Government Bill, as drafted, gives owners ample opportunity to be involved at every stage of the BID process. The draft guidance on BIDs details a variety of different ways that property owners can contribute to BIDs without implementing a new tax.
However—this must be the good news—in recognition of the concern expressed about the success of BIDs, and as a sign of our commitment to their success, we have given an undertaking to review business improvement districts over the next two to three years to ensure that property owners are effectively engaged in the whole process of setting up and administering a BID. If we see substantial evidence that BIDs are failing because property owners are not included on a mandatory basis, then we shall consider ways that that situation can be rectified.
We have not made that undertaking lightly. We are not prepared to commit to including property owners in BIDs on a mandatory basis before we have seen how they work in practice and whether including them would, in the majority of cases, warrant the very great amount of work involved in setting up a brand new tax on ownership, which this would be. We also wish to give other property owners who may not wish to pay the levy and who are probably not aware of the debate which has taken place on this issue the opportunity to comment in full.
We mentioned previously that the administrative burden on local authorities would increase if property owners were included in BIDs on a mandatory basis. It is very important that any collection and enforcement system for administering an "owner levy" is robust and has been consulted on extensively. I gave considerable

921
detail on that matter in Grand Committee. We are not prepared to commit to introducing an owner levy at some point in the future until we are convinced that there is an overwhelming need to do so and that it is possible to find a workable way to administer such a levy.
We intend to review the role of property owners in BIDs as we review all aspects of the BIDs. We shall, of course, focus on the role of property owners. That review will be carried out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and will have three stages. First, it will examine the ways that the pilot BIDs have engaged property owners and how successful that has been. That will begin in autumn 2004.
However, the review cannot simply rely on the lessons learned from the pilots, as they are receiving special support and advice. Therefore, the second stage of the review will examine BIDs which are evolving independently. That will take place throughout 2005, when we expect to see some BIDs established which have not been involved in the pilots.
In Nick Raynsford's recent discussions with the British Property Federation, concerns were raised that, while the property sector may be enthusiastic at the beginning, it may lose interest and withdraw its support during the course of a BID. While we are confident that that will not happen, the third stage of the review will seek to measure the continuing involvement of property owners in BIDs once results from their initial investments are evident. That will happen throughout 2006.
While the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be responsible for conducting the review, as part of the evaluation process we shall need to work closely with organisations such as the British Property Federation and the British Retail Consortium to gain feedback on the way that their members have engaged with BI Ds. I understand that Nick Raynsford has already written to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who explained to me why he would not be here today, offering to meet him to discuss BIDs. We would be happy to broaden that meeting to discuss in greater detail the review of the role of property owners.
The Inland Revenue, which we consulted, has advised that it would be necessary to compile a specific list for this purpose. I believe I stated in Grand Committee that I would be happy to give the response of the Inland Revenue to be recorded in Hansard. There is good news and bad news there. The bad news was given first and then the good news. We want to be constructive about this matter.
As I said, we are not in the business of inventing a brand new tax. In any event, we certainly could not contemplate doing so via this route. If it were a new tax, I suspect that it would be brought forward in a finance Bill or a local government finance Bill. But we are not promising to do that or, indeed, contemplating doing so. As I said, there will be a three-stage review process genuinely to analyse the setting up of the BIDS with the ongoing involvement of the property owners. If there were a genuine problem which meant that they
922
could not do what they wanted to do without a mandatory process, and if we could find a practical way to make it mandatory, then we would seriously consider that.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as I understand it, it would be a tax because essentially the property owner would not receive anything in return. Is the Minister aware whether the Treasury has considered the views of property owners through the British Property Federation, who, as I understand it, seem to have said, "We want to be involved and we want to pay because in return we will get added value to our properties". I am not seeking to challenge what the Minister has just said, but I believe it is relevant to the continuation of the debate. The noble Lord may not be able to give an answer today.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, speaking off the top of my head, simply because of the value of the property, I do not believe that that would count in classifying this as a tax. But we shall obviously take advice on the matter if and when we reach the point of bringing in property owners on a mandatory basis. It is hoped that we shall not need to do so; we hope that the arrangements will be a success. But we shall genuinely review the process. I do not want to repeat what I have just said, but we are quite genuine and positive about the approach.
Incidentally, we are very grateful to the property owners, who have been very up-front about what they want to do. I pay tribute to their clarity in this matter, including in their most recent letter to Nick Raynsford just a few days ago. They have been very constructive. However, the Bill is not the way to go forward on this issue and, certainly, this amendment is not the way to bring about a new tax.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am happy to accept that this may not be an ideal way to bring about a new tax. However, it seems to me that that is what happens in the United States. I know that our tax regimes are not the same, but it cannot be difficult to make inquiries about the regime in the United States. Is the US able to tax and include these matters on a mandatory basis? That is what we are talking about. I quite see that the Government will not be able to introduce a new tax system—if, again, that is what it is. The Minister and the Inland Revenue have said that it is. Therefore, I presume that we must accept that.
I believe that leaving out the owners on a mandatory basis is unfortunate. I very much hope that that will not be one of the difficulties in getting BIDs off the ground. The Minister spoke about town centre projects but those are quite different. With BI Ds, one may be looking at a far wider and far larger project than would be the case under what I described as "urban environmental improvements". Without the owners being involved so significantly on a statutory basis, it could be the death knell to the BIDs. That is what I am concerned about. I believe that we all support this concept. We all want to see it work and we want to give it the best possible shot.

923
A review is a review, and I am sure that that will be good when it is carried out. If it is found to be lacking that will require more tax. We are off down a path and will take years before the landowners will be involved mandatorily. There will be a review and legislation. The amendment was an attempt to provide for something within this legislation which meant that it would not he a requirement, a necessity, and we would not have to go zooming off to find other legislation in which to place a provision.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I thank him for telling me about the meeting with the British Property Federation. I thank him too for the invitation to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who is not in his place. I shall check whether he can make that meeting at a convenient time. In view of the fact that he is not in his place and has been deeply involved in this matter I should like to be able to take further advice on what the Minister said. However, in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Additional contributions and action]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52AA:
Page 20, line 31. leave out "or required"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is to return, I hope not for long, to an issue we touched on in Grand Committee: that is, to remove from Clause 45(2)(c) the words "or required".
In Grand Committee I probed what was meant by those words. As I understood it, re-reading his words, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, acknowledged that this would allow a change in the vires of public bodies. The requirement within Clause 45(2)(c) arises from BID arrangements, which are subject to Secretary of State regulations. In other words, it seemed to me that if one follows the route through—I raised this in Grand Committee—the regulations would, in effect, indirectly be changing the vires of public bodies. Certainly, I do not seek to preclude the participation of public bodies in that, but is this the correct way to go about it?
The noble Lord and I both felt that we were unable to pursue the matter any further in Grand Committee. I have tabled the amendment again and I hope that the speaking notes will pick up on what I say. I am just trying to pursue the last thing I said in Grand Committee on this subject. I should like to understand what is going on here. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that by reading my notes, which are the same as those I used in Grand Committee, and which are brief and very precise, I shall be able to satisfy the noble Baroness. There is a good reason for this. It is true that an explanation is needed and I shall give an example.
Amendment No. 52AA seeks to remove the power of the BID arrangements to require voluntary contributions from certain people or organisations. The power to require a contribution to a business improvement district is placed in Clause 45 to give a public body the opportunity to contribute to a BID
924
where it wishes to do so. It is not a mechanism through which a BID can force a public body or. indeed, anyone else, to give a financial contribution where they do not wish to do so.
The BID arrangements will require a financial contribution only where the body concerned has expressed a wish to contribute but would be unable to make that financial contribution unless required by statute to do so. The example I have is very brief. A police authority may wish to contribute to a BID which is intending to put up closed circuit TV cameras in a town centre. The BID arrangements would then require a financial contribution as otherwise the police authority would not legally be able to make a contribution. In other words, without the word "require", even if the police authority wanted to make a voluntary contribution to the BID, which is clearly a matter in which the police might want to be involved, they would not be able to do so. Therefore, the word "require" is included so that there is a statutory requirement for them to do so within their own legal framework.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I do not want to be instrumental in stopping public bodies engaging in any such scheme. My point really was to question whether it is right for regulations to be able to change the vires. Perhaps this is an example of benign regulation. I shall not press this further, not least because it requires the consent of the authority to make the payment, although I am not sure that that goes to my argument which is rather technical but, nevertheless, still quite worrying, about whether such things should be allowed in regulations.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept that there is a point here about the joint arrangements and the way the law is set out. But whatever is in regulations, this provision is on the face of the Bill in Clause 45(2)(c). That is clear and unambiguous in statute; it is in an Act—in primary legislation. I do not think that anyone will be able to say, "Oh, they have slipped this requirement in by way of statutory instrument". It is here in primary legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall try to draw this to a conclusion. The reason I raised the issue is that, if I read the Bill correctly, the regulations come about because the BID arrangements depend on various regulations. It was that kind of chain that I was pursuing. The provision is on the face of the Bill, but not as required for any particular arrangement. I have now got that off my chest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52B not moved.]
Clause 49 [BID Revenue Account]:
[Amendment No. 52C not moved.]
Clause 50 [Administration of BID levy etc]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52CA:
Page 22, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, this is a matter I probed in Grand Committee and I hope that it will not detain noble Lords for long.
I asked then why it was necessary to limit the power which appears under Clause 50(1) when subsection (2) states that the power includes certain things. I did not feel that the Government's response addressed the point. I am very persuaded by some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the need for consistency and clarity in legislation, so I felt that that gave me the excuse, if one were needed, to try to pursue the point.
I stated last time that I was sorry to be "picky" but that was the job. Sometimes tiny points such as this have completely unintended consequences, so I felt that in one minute, which is all I have taken, I should put the point again. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, again, equally briefly, I repeat what I said in Grand Committee. This is a standard drafting formula. There is nothing new about this.
Clause 50 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations concerning the administration and collection of the BID levy. During the debate on this amendment in Grand Committee I was asked why Clause 50(3) is necessary when subsection (2) is an indicative, not an exhaustive list. The inclusion of subsection (3) is a standard drafting formula to make sure beyond doubt that the general power in Clause 50(1) is not limited by the specific terms set out in Clause 50(2).
Where, as in Clause 50(2), a list of terms is given, but there is no provision equivalent to subsection (3), the list in subsection (2) will read as an exhaustive list of the areas in which the Secretary of State may make regulations.
Amendment No. 52CA would restrict the Secretary of State's power to make regulations to those items listed in Clause 50(2). That would mean that the Secretary of State would not have the power to introduce an entirely new system of collection and enforcement for the BID levy.
We have always made it clear that we intend to administer the collection and enforcement of the BID levy through the existing non-domestic rating mechanism. However, we want to retain the flexibility to create a different system if the experience of early BIDs suggests that the arrangements are not working. The amendment would remove that flexibility, hence the reason we need subsection (3) as part of Clause 50.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. We spent some time in Grand Committee on
926
the Fire Services Bill on the eiusdem generic rule. That was too painful an experience for me to repeat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [BID proposals]:
[Amendments Nos. 52D and 52E not moved.]
Clause 53 [Power of veto]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 23, line 3, after "notice" insert "no later than three months from the date of the ballot"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 53 is a small amendment. It would make it obligatory for a billing authority, if it was going to veto a BIDs proposal, to give notice within three months of the veto taking place. It may seem quite odd to put in a time definition, but people sometimes do not notice time passing. It must be right that there is a time limit by which these decisions must be made and notified, so that the people who have voted for the proposal know of what that decision is.
I cannot imagine that many local authorities would not give notice within such a time, but perhaps those that were still requiring a minimum reserve might be a little more dilatory about these things. Therefore, we should have a time limit. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 53 gives a billing authority the power to veto a business improvement district. The noble Baroness has moved an amendment which limits that to three months after the BID ballot has taken place. That is fair enough and we agree.
We believe the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 53 already gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the time period in which the veto can be exercised in secondary legislation. This means that the time period in which the veto can be exercised can be altered to reflect the experience of BIDs once they are up and running. That is a very important part of the flexibility that we are trying to achieve in the BIDs framework.
If we prescribe the time period in which the veto may take place in primary legislation before we have any knowledge of the way in which BIDs will work in practice, we will be unable to alter the time period to reflect the experience of developing BI Ds. So we think it would be counter-productive. This flexibility is the general approach we are taking with most of the legislation.
I imagine that the noble Baroness is seeking reassurance that the local authority will not be able to veto a BID a year after a successful vote has taken place and when the BID would or should already be in operation. The Secretary of State intends to prevent that from happening and to use these powers to do so.
In any case, before the BID proposal is voted upon, the local authority should have been working with the BID proposers and pointing out any areas of concern. So we hope in any event that the veto will be exercised very rarely. I cannot see many circumstances in which a group, which has taken the trouble of creating a BID,

927
does not properly involve the local authority in it and so creates a situation in which the local authority feels obligated to exercise this veto. We see vetoes as only rarely happening. So the power is already there. We want to retain a flexibility in terms of the time period so that we can see how BIDs work in practice. If we were to go with the amendment that the noble Baroness proposes, I am sure that she well and truly understands that it would mean we would have an inflexible proposition written on to the face of the Bill. We think that would make it far less workable. The thing about BI Ds is to enjoy the beauty of the way they express themselves in the myriad of different ways.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, how very poetic. I hear what the Minister says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Commencement of BID arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 53A not moved.]
Clause 56 [Duration of BID arrangements etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 53B and 53C not moved.]
Clause 57 [Regulations about ballots]:
[Amendment No. 53D not moved.]
Clause 60 [Wales]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 25, line 21, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 22 and insert—
"( ) Sections 56(7), 57(4) and 58(3) do not apply in relation to Wales.
( ) In their application in relation to Wales
(a) the remaining provisions of this Part have effect as if for each reference in those provisions"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if Clause 60 is not amended in this way, it effectively means that the statutory instruments relating to the business improvement districts produced by the National Assembly for Wales would have to be laid in Westminster for scrutiny. Given the fact that the National Assembly for Wales has perfectly adequate procedures of its own for scrutinising statutory instruments, we should not be doing that here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
"Relief for charities and community amateur sports clubs
(1) In section 43 of the 1988 Act (occupied hereditaments: liability) for subsection (6) there is substituted—
"(6) This subsection applies where on the day concerned the ratepayer is—

(a) a charity or trustees for a charity and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether of that charity or of that and other charities): or

928

(b) a community amateur sports club within the meaning of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (c. 23) (relief for community amateur sports clubs) and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used for the purposes of that club or of that and any other such community amateur sports club or clubs."

(2) In section 45 of that Act (unoccupied hereditaments: liability) for subsection (6) there is substituted—
"(6) This subsection applies where on the day concerned the ratepayer is—

(a) a charity or trustees for a charity and it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether of that charity or of that and other charities): or

(b) a community amateur sports club within the meaning of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 and it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for the purposes of that club or of that and any other such community amateur sports club or clubs.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated the equivalent of this amendment in Grand Committee for three-quarters of an hour on 11th June. For those who want to read the debate, it is at cols. GC 156 to GC 168. On that occasion there was ne'er a contrary voice. Dare I say that the Ministers opposite exhibited a certain sympathy for what the amendment seeks to achieve? I beg noble Lords' pardon; I can see heads shaking vigorously.
I do not propose to rehearse the arguments put in Grand Committee. First, I must say that both the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, whose name was on the amendment and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, are unavoidably prevented from being here tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, whose name is on this amendment, has just been required to rush off and deliver a speech in lieu of a Peer who has fallen ill.
More germanely, the reason I am not going to—I was going to say "rabbit on", but I should say—"proceed at length" is that, because this clause has money consequences, there is an onus on us to try and clarify and make as certain as possible what is the cost of this proposal. I refer not only to the direct cost to the Treasury but to the indirect costs societally; for example, the potentially benign consequences of the amendment in terms of a typical small sports club, thereby having extra funds available to increase facilities, which draws in more members and which takes young tearaways off the streets into creative engagement, and so on.
As I say, we have a duty to the House to go as far as possible towards clarifying just what are the pros and cons of this in direct and indirect financial terms. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has his name with mine on the amendment. We both concur that it would be advantageous to have discussions with the Treasury, if possible. More than a fortnight ago, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting discussions. It is no reflection at all on him, except his workload, that that has not yet borne fruit. But I should like to think

929
that by Third Reading we shall have reached the end of the line—realising that the end of the line will still be a series of estimates. Therefore, although I shall now move the amendment, I wait to hear whether the Minister can accede to it before going any further. I beg to move.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, the most recent—indeed, the only—White Paper on sport, published in 1975, attempted in a fashion to consider the problems of voluntary sports clubs. Unfortunately, its conclusions were woefully short of what was needed to address the problems. The introduction stated:
"In the present circumstances, it would be unrealistic to issue any statements of Government policy or intentions for sport and recreation without indicating the extent to which action is likely to be inhibited by our present economic difficulties … It would be clearly wrong to exempt recreation from whatever financial constraints it may be necessary to impose in the light of the developing economic situation".
I took part in the debate that followed that White Paper, and I found it greatly depressing. However, a few months later, I found myself to be a Minister in Northern Ireland with an economic brief and a rating order that I inherited from my predecessor. My first deputation as a Minister was from a very angry Sports Council for Northern Ireland. I let it put its forceful case to me, tore up the rating order and said, "Let's start again". As many will know, the result of that is that we have mandatory rate relief in Northern Ireland for voluntary sports clubs at 65 per cent.
Some argued and may still argue that voting for the amendment, if it proceeds to a vote, would create a precedent. I tell my noble friend the Minister that that cannot be argued. He now knows that the precedent has already been set—although not at 80 per cent but at 65 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we all know that the main obstacle in matters of this kind is generally the Treasury. But I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we all know to be a bit of a sports fan, will carefully consider the amendment. I am sure that he would calculate that a relatively small amount of money would go from the Treasury coffer. I am sure that we could all—even my noble friend—argue the benefits of sports clubs to society. They cannot be judged on mere economic terms.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on his efforts on the issue over the years. I also congratulate the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, first, on his promotion to shadow Minister for Sport; and, secondly, on the contribution that I am sure that he will make today. I must say that I prefer him to be in opposition as shadow Minister for Sport than to be the Minister, although I do not say that in any detrimental sense. Indeed, I shadowed him when he was Minister for Sport for some years. I should also like to thank others whom I shall not mention for all that they have done to fight for sport clubs.
930
I applaud the Government for pumping record amounts of money into sport. Last week's announcement by the Minister, Mr Miliband, about expanding the specialist sports programme was commendable. However, it is often voluntary sports clubs that pick up where schools leave off and to which kids go when they leave school. We must consider them in this debate.
In brief, it makes sense for me to support the amendment, although it would be to go against my Government. I hope that it will not come to that, because we are not in the same kind of economic climate as we were when the 1975 White Paper was issued. Thanks to the state of the United Kingdom economy—this is where I pander a little to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—thanks to my right honourable friend's running of the economy, we do not have the bleak economic backdrop that we did then.
So I hope that my noble friend, who I know is really sympathetic to the new clause, will reflect before Third Reading and ensure that we have a sensible provision based on the amendment. I look forward to listening to my old sparring partner, who will make a valuable contribution to the debate.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who continues to make a remarkable, lasting and exceptionally positive impression on the world of sport. Only today, he was leading an important discussion about coaching in this country. Over decades, not just years, his contribution has been outstanding. I listened to everything that he said and it is a privilege to follow him in the debate.
As advocates of the amendment. we on these Benches start from a strong position, because, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, opened well on 11th June. He said:
"I should like to say that I have just heard five brilliant speeches in favour of a brilliant amendment … It is supported by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour Members and Cross-Benchers".
For that alone, I would vote for the Minister as parliamentarian of the year. But he should have stopped there, because he was clean bowled by his officials straight after, when he said:
"I am on a hiding to nothing … I come with the had news that I cannot accept the amendment, but nevertheless, I agree with every point made in those speeches".—[Official Report, 11/6/03; col GC 162–3.]
This evening, neither I nor other noble Lords intend to repeat the valuable exchanges that we had in Committee. However, I should like to place on record my appreciation for the outstanding work done on the subject by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and for his contribution this evening. I share his concern about the importance of a reply to the letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am conscious that further discussion with the Treasury team would be beneficial before we decide whether it is appropriate to test the will of the House. I therefore also recommend

931
that we return to the subject armed with the Chancellor's reply and following further consideration at Third Reading.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, briefly, I strongly support the amendment. I am the trustee of a large community and sports club in the village in which I live that provides sport for the entire village: tennis, rugby, soccer, badminton and bowls. A huge number of sports are provided and the whole village uses that club. I know how difficult and bizarre it is to try to reach agreement with the local authority about discretionary grant. Often no explanation is given why one club receives a 100 per cent grant; another 50 per cent; and a third nothing whatever. Indeed, some authorities appear as a matter of principle to have decided not to give any grant to anyone, no matter how deserving the club.
The amendment is sensible. In effect, it will provide 80 per cent grant to all clubs without further ado. The amount of money involved is miniscule in Treasury terms, but the benefits that would flow it would be felt the length and breadth of this country. I strongly support the amendment; if my noble friend does not accept it—I recognise that his hands are tied by the Treasury—I sincerely hope that it will be pressed to a Division.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, am very pleased to support the amendment. I was not able to take part in the Grand Committee debate, hut, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I read with great interest and some amusement the Hansard report of the debate. It was not only the five speeches that my noble friend Lord Rooker described as brilliant; he also described the amendment as brilliant in the first half of his remarks.
It cannot he right or fair for voluntary sports clubs to be treated the same as businesses when applying business rates. I applaud the Government for making it easier for sports clubs that manage to become charities to qualify for relief, but that route is not available to all voluntary clubs. Many find dealing with the Charity Commission an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. According to figures supplied by the CCPR, only four clubs a month apply to the Charity Commission to change their status in that way.
It is a pity that the Government have not accepted the amendment so far; perhaps they will this evening. If not, I hope that I may hear from my noble friend that the Government will be prepared to move their own amendment at Third Reading to give effect to these laudable and important changes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is time for a confession. As some noble Lords know, I play cricket at weekends. I am the only genuine non-batsman in my cricket team; I am a regular "tail-end Charlie". This evening I feel that I am definitely a "tail-end Charlie" in having to deal with this matter. I have heard the arraignment around your Lordships' House on the issue. If I was nodding earlier, noble Lords can
932
probably take it that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. However, as one noble Lord said, we are rather hamstrung. Clearly, we need to consider further the points that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has not yet had a response—as he said, understandably—from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his correspondence. I am sure that those matters are important to the Chancellor. He has legislated to try to assist sports clubs, so he is very conscious of the need to assist voluntary sporting organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has introduced an important new element to the debate. I confess that I was not aware of the 65 per cent mandatory relief in Northern Ireland. I would be very interested to know of its effect. It probably has some useful bearing on what might be possible. It is also worth considering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the small number of clubs—four a month, he said—coming forward to register as charities. At that rate, it will take many centuries for all sports clubs to benefit from the charitable provision. All sports clubs remain eligible for 100 per cent rate relief at the discretion of the local authority. That can be a top-up to the small business relief being introduced through this legislation. So there is a benefit to be gained.
When I was the leader of my local authority, the treasurer and the finance director got irritated when I became rather more generous on the voluntary relief that we could give. They thought that I was throwing away good money. Having heard all that has been said, all that I can usefully do from the Dispatch Box is say that, as Ministers, we will do our best to secure a meeting to see whether we can take the matter further. I recognise the strength of feeling: there is passion behind this amendment. Without wishing to go overboard or to raise the white flag from the government Benches, I think that there is a serious issue to pursue. I say that without commitment to concede to the amendment—I cannot possibly give that.
Recognising the scale of the issue and the problem that part of it entails, I hope that noble Lords, who spoke understandably with a keenness to see the matter pursued this evening, will feel able to withdraw their amendments on the promise of our trying to secure further discussions over the summer. We shall see what more can be done to assist, as we recognise the value of community amateur sports clubs. Many of us have participated in such clubs at different times in our political career. We want to see them strengthened financially so they can perform the valuable work that they have carried out over many years, raise standards and perform better as clubs. We very much share the spirit of the movers of the amendment. Those remarks are not in my brief, but it is my considered view. I hope that noble Lords will find it of some value.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what he said, and to other noble Lords for their contribution to the short debate. I rebuke myself for not having congratulated in my opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on

933
his shadow appointment. I am sure that everyone interested in sports will be encouraged by the fact that he, too, has his own record in sport.
I wish to make one last point to the government Bench. The Government created this opportunity by introducing community amateur sports club tax exemptions. They created that new category. In a sense, it is rather odd that we, the opposition, are telling the Government, "Carry home the advantage that you have already made". It seems bizarre that, with all the political will that was necessary to do that, and with expectations of consequences that have not been fulfilled, the Government will not now take the extra step that would crown the achievement that is already there. In that spirit and with some further summer sun, I hope that it will not even be necessary to vote when we return in September. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.27 to 8.15 p.m.]
Clause 64 [Calculation of non-domestic rating multiplier]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 28, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and those that follow—Amendments Nos. 62 to 66 and Amendment No. 76—were dealt with in Committee by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I know that he has written to the Minister to apologise for the fact that he cannot be here today.
In a letter to the Minister, my noble friend asked a number of questions to which I hope the Minister will respond in this debate. My noble friend Lord Caithness was briefed, as I have now been, by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and I am grateful for its help.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 would remove the provisions for the small business non-domestic rating multiplier while retaining the small business rate relief itself. Research suggests that rates are a disproportionate burden to smaller businesses. The Government's proposals to introduce small business rate relief may help to alleviate some of that burden. The characteristics of the proposed small business rate relief system for England, as far as details are known, are, however, causing concern to those businesses.
The first principle is that small business rate relief, which is applicable only to properties of a rateable value of less than?8,000, will be funded by a surcharge on other commercial ratepayers whose rateable value is above the threshold. My first question is, why? If the
934
Government are satisfied that there should be a rate relief scheme, should they not fund it from the Exchequer?
There is also concern about the £8,000 rateable value figure. It is presumed that it is based on the 1998 values rather than a guide for the 2003 valuations. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said in his letter to Minister, since 1998 rental values have increased by about 20 per cent, even in the current market in which there has been a downturn. Therefore, a more realistic upper threshold would now be in the region of £10,000. Even at that level the properties affected may well be limited. In his response, will the Minister deal with the question asked by my noble friend in his letter of 1st July as to how many small businesses would benefit if the threshold was £80,000, how many at £10,000, and how many at £15,000, based on the 2003 valuations?
This matter has been dealt with in Scotland where an amicable agreement seems to have been reached with the Scottish Parliament, which I am hoping we can emulate here. The original proposals were similar to those in this Bill—a threshold of £8,000, with businesses over £10,000 paying a surcharge of 2.75 per cent to fund the rate relief.
The arguments deployed in Scotland were: that thresholds were inherently bad because they created unfairness and that any scheme should be tapered; the level of relief was far too low and many deserving businesses in town centres and all licensed hotels would not get relief; the threshold for surcharge was far too low; and all small hotels and pubs and most high street traders had to pay a surcharge of 2.7 per cent.
Agreement was reached in Scotland on a better scheme. There, rate relief is now stepped. Relief is given to all businesses in premises with a rateable value of less than £10,000. It is estimated that that figure is probably still too low. A surcharge of 1.3 per cent was added to businesses with a rateable value of more than £25,000, to fund the relief. I am grateful to the Forum of Private Business in Scotland for that information, which goes to show what can be done.
We are concerned at the unrealistic level of the threshold and believe that it should be increased or tapered. We are concerned at the surcharge level on businesses above the £10,000 level, and we believe that the Exchequer should provide the resources for the relief. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that, in dealing with the amendments in this way, I may not be able to answer all of the noble Baroness's questions. Some may impinge on others. For part of the reason, one need only look at Clause 64. It is probably the longest clause that I have ever seen; it runs to four pages. I realise why. That is not a criticism, but it is an incredibly long clause. Given the way that the amendments are split up in my speaking notes, I shall confine myself purely to the effects of subsections (3) and (4), which are, in a way, the subject of Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.

935
Since 1990, there has been a single rate poundage or multiplier for the whole of England and one for the whole of Wales. Clause 64 provides for two multipliers in future in England. There will be a small business non-domestic rating multiplier and a non-domestic rating multiplier. When a small business rate relief scheme is run under Clause 63, the non-domestic rating multiplier will be set at a higher level than the small business rating multiplier. The addition is equal to the estimate of the cost of small business relief. The addition to rate bills of those not receiving relief will be small. As we said in the White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services, it will be less than 2.5 per cent.
Subsection (3), which Amendment No. 56 would knock out, inserts a new paragraph 3 into Schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It explains how the small business non-domestic rating multiplier and the non-domestic rating multiplier are calculated for financial years in which the list is not compiled. Subsection (4) inserts a new paragraph 4 into Schedule 7 of the 1988 Act. It explains how the small business non-domestic rating multiplier and the non-domestic rating multiplier are calculated for financial years in which the list is compiled—that is, revaluation years. Amendment No. 56 would delete subsection (3), and Amendment No. 57 would do the same for subsection (4).
If the subsections are deleted, there will be no small business non-domestic multiplier. In other words, there will be no power to place a supplement on larger businesses to pay for the small business rate relief. Small business rate relief will fall to be paid for by the general taxpayer or by local authorities who, via the regulations dealing with contributions to the rates pools, may be forced to raise council tax to pay for it. The amendments would not modify Clause 64: they would wreck it and, along with it, Clause 63.
It would be impossible to fund the English rate relief scheme through a small supplement on the bills of other ratepayers. It would also be impossible to adjust the English and Welsh multipliers—whether up or down—to offset the effects of a revaluation which had not been fully provided for when originally setting the multiplier at that revaluation. We believe that the small business rate relief scheme we devised for England strikes a fair balance between the interests of small businesses which will be receiving the relief and other ratepayers who will be funding it.
We have been researching the figures that the noble Baroness asked for, but have not been able to produce them in an intelligible form. Therefore, I shall write to the noble Baroness, who made a legitimate request. I regret that I have not got the figures. In respect of Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 and the effect of knocking out subsections (3) and (4), I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness about the purpose of those subsections and why they need to remain in the Bill.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. On hearing the word "multiplier", my eyes glaze over. I have not understood any of the pages in the Bill containing "A plus B divided by 6 times
936
whatever". But never mind, perhaps we shall sort that out later. I am not totally certain that the Minister's reply addressed the questions. One question concerned the level of the threshold. The Minister kindly said that the scheme had been thought through carefully, but the burden of the complaint is the low level of the threshold being at £8,000. Everything else flows from that. I was posing that that threshold should be raised to at least £10,000. With all that multiplier bit I am not sure whether the Minister responded in words that I could understand. That may not be his problem; it is probably mine.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this gets more complicated. Not knowing the average rateable values of various properties, I am not going to say anything off the top of my head. To be honest, we cannot provide the figures because we do not know how many properties will fall within the various thresholds following revaluation and how many of those properties might not be eligible because they are multiple properties. I refer, for example, to telephone masts.
We will be conducting research on the actual numbers that will be affected in April 2005. As soon as the figures are available for the valuation agency in this research we will be analysing the number of businesses that might be affected. We will also consider at that time—this is why it makes sense—whether the £8,000 threshold remains appropriate. In a sense, that is helpful because, not knowing what the distribution is after the revaluation, we cannot give the figures. Once we have done the research, it may determine whether the £8,000 figure is appropriate. If it is not, we will consider what to do about it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I just want to ask a question out of ignorance. If it was decided that the £8,000 threshold was not appropriate at that stage, can that be amended by order to both Houses of Parliament without the Minister having to come back for new legislation" If it can be done that way, that seems to be not wholly unreasonable. I understand that the Minister is probably reading his notes and they do not always coincide with mine.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is true in a way. Sometimes I do not know the full purpose behind the amendment and therefore the noble Baroness asks questions. I cannot find the figure but I would be astonished if the £8,000 figure was not in an order. I would be absolutely astonished. Therefore, one would not need primary legislation to change it. I am told that it is done by order.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am not sure that we are not breaching all the conventions of the House. I thank the Minister very much for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Clause 66 [Transitional relief]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No 58:
Page 33, line 8, leave out "be the same as or different from" and insert ", subject to subsection (10A) below, be less than hut no greater than"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 and 59A. We return to amendments which were moved in substantially the same form in Grand Committee, again by my noble friend Lord Caithness. We are returning to them because of the concern that has been raised that the Government's whole approach to these provisions is far too inflexible.
In short, the amendments would provide a process which would require the Secretary of State to abandon downward transition; to propose a scheme of transition of his choice for those facing increased rate bills; to ascertain the cost of such a scheme and then, in effect, to amortise the total cost of the scheme over the life of a rating list by way of an addition to the national non-domestic rate to be paid on all non-domestic properties, irrespective of whether they are in an upward or downward direction. The effect would be revenue-neutral over the period of a rating list and would give businesses a much clearer and more stable position from which to budget for these costs. I have taken all that from the letter sent to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I am confident, therefore, that a reply will be forthcoming.
The amendments would also remove the unjustifiable current position of imposing downward transition. The whole question of rating revaluation on businesses has been fraught for years since revaluations can produce quite large changes in rates liability. Therefore transitional relief has been used to cushion ratepayers against the largest increases through staging changes in rates liability over a number of years in order to recoup some of the revenue lost due to this capping of increased bills. I recall the legislation that brought all this about. Not many understood it at the time and probably not many understand it now, but it is still with us and so we continue to have to deal with it.
A transitional penalty has been imposed on those whose bills should be falling and their reductions have also been capped and phased in. The Exchequer has previously made up the balance of revenue loss due to transitional relief. However, as I have already indicated, the Bill requires that future transitional schemes should be fully self-financing from within the rating system to avoid the need for Exchequer support. It is notable that this policy was criticised by the House of Commons Select Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill.
It seems morally indefensible to deny immediate reductions for those whose bills should be going down. It is often these businesses, whose relative property values have fallen, which are in the greatest need of reduced rate bills, yet they have been required to pay a premium to protect successful businesses from full
938
increases. Amendment No. 58 would strike out the use of downward transitional payments. Amendment No. 59 would allow for flexibility to establish alternative transitional arrangements to be implemented with greater simplicity and fairness for ratepayers and at the same time protect revenue for the Exchequer. Amendment No. 59A would require the Secretary of State to propose a scheme of transition of his choice to those facing increased rate bills, as I described earlier. Undoubtedly there would be a shortfall in revenue for the first year or two following revaluation. but it would be recouped in the latter years of the revaluation cycle.
These proposals have already been criticised by the Government as being less intelligible to the business ratepayer and involving a subsidy from the general taxpayer. However, the amendments would provide for a five-year, self-financing scheme without Exchequer funding. We believe therefore that that criticism is unjustified and that they would minimise confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we debated this issue in Committee and I suspect that my reply today will he quite similar. I hope that it will answer the noble Earl's letter. If it does not, it goes without saying that, having written a letter, the noble Earl will get a reply anyway.
Clause 66 ensures that there will be a transition scheme to accompany any future revaluation. Businesses have stressed the necessity of transition schemes accompanying future revaluations. The details of a future scheme will be decided in the run up to the revaluation concerned but, as stated in the White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Qualhy Public Services, any future transition scheme must be self-financing. There is no reason why the general taxpayer as opposed to the ratepayer should meet the cost of transition relief and, therefore, Clause 66 requires that the total rate yield for any year is not to be affected by a transition scheme.
The clause allows for flexibility in how schemes may be structured so as to be self-financing. The methods likely to be used include having a transition scheme that balances the rates lost through phasing in increases in bills against the rates gained by phasing in decreases. But, besides providing for a scheme which balances rate income lost through phasing in increases and rate income gained through phasing in decreases, the clause allows for an addition to rate hills generally as a means of making good the loss of rates resulting from phasing in increases in bills. That was all one sentence by the way. It has to be. It makes sense when you read it.
The clause also allows for a scheme that is funded by a combination of phasing in decreases and an addition to rate bills generally. This will allow us to put in place a fair and workable scheme.
If, as seems to be proposed by Amendments Nos. 59 and 59A, a scheme were to be revenue neutral over a five-year period instead of year by year as set out in the Bill, there would have to be a way by which the Treasury could recover in later years what it had paid in the early years. The Exchequer would also need to

939
recover interest on what it had paid out in the early years of the scheme and would need to recover a sum to offset the effects of inflation between paying out the sums concerned and recovering them. All this would make for complicated calculations which would introduce uncertainty for ratepayers. A five-year revenue neutral scheme would be much more complicated to operate and far less intelligible to the ratepayer than a scheme which was revenue neutral year by year.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see any reason for such a scheme. Why should the general taxpayer in effect give a loan to ratepayers at the start of each transition scheme? An attempt to make a scheme revenue neutral over the five-year life of the list would mean that at each revaluation complex estimates would need to be made in advance of announcing any transition scheme. If at the end of the fourth year it was discovered that the Treasury had not recouped the money it had contributed in the early years, rate bills would have to be increased to balance the scheme. This would create uncertainty for the ratepayer.
Finally, Amendment No. 58 is designed to ensure that if over the life of the transition scheme it turns out that the scheme is in fact not revenue neutral but is producing a loss in rate revenue, the losses cannot be made good by adjustments to the scheme. In effect, the general taxpayer would have to make good the shortfall in funding for local government. However, if a scheme is not revenue neutral in that it is producing too much in rate revenue, the amendment allows for the scheme to be adjusted to recompense ratepayers. We made the point in Committee that this represents a one-way traffic flow that is very unfair to the general taxpayer.
As currently drafted, the Bill would allow for a transition scheme to be adjusted both if it was producing too much or too little in rate revenue. That is entirely fair. The noble Earl raised this point in Committee and I am surprised that the amendment has come hack in much the same form. It is unfair and would be quite indefensible to the general taxpayer.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendments will not be pursued. Obviously Third Reading awaits.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that there are different ways of looking at how these transitional arrangements take place. But the inherent unfairness in the system as it stands is that people's contributions do not go down in the same way as their rateable valuations go down; they go down only in a transitional way. People with a lower rateable value who consequently have a lower payment are still paying at a higher level. People whose valuations go down are still contributing to people whose rates are increasing, because they are providing the transitional schemes. That seems inherently unfair from the outset. I can recall business ratepayers complaining to me about the scheme when it was originally introduced. I
940
am bound to say that it was not the current Government who introduced it. So we receive complaints from both sides.
Our proposal for a different transitional scheme does not seem unuseful, but I see the Minister does not agree with me. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 59A not moved.]
Clause 68 [Exemptions for agricultural buildings]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 59B:
Page 34, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) For paragraph 2(1)(a) (which defines agricultural land) there is substituted—
"(a) land used only or mainly as arable, meadow or pasture ground,"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59C. This brings us back to the question of the initial designation of agricultural land for the purposes of exemption. It also brings us back to the definition of agriculture to include game farming and the definition of agricultural buildings.
We went through this issue at our last Committee sitting. I would not have brought it back if it had not been for the fact that the people who are concerned with the countryside were not at all happy with the Minister's response. He will not be surprised to hear that. There are grave concerns, particularly about the description of what amounts to game and the definition of rearing birds.
Amendment No. 59B deals with using agricultural land either solely or mainly for agriculture. If that amendment is made, it would, as we discussed extensively in Committee, facilitate what purpose that land could be used for that would still leave it with a rateable value.
At present, land used exclusively for agriculture is exempt from non-domestic rates. Agricultural land is defined as land used only as arable, meadow or pasture ground. There is a de minimis exemption permitting land to be used, to a limited extent, for other purposes which still enables it to qualify for the exemption. The Valuation Office takes this as being activities that do not last for more than one day at a time without an intervening period of agricultural use. So, by way of an example, one day's point-to-point will not prevent the exemption from applying. I daresay that a one-day pop concert, which is one way of raising money, would not either.
This may have been satisfactory when a farmer was only a farmer and did not need to use his land for anything else, but it does not reflect present realities. Few farmers, as we agreed last time, are able to make a living purely from their activities without having some amendments made.
Amendment No. 59C, which follows this grouping, refers to "game birds". I should like to pick up a point made in a letter to the Minister from the Country Land and Business Association, which is not clear about what the Minister said in an earlier debate. It is trying

941
to ascertain the difference between when game birds are farmed, when they are shot and when that constitutes an area for rateable value.
The letter states:
"We are unsure of the basis for your statement during the Committee stage debate that for business rate purposes, guinea fowl, pigeons and quails are classified as poultry".
This is a very important point and I am sure that the Minister wants to be clear about it. It is important for townsfolk to be clear about the matter. The letter continues:
"Contrary to what you [the Minister] said, this is not reflected in the relevant schedule. It is our understanding"—
that is the understanding of the Country Land and Business Association—
"that there is no clear definition as to what constitutes 'game' for these purposes. Certainly the courts have never given a clear statement. However, it is apparent that the farming of pheasants and partridges is not exempt and it is with these birds that we are principally concerned. In any event, we can see no justification for the present state of affairs.
In our view, the operations carried on at a game farm possess all the characteristics of a conventional poultry farm, that is birds are bred, reared and cared for in a commercial context and as such game farms should be treated in the same way as poultry farms. All the principles of livestock management followed by game farmers are the same as for poultry and the industry is subject to all"
the same laws.
The Minister said in Grand Committee,
"No one involved in game production for food will pay rates … They do not have a problem—they will be rate-free".—[Official Report, 16/6/03; col. GC 183.]
The association further states in its letter:
"We agree that this should be the case, the fact the birds are killed by shooting rather than any other method is immaterial, unfortunately though it is not a correct statement of the law as it stands".
There is clearly confusion about whether farming of game birds is exempt. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Baroness has returned to this issue. I did not recognise the quotes from the letter of my friends in the Country Land and Business Association. My noble friend has ascertained that the letter was received only today. I am not conscious of either seeing or replying to it. It will receive a considered response.
As regards the noble Baroness's remarks about the countryside, I think that I am the only MAFF Minister ever to get a really positive mention on "The Archers". That was in 1998. So my country "cred" is pretty solid, believe you me. I shall not say what it was in connection with as all the animal lovers will be after me. I was trying to save cattle, if I can put it that way, but badgers were in the way.
We shall obtain clarification with regard to the letter. I do not have detailed notes on it. I gave a correct statement from my brief with regard to definitions. If the matter has been questioned, we shall have to take another look at it.
942
The intention of Clause 68 is to extend the rating legislation to reflect modern farming practices and also to ensure that the exemption from rates is properly targeted in relation to ancillary activities such as food processing and packaging operations where occupiers of related agricultural land control the company.
The Local Government Finance Act 1988 exempts from non-domestic rates agricultural land and buildings used for the production of food and the rearing of livestock for food. Agricultural land or buildings used for other purposes, such as the rearing of animals for leisure or sport, farm shops or food storage are not exempt and are liable for rates.
The tabled amendments, which I suspect are very similar if not the same as those tabled in Committee, would broaden the meaning of agricultural land in Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act and have the effect of opening up the rating exemption to activities that are not exclusively connected with farming. That would give farmers an additional competitive advantage over other new or established rural businesses.
If the purpose of the amendments is to facilitate minor diversification by farmers, I should point out that the Government introduced a rate relief scheme for that very purpose on 15th August 2001. The rate relief scheme for farm diversification was designed to help farmers diversify into small-scale nonagricultural activities by partly offsetting their rate bills for an initial period of up to five years. Farmers are now able to move into a whole range of activities, some of which will be in competition with existing business and others in totally new markets.
The relief is available to new enterprises on farms and, as it is aimed at small-scale enterprises, gives 50 per cent rate relief provided that the rateable value is £6,000 or less and the premises were in agricultural use for at least 183 days in the year prior to 15th August 2001. Local authorities also have the power to increase the relief up to 100 per cent if they think that it is in the interests of their council tax payers to do so. The relief is time-limited and will be available until 14th August 2006, although there is provision to extend that if there is a need.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I will make sure that we get a substantive reply to the CLA well before Third Reading. That will allow amendments to be tabled if needed in the full light of the Government's detailed response to the letter.
If food production is not the prime purpose, the exemption does not apply in the sense that I have explained it. I thought that I had said that in Committee, to be honest. However, I am philosophically very sympathetic to the issue. As I explained in Committee, I had not realised where the relief was, due to the definition of some game birds as opposed to poultry, but that has been the law for a

943
considerable period and is not up for grabs for a major change in terms of the Bill. That is a matter for Defra rather than the ODPM.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the herd in "The Archers" has a problem with TB again? He could spend a bit of the Recess helping them to sort it out. He cannot possibly be aware, so I shall tell him, that he has enabled me to half-win a bet. I suggested to a friend that I would try to get a reference to "The Archers" into our debate on Section 28, given that it is also a current issue in "The Archers". I bottled out, but he has enabled me to get "The Archers" into Hansard tonight.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am not going to join in the talk about "The Archers"; I have enough trouble with the amendments. I recognise that the Minister has given virtually the same response as we received in Committee, with which the Country Landowners' Association and others were not happy. I shall have to make sure that they see the Minister's response as he promised. We shall try to ensure by Third Reading, if necessary and if there is still concern, that I come back on the issue, but not, I hope, with exactly the same wording and detail. I thank the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59C and 59D not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 59E:
Page 34, line 38, leave out "solely in connection with" and insert "mainly to add value to"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to be in the House tonight to participate in the debate. Amendment No. 59F is grouped with the amendment. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about my noble friend's earlier amendment. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 59E and 59F together. The amendment would establish a better definition for those who have farm network attractions on their property. The amendment is slightly different from the other amendments. I know that the wording is inadequate, but I was seeking a dialogue with the Minister about the concerns of some of the people who are in the farm attractions network business. I declare an interest as a patron of their group.
The law is sometimes interpreted in one way by one local authority and in a different way by a subsequent local authority. The amendment would bring some clarity to the law. Although the Minister has said that the issue is a matter for Defra and should be addressed by his noble friend, it is relevant in this context, because farmers are being asked to diversify. The amendment of my noble friend dealt specifically with the question of food, but some farm network attractions also have food premises. They may run visitor-centre cafés or restaurants on an informal basis. However, their difficulty is that when they apply for rate relief, some local authorities deal with them in one way and some in another. I have tried to think of words that could be added to the Bill. Quite a few farms have diversified. For example, about three years
944
ago, an apple grower in Kent was not making enough money from her apples and was facing redundancy because no profit was being made. Thanks to a grant from Defra, she now processes and bottles her own apples and sells them as a finished product.
I know that the Government are keen to encourage diversification and that is why I am moving the amendment. I have used the words "mainly to add value to". I am seeking some form of kick-start for those farmers, rather than an ongoing commitment. Will the Minister clarify whether, in the Acts as they stand, exceeding a certain value determines whether they qualify or whether it is a question of turnover? I can offer him two examples of different local authorities interpreting the law differently. My wording is clumsy, but I hope that the Minister will accept that I have tried to raise a very important issue.
If the main income of a 150-acre farm, for example, has been from land produce, and the farm has diversified to become a visitor centre, the visitor centre, in some ways, now earns more than the crops grown on the farm. Some authorities are judging the farm as a whole and that is the reason for my first amendment. The phrase "mainly to add value to" will perhaps help distinguish the farm from the shop. The shop may be selling produce from that farm or, because the farm is being encouraged to act as a cooperative, there may be others who are using the farm as a base. I know that it is a grey area. I will be happy if the Minister goes away to think about it. I am not pressing him tonight.
I understand that the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001, which followed the foot-and-mouth outbreak—and I am grateful to the Government for bringing that forward—will last for only a six-year period. The Minister will perhaps correct me if I am wrong. I understood that rating relief was given to farms and their businesses that fell within the parameters of the instructions laid down, but that it was not a long-term measure. At the end of the six-year period, which will be 2006, they will be not entitled to that kind of financial help. That is why I am putting the proposal forward.
My Amendment No. 59F is an inadequate way of defining what is small or acceptable. What size of land or business does the Minister believe would entitle people to help? It was difficult to put forward a figure, but I would be grateful for clarification. Under the present rating system, is help limited to the hectare or acreage, or to the size of the operation? Having looked back at the Acts, I cannot define it. I have tabled the amendment to try to bring an important issue to the notice of the House. It is intended to help those who are diversifying, something the Government are encouraging. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, before responding to the amendment, I want to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, just in case her lobbyists look at Hansard and say, "Hang on a minute, something is not right here". I did not respond to Amendment No. 59C

945
because of the way in which they appear in the groupings list. Amendments Nos. 59C and 59D were grouped separately, Amendment No. 59C coming in the second. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of game farms. There is no question about that. Anything I had to say in more detail on Amendment No. 59C would not have helped because it would not have answered the letter to which she referred. I shall ensure that the full details of the response to matters raised by the CLA appear in the reply.
I did not intend to be discourteous—it was just the way in which the amendments were listed. Of course, Amendment No. 59C was not moved and before we knew it the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was in the Chamber—having missed the previous debate, I might add, because I regret to say that I must now repeat myself.
Amendment No. 59E seeks to extend the rating exemption for agricultural buildings to any building which is used "mainly to add value to" agricultural operations carried on that or any other agricultural land, provided that it is occupied together with agricultural land. Amendment No. 59F attempts to extend the rating exemption for agricultural buildings to any buildings used mainly in connection with agriculture, provided that they are under 250 cubic metres.
The intention of Clause 68 is to amend the rating legislation to reflect modern farming practices and also to ensure that the exemption from rates is properly targeted in relation to the ancillary activities such as food processing and packaging operations where occupiers of related agricultural land control the company.
The noble Baroness mentioned co-operatives. During the brief time I was at MAFF—a couple of years—I understood that English farmers compared with our partners in continental Europe are notorious for failing to work in a co-operative way. They do not work in the same way as French, German and Spanish farmers in co-operatives. That point has always been made and I freely admit that there is no easy solution to that.
Amendments Nos. 59E and 59F are designed to give an advantage to farmers. However, the noble Baroness must accept that that advantage is over other local businesses. That is axiomatic. It naturally follows that if they have rate relief on all the premises connected with their main agricultural operations, provided that the premises are small, that could be perceived to be unfair. The first amendment does not place a restriction on size, but if the second amendment were to be accepted, a farmer occupying a shop in a village under 250 cubic metres would not have to pay rates on the property. That would put him at a competitive advantage and would be detrimental to other local shops. Those shops could be similarly affected as part of the community during problems experienced by the farming industry, such as during the foot and mouth crisis and so on.
946
For some time the Government have tried to encourage farmers to diversify. With regard to the point referred to by the noble Baroness, on 15th August 2001 we introduced a rate relief scheme designed to help farmers to diversify into nonagricultural activities by partly offsetting their rate bills for an initial period of up to five years.
As I said in the previous debate, the relief is available to new enterprises on farms and is aimed at small-scale businesses. As such, it gives properties 50 per cent rate relief, provided the rateable value is £6,000 or less and provided the premises were in agricultural use for at least 183 days in the year prior to 15th August 2001. Local authorities have the power to top that up to 100 per cent if they consider it to be in the interests of their council tax payers. I do not know who does and does not do that, but that is up to local authorities.
As the noble Baroness said, the overall relief is time limited and will be available until 14th August 2006. I do not know the detail of the legislation but there is provision for the date to be extended at that time if there is perceived to be a need. Therefore, while there is an end date, that date can be extended. We believe that that gives aid to farmers. It does not give them everything that everyone wishes, but it certainly makes a contribution to farmers who wish to diversify without causing other local businesses to be disadvantaged.
I freely admit that it is extremely difficult to draw up a scheme specific to farmers and agricultural land that, if they are to diversify and add to the value of the work on their farms, does not in some way affect other local businesses. But I certainly hope that farmers will take the maximum possible advantage of everything that is going for them.
I realise that there are rules to follow and I am well aware of the burden that sometimes exists. But I know that Defra and other departments are trying to reduce that burden. It is not our intention simply to place burdens on businesses, whether they are run by farmers or anyone else. But I would certainly encourage people to use every possible avenue that is available. It is only by doing so that a case can ever be made for either extending or renewing a scheme.
That point was raised earlier in the debate on sports clubs and charities. A facility, put in place in finance legislation by the Chancellor, is already available, but clubs are not taking advantage of it at anything like the rate that we expected. It benefits a person's case if he can say why he is not doing that. In this case, I would encourage farmers to take maximum advantage of the available rules. Only in that way can a case be made for extending schemes if that is considered appropriate in due course.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Indeed, I want to record my thanks to him from the time when I first took on this brief. He held a similar brief in another place and I have always been grateful to him for the help and assistance that he gave then. He will remember that days spent in opposition are not the easiest.

947
With regard to businesses which come together and form working co-operatives, since the Minister's time at the helm in another place things have moved on and we are grateful for that. I believe that noble Lords on all sides will welcome this move. I shall shortly be going to Kent to visit a group of people in the soft fruit industry. They are doing a very good job but they certainly would not qualify for this scheme because, together, they have become a large business. I am not talking about "big business", as the noble Lord might recognise. I would like to see those businesses take maximum advantage of the scheme. However, as I said, the difficulty is that in some cases it is down to the local authority to interpret whether a business qualifies.
Unfortunately, my papers which are relevant to this matter are upstairs, and tonight is not the moment to go into individual cases. However, it may be helpful to the noble Lord if I send him a copy of them. They may give him a slightly better understanding of why businesses are considered and helped in some cases but not in others. That is really down to local authorities. In putting forward these amendments, I was trying to instil a little uniformity without becoming too rigid. Perhaps I have not picked quite the right wording which would be suitable for tonight. I have looked at the rate relief Act 2001 and realise that it is time limited. I am grateful to hear that that might be extended. However, as the noble Lord said, that will depend on circumstances at the time.
I am grateful that the noble Lord realises that I am trying to prime new businesses to get them off the ground and not trying to pull favours for others who have got beyond that point and are well able to stand on their own feet. We all realise that things have been difficult out in the rural communities. However, in some ways it is an exciting time. Many of our new small businesses arc rural. The help that has been made available to them has been of great value and those businesses, in turn, employ others.
I thank the Minister for his response. I shall certainly let him have the relevant paperwork to try to highlight the difficulties that are seen, particularly by the National Farm Attractions Network because there is a real practical problem out there. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59F not moved.]
Clause 71 [Local retention of rates]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 35, line 24, after "fit" insert "after consultation with all interested parties"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a small amendment which seeks to ensure that proper consultation takes place on the local retention of rates. It is a probing amendment to see what the Minister thinks would be carried out before any deductions are made with the purpose of the authorities retaining part
948
or all of the local rates. It is a question of a response on the consultation and who that would be with. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall be brief but, I hope, helpful. As the noble Baroness said, this is a small amendment, but perfectly formed and identical to one proposed in Grand Committee. It is a helpful amendment because it enables us to say what we are up to.
On 4th July the Government published a substantial consultation document on the principles and concepts that will guide the design of the scheme to be made under the powers in this clause. That document was called Local Authority Business Growth Incentives—a Consultation Paper. Copies of that are being sent to the noble Baronesses who participated in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. That document specifically promises further consultation next year on the secondary legislation. So, there will he ample consultation.
We believe that the issue of the present consultation document and the commitment to further consultation match the concerns that the noble Baroness expressed quite properly here tonight and also in Grand Committee about the need to consult on this very important issue. It is there; there is a commitment to it for the next year and we do not believe that statutory consultation should be built into legislation to take account of every change, however minor. I hope that that satisfies the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that response. The problem about this, as always, is that legislation is taking place in advance of consultation and therefore one cannot possibly have access to people's views before the legislation is discussed by Parliament. But that may be helpful in my next amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 35, line 34, at end insert—
"(4E) Notwithstanding the provision of section 143 of the 1988 Act (orders and regulations), no rules may be made under subparagraph (4A) unless a draft of the regulations containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this will be as helpful to the Minister as the last amendment, when we discussed consultation in relation to the local retention of rates, which I am bound to say is welcome. I do not dispute the clause; I am just trying to improve it. Also, because we have so far not had any detailed briefing on what people feel about this and how it should be carried out, it seems to us that after that has happened. further action should be taken under the auspices of the House and draft regulations which are approved by resolution of each House. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again the amendment was proposed in Grand Committee. My response will be similar. I shall simply remind the noble Baroness that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the delegated powers contained in the Bill. It did not recommend the change that the amendment requires.
As with Amendment No. 60—I appreciate they are both helpful amendments—the important point is that we have already published a substantial public consultation document, and we have specifically promised further consultation on the secondary legislation next year. So it is built in. There will be ample opportunity for interested parties, including I am sure the noble Baroness herself and her colleagues, to give us their views before regulations are made. We shall be very interested in those views. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will want to ensure that the LGA and all others give us their views on these matters. I welcome the noble Baroness's support for the principle of the retention or part retention of business rates.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I have great regard for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has not picked this issue up, but sometimes one feels that it might just have overlooked something, so we try to put it in. Anyway, I note what the Minister says. I do not intend to pursue the matter. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 37, line 13, at end insert—
"(10) No rule made under this section shall increase the individual liability for non-domestic rates of any ratepayer.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not want to labour the point too much. However, because of the way in which the amendments are laid out, inevitably this consultation paper is causing me some concern. It arises on this amendment and indeed to some extent on the next one. As we are legislating at this stage without having dealt with that consultation, the amendment really seeks to find out whether the Government are considering any direct support to authorities which have a low business rate tax base. I understand that that is implied in the Government's written statement, which is presumably in the consultation paper. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I could tell the noble Baroness what the impact would be of her amendment, but I am not sure that that would be terribly helpful. That is not really the point she is on. My note does not really cover that point. She wants to find out whether there will be compensation to local authorities. I cannot answer the noble Baroness on that point. I have checked with my very wise and noble
950
friend Lord Rooker. He is also unaware of the answer to it. So we are both a little in the dark. In those circumstances, we had better—
Baroness Wilcox: Give in!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Certainly not. We had better go away and think about the matter. As a general rule, it would be unlikely. What I can say that is positive, is that—and it relates to individual businesses which is actually the issue—no business will pay more non-domestic rates through this scheme. In addition, there is no way under the scheme that it could be increased directly. That is the point so far as businesses are concerned. Whether there will be compensation through the local authority route, which I think was what the noble Baroness was seeking, I shall have to obtain some further responses and will probably have to write to the noble Baroness on the issue. So I am very grateful to her.
Baroness Hamwee: Keep going!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall attempt to extemporise some more. One point that needs to be made is that the amendment could have inadvertently prohibited the scheme encouraging business growth. Of course none of us would want to see that happen.
I can also advise the noble Baroness—I need to be clear on this—that all authorities with a diminishing rate base will benefit from this provision. I think that that was partly what the noble Baroness was after, so that saves a whole letter and the machinery of government will whirr that much more efficiently as a result. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister's advisers' brains whirr more quickly than do ours. That probably answers exactly what I was asking about, which concerned where the rateable base was decreasing, as opposed to rising—where the local retention of rates will be applicable.
I shall read what the Minister said in reply and ensure that it is entirely appropriate, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Provision of. Information]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 38, line 45. leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66. The amendments deal with the provision of information to the valuation officer regarding discretion on levying penalties. Each year, valuation officers request more than 250,000 rent return forms from ratepayers. In the five-yearly revaluation exercises, that quantity increases even further as valuation officers seek to assess the correct rateable value of the 1.7 million non-domestic ratepayers in England and Wales.
Until the Bill, a criminal penalty for non-provision of information required by the Valuation Office Agency has existed. That is now to be replaced by a civil penalty system, which is a welcome but slightly overdue move. The former system had not been revoked by the Valuation Office Agency, due to its draconian and entirely inappropriate criminal procedure. Welcome though the new civil system is, it introduces a large degree of discretion for valuation officers. That should be matched by appropriate guidance set by the Secretary of State, which would reassure ratepayers and professional advisers about the approach to be taken by valuation officers to levying penalties for non-return of requested information.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested that as there had been little problem with the old system of requesting information, there would be little difficulty with the new system. However, it will now be more tempting for valuation officers to use the easier system of civil penalties. That may occur where the ratepayer has missed deadlines or requests for information for plausible reasons. The amendments are therefore intended to prompt the Minister to provide ratepayers and professional advisers with the reassurance that they seek with respect to the new civil penalty path that will be open to valuation officers once the Bill is approved by Parliament and brought into force. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 73 amends the 1988 Act by removing the criminal penalty for non-return of information requested by the Valuation Office Agency. The noble Baroness clearly understands that we have shifted to a civil penalty; I welcome her support for that. If a greater number of returns are received and are fully completed, the resultant rateable values on a revaluation are likely to be more accurate. We believe that that will benefit all.
Currently, occupiers are required to return information within 21 days or risk criminal prosecution. That is felt to be an inappropriate sanction and one that has been often ignored. Historically, few properly completed forms were returned. The clause changes the sanction from a criminal to a civil penalty and—helpfully, I think—extends the time allowed. We hope that that will ensure a better response rate and provide a more appropriate penalty.
The amendment would oblige the valuation tribunal to remit any penalty if the appellant is successful in an appeal explaining his reason for not supplying the information. That provision is contained in paragraph 5C(6). We must leave the discretion with the valuation tribunal. If the circumstances of a case are such that the tribunal feels that penalties ought to be waived or reduced, it can do so. It ought to have discretion as to how it acts. It should not be under a duty to waive or reduce penalties in all cases. For example, there may be circumstances in which a tribunal decides that, although there was a reasonable excuse, it did not
952
cover the whole time before the information was provided to the Valuation Office and that the penalty should be charged.
Amendment No. 64 gives the valuation officer power to mitigate or appeal any penalty. That is already covered by paragraph 5B. There is nothing to stop a valuation officer waiving or remitting a penalty if a settlement has been reached, even if the person has started appeal proceedings already. The appeal can be withdrawn, and the matter would be completed. The amendment is not necessary, as the matter is already covered.
Amendment No. 65 would remove the power to increase or decrease the amount of the penalty. It is obvious that over time it might be necessary to review the penalty. We have already amended the Bill in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the noble Baroness believes is a wonderful institution—we all believe that. It provides sufficient safeguards when introducing any changes to the penalty while enabling the penalty to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. We have covered that very much as the noble Baroness seeks.
Amendment No. 66 would introduce legislation to ensure that any notice must comply with guidance published after formal consultation. That would effectively make guidance statutory. We think that it is not necessary. The Valuation Office Agency will seek to apply a consistent approach to the implemenlation of the new provisions across all its offices. It is currently in discussion with interested parties on the guidance that it will use. It is hoped that those discussions will be concluded soon, once the legislation is in place. Then the agency will publish the guidance on its website, in accordance with normal practice. The guidance will be transparent, visible and accessible by anyone who wishes to find out how valuation officers implement the new provisions.
The points raised in the amendments are all covered. I hope that, as a result, the noble Baroness has greater confidence and
reassurance.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. It is helpful that the guidance will be published and that it will be accessible. The main purpose of the amendments was to ensure that there was guidance. I thank the Minister for his reassurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Second and empty homes: England]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 40, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) No dwelling may be prescribed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above on the grounds that it is unoccupied if the owner or occupier is a sick or disabled person who is resident in a hospital, hospice, residential care home or nursing home.
( ) No discount may be removed from a mentally or physically disabled person under this section on the grounds that a dwelling is unoccupied if it is unoccupied by reason of long-term illness or infirmity."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns to a matter that we discussed briefly in Committee. It is a matter of considerable importance, so we wish to raise it again. The amendment relates to the discounts that local authorities can implement. A local authority should not be able to make any determination under this provision where a property is unoccupied simply because its owner or occupier is sick or disabled and resident in a hospital, hospice, residential care home or nursing home. We can all think of examples where people have had to make serious determinations about relatives living away from home and need time to consider the matter. We propose that, while an owner or occupier is in an establishment or sick, they should not be subject to determination under these provisions.
Equally, in the second part of the amendment, we propose that, on grounds of long-term illness or infirmity, there should be no determination in the case where someone is living away from home or in a hospital because they are physically or mentally disabled. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that a decent amount of time is given to people who must make decisions on behalf of others about such matters, including, perhaps, whether a house should be sold. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I can satisfy the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which are legitimate but complicated points relating to local government finance.
Clause 76 inserts a new Section 1 IA into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to allow a billing authority to reduce or end the 50 per cent council tax discount for classes of unoccupied dwellings prescribed in regulations. Amendment No. 67 appears to be an attempt to prevent the nationally set second homes and long-term empty homes discounts being charged in relation to property left unoccupied due to the long-term illness or infirmity of the owner or person who would otherwise have occupied it, or that person's residence in a hospital, hospice, residential care home or nursing home where he is sick or disabled.
The amendment is unnecessary and partly unhelpful. When a dwelling is left unoccupied because the owner or tenant who previously lived there now has his sole or main residence in a hospital, care home, independent hospital or hostel, or in another place for the purpose of receiving personal care required by him for a number of specified reasons, including disablement and illness, such a dwelling is exempt from council tax under either class E or class I of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. There is no 50 per cent discount to remove in such cases because no council tax is actually payable.
The powers conferred by Clause 76 to allow authorities to reduce or remove the 50 per cent discount are irrelevant when the dwelling is exempt and not currently subject to the 50 per cent discount. However, a person may leave what was previously his
954
sole main residence to live and receive care in a hospital, care home or similar establishment. If that person also owns a second home or another property which is a long-term empty home that was not previously their sole main residence, which is currently subject to a 50 per cent discount, we see no reason for special treatment of that second or long-term empty home.
As the law currently stands, no council tax discount is available on a person's property because the owner or occupier is in hospital for a short period. Our view is that if people are in hospital only for a short time, it is only fair that they continue to contribute to the cost of local services through the council tax on their home. As there is currently no 50 per cent discount in such cases, the powers in Clause 76 to reduce the 50 per cent discount are entirely irrelevant, as, with respect. is Amendment No. 67.
However, we are giving billing authorities the flexibility to introduce local discounts and exemptions in Clause 77. It would be open to individual billing authorities to choose to give a discount in individual cases of hardship. I do not think we should change the rules at a national level to automatically exclude from council tax liability people going into hospital for short periods regardless of their means.
It is good and bad, but we think that the amendment is unnecessary, even though it was put forward with the best of intentions. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that reassuring response. The problem that we foresaw, without appreciating the other regulations, is that people sometimes go into residential care for quite a long time and never actually return to their homes. It would clearly be inappropriate if decisions were taken to stop or reduce a discount in those circumstances. However, as I understand it, the Minister has said that, under class E regulations. those people are automatically exempt from council tax, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 41, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) Any additional revenues received by a local authority as a result of a determination under this section shall be retained by that authority and must be reinvested in housing or related environmental policies."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the discount money that is raised from second homes and empty homes, including the extra discount that will be raised. It would ensure that any extra revenue received by local authorities as a result of changes to the regime for second homes and empty homes is retained by the local authority concerned and then ring-fenced to be spent on housing, or related environmental issues.
It is an eminently sensible amendment. The local authority will have, and be able to keep—certainly in respect of second homes—the revenue raised as a

955
result of the reduction in the discount. Perhaps, the money from empty homes could be added to that. As things stand, it is expected that the money will be given to the Exchequer.
There is too much in the Bill that gives the Government what the Minister beguilingly but not always convincingly calls "reserve powers". Among those reserve powers are a range of powers to interfere with the finances of local authorities. It would be right to say that there is still an air of suspicion among local authorities about the Government's intentions. The amendment would remove any scintilla of doubt about what local authorities can do with the revenue raised from the discounts.
As a quid pro quo, we suggest that the authority should spend an amount equivalent to the extra revenue on housing. After all, second homes are typically common in areas where there are difficulties in finding affordable housing. Often, they are in areas where there are local people who should receive housing and where the money could be used to tackle environmental issues. As well as environmental projects, there are infrastructure projects that may open the way to more housing—reclamation of roads,
transport improvements or landscaping to allow limited development in an otherwise sensitive area.
I believe that that represents a sensible balance. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the proposal that the authority should retain the revenues has our complete support. However, I hesitate over the second part of the noble Baroness's amendment. We would support reinvestment in housing and spending on environmental projects, but we would not support the ring-fencing of moneys to do so. The Government have made a good deal of the fact that they are trying to reduce ring-fencing. We should not encourage them to go the other way.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, the prime purpose of Clause 76 is to introduce new Section 11A into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to allow a billing authority to reduce or end the 50 per cent council tax discount for classes of unoccupied dwellings prescribed in regulations. Amendment 67A would ensure that any extra revenue raised would have to be spent on housing or related environmental policies.
Our policy is clear. I know that it is a bit of a mantra, but I must say that the Bill is about freedoms and flexibilities, de-regulation for local authorities—a bonfire of regulations—and more freedom for local authorities than they ever thought they would get. I repeat that because it is not an unimportant point, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said in moving her amendment.
Last November, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, Nick Raynsford, said that local authorities should retain the additional revenue generated by the reduction in the current 50 per cent discount on second homes but not when they reduced
956
or removed the 50 per cent discount on long-term empty property. We do not think that we should tell authorities what they should do with the extra revenue which is generated from reducing the second homes discount. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents to our November 2001 consultation exercise agreed that there should be local retention with freedom to spend on local priorities. That 72 per cent, I hate to say—well, I am pleased to say in a way—included the Local Government Association Conservative Group. Its response dated 31st January 2002 stated:
"Conservative attitudes towards local government must always presume 'freedoms' for local government—freedom from ring fenced funding and freedom to raise and spend income according to local needs".
We believe that local authorities should he free to choose whether they wish to have a lower council tax than otherwise would be the case or invest in services. If it is the latter, it is for elected local government to determine priorities. That is a fair point to make. While affordable housing may be a priority in one area, it may not always be the case. There are not many areas of the country where the need for affordable housing is not a high priority. I accept that. We think that it is right for local authorities to have that freedom and flexibility.
The money from empty homes is kept by local government at national level and redistributed. It is not kept by the Government. I make that absolutely clear because otherwise it gives a false impression to assume that it just goes into the Treasury and gets lost; it is redistributed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Minister says "redistributed", does that mean the money forms part of the revenue support grant?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes. The money is redistributed from central government to local government. I suppose that it would get lost in terms of tracking where it actually is, but it does not get lost completely. It is redistributed back to local government. Let us face it, I do not know what the figure is but some 70 to 80 per cent of local government expenditure is financed from central government. That is what the revenue support grant is all about. It is worth something like £30 billion—or more than £30 billion. It is a huge sum of money. This money would be part of that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, not exactly, because clearly it will not be an additional sum. It is going to be incorporated into the revenue support grant and used to dent the amount of money that the Government have to provide. So it is not truly coming back to local government, it is coming back as part of the revenue settlement. As that is not really what I raised, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having answered that. I am also pleased to have given him the opportunity to place on record what the Local Government Association Conservative Group thought. It is always refreshing that he should know the details of what is put forward. The Minister's eyes are everywhere, and that is such a good thing.

957
The main burden is that the 50 per cent raised on second homes should be kept by the local authority. If it wants to spend it on housing or on related environmental issues it is entitled to do so. In that case, I shall leave it to the good sense of local government to decide what it wants to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 41, line 6, at end insert—
"(2) For section 12 of that Act (discounts: special provision for Wales) there is substituted—

Local Government Bill

  12 DISCOUNTS: SPECIAL PROVISION FOR WALES
  (1) The National Assembly for Wales may for any financial year by regulations prescribe one or more classes of dwelling in Wales for the purposes of subsection (3) or (4) below.

  (2) A class of dwellings may be prescribed under subsection (1) above by reference to such factors as the Assembly sees fit and may, in particular, be prescribed by reference to—

  (a) the physical characteristics of dwellings, or

  (b) the fact that dwellings are unoccupied.

  (3) For any financial year for which a class of dwellings is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, a billing authority in Wales may by determination provide in relation to all dwellings of that class in its area, or in such part of its area as it may specify in the determination, that the discount under section 11(2)(a) shall be such lesser percentage of at least 10 as it may so specify.

  (4) For any financial year for which a class of dwellings is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, a billing authority in Wales may by determination provide in relation to all dwellings of that class in its area, or in such part of its area as it may specify in the determination—

  (a) that the discount under section 11(2)(a) above shall not apply, or

  (b) that the discount under that provision shall be such lesser percentage as it may so specify.

  (5) A billing authority may make a determination varying or revoking a determination under subsection (3) or (4) for a financial year, but only before the beginning of the year.

  (6) A billing authority which makes a determination under this section shall publish a notice of it in at least one newspaper circulating in its area and do so before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the determination.

  (7) Failure to comply with subsection (6) above shall not affect the validity of a determination."

  (3) Where immediately before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force regulations under section 12(1) of that Act are in force which apply in relation to a financial year beginning on or after that day, the regulations, so far as relating to such a financial year, shall on and after that day have effect as if—

  (a) they were made under section 12(1) of that Act as substituted by this section, and

  (b) each class of dwellings which they prescribe were prescribed for the purposes of section 12(4) of that Act as so substituted.

  (4) Where immediately before that day a determination under section 12(1) of that Act is in force which applies in relation to a financial year beginning on or after that day, the determination, so far as relating to such a financial year, shall on and after that day have effect as if made under section 12(4) of that Act, as substituted by this section, in relation to the whole of the area of the authority which made the determination.

  958

  (5) In its application by virtue of subsection (4), a determination under section 12(1) of that Act shall have effect—

  (a) if it provided for section 12(2) of that Act to have effect in substitution for section 11(2)(a) of that Act, as if it provided for the discount under that provision to be twenty-five per cent.;

  (b) if it provided for section 12(3) of that Act to have effect in substitution for section 11(2)(a) of that Act, as if it provided for the discount under that provision not to apply."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we heard a compelling story from my noble friend Lady Gale at Second Reading that there was real concern in Wales that if we passed Clause 76, Welsh authorities would have a less flexible power to change council tax discounts on second homes than we were proposing to give English authorities. My noble friend Lord Morgan spoke to amendments in Committee which sought to rectify that.
  We have reflected carefully on what my noble friends said about two parts of the legislation and have concluded that we should move government amendments to give effect to their arguments. Amendment No. 68 is the principal amendment which would replace the existing provision in Wales and give the National Assembly for Wales the same ability as we are giving the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of dwellings where billing authorities can reduce or remove the nationally set discounts.
  Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the new Section 12 to be inserted into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 by Amendment No. 68 are transitional provisions. They preserve in force the effect of existing regulations prescribing classes of dwellings for which Welsh billing authorities can reduce the 50 per cent discount to 25 per cent or zero and preserve the effect of any existing determinations to reduce discounts made by Welsh authorities. While new Clause 76 will give Welsh authorities greater flexibility, these transitional provisions will ensure that those authorities are not forced to take new decisions if they would not have decided differently under the new powers.
  The other amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 82, are consequential on Amendment No. 68. A particular point to note is that Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 92 and 93 amend Clause 127 so that the National Assembly for Wales can choose when to commence these new powers in Wales. Amendment No. 82 is merely a consequential amendment on Clause 76 itself to ensure that in England, any reduction on the council tax liability under regulations made under Section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, such as reductions for disabilities, are additional to any discounts made under Section 11A inserted by Clause 76.
  I hope that my remarks have made the position clear and I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am absolutely fascinated by this entire new clause being introduced under Amendment No. 68. It is immaculate and that is all down to the parliamentary draftsmen. It just goes

  959
  to show what an advantage it is to be in government rather than in opposition. One can lay one's hands on people who are able to undertake this marvellous work. It is too good to leave unremarked.
  I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is not in her place. As long as the Welsh authorities are not gaining any advantage over that being offered to those in the rest of the United Kingdom, although I suppose that we have to exclude Scotland, then probably we have no objection to this immaculate new clause. I thank the Minister for his explanation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 41, line 6, at end insert—
  "( ) If a billing authority makes a determination under this section, it shall be disregarded for the purposes of distributing revenue support grant to receiving authorities under section 78 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;c. 41) (revenue support grant)."
  The noble Baroness said: Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. These amendments were debated in Grand Committee. The order of names to the amendment was different at that point. We do not intend to steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—she moved the amendments on the last occasion—but it is a matter about which we, the noble Baroness and the Local Government Association feel strongly.
  The LGA has said that it is disappointed that the Government have decided that the money raised by removing the discount on long-term empty properties will be paid to the Secretary of State, although I note of course what the Minister has said about it being redistributed. The association considers that to be inconsistent with statements made previously. When they announced the welcome changes in this area, the Government had said that local communities would benefit from improvements in local services such as more affordable housing.
  The LGA has made the very credible point that bringing long-term empty properties back into use can be a resource- intensive process. There is the question of tracing the owners of the property. Sometimes owners hold out for a long-term redevelopment opportunity and then hope to sell the property on for a large profit. If the additional council tax raised was retained at the local level without ring-fencing, it could be used to help councils develop and fund an active empty properties strategy to tackle the problem.
  Of course the Government have recently provided guidance on empty properties in the form of a handbook entitled Empty Property: Unlocking the Potential. My noble friend Lady Maddock, who has had to leave, said that she wished she was half as skilled as the draftsmen who prepared Amendment No. 68, in which case she would have tabled an amendment to the effect that an authority could keep the money if it had in place a good empty homes strategy and perhaps an empty homes officer. She has asked me to pass on her plea that the Government might seriously consider bringing forward an amendment to that effect if they are unwilling to accept the broader issue.
  When we debated the matter in Grand Committee, the Minister said that the Government want to persuade authorities to reduce or end the discount on long-term empty properties,
  "on housing and planning grounds and not for financial reasons".—[Official Report, 16/6/03. col. GC21 5.)
  We agree that that is inherently an important issue but, as the LGA explained, it is not inexpensive. The Government may not want to give local authorities a financial incentive but they should ensure that they are not providing a disincentive.
  I note the Minister's comments about redistributing the money, but we are seeking freedom and flexibility in totality, not only part way. He referred to the money being difficult to track when it is redistributed. That is one of the issues. Although we may all refer to additionality, it is often very difficult to pin down and for people to see that it is there. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, to some extent the discussion on these amendments was pre-empted by the debates on earlier amendments. The Minister's reply that this money will not be additional will cause concern. It was said rather as an aside, but we need to get into the open the fact that the money raised from the policy of no discounts on empty homes will go to the Exchequer. As the Minister said, it will be "repatriated" within the revenue support grant. In fact, it will not be repatriated; it will be dissected and sent back in little bits not necessarily relating to the amount raised in any particular area.
  As the noble Baroness said, this will provide no incentive for local authorities to introduce an empty homes strategy. If a local authority can identify how much it is achieving by bringing empty homes back into use—which is what it will do if it does not have a discount—that will have a far greater effect than any money raised being swept off into the Treasury and then parcelled out as part of the revenue support grant.
  Amendment No. 70 is extremely important to local authorities and the way in which they will set about dealing with their empty homes strategy. Many local authorities have empty properties for all kinds of reasons. Where people have been able to get in and get the empty property shifted, one of the sustainable communities proposals is that local authorities should be almost able to confiscate empty homes and get them back on to the market.
  As it is obviously a clear policy of the Government that empty homes should not be allowed to sit and fester and prevent people living in them—it is not one with which we disagree—there will have to he other incentives.
  I support both amendments to which my name is attached, as I did in Committee. I am concerned about the Minister's response that the money will not be additional. In our view the money should be left with the local authority that raises it and brings the homes back into the system.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 76 inserts a new Section 11A into the Local Government

  961
  Finance Act 1992 to allow a billing authority to reduce or end the 50 per cent council discount for classes of unoccupied dwellings prescribed in regulations. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 seek, in slightly different ways, to ensure that any extra revenue raised would be kept by local authorities and disregarded for determining financial support for the authorities concerned.
  I want to make a clear statement of government policy so that we can set out our view logically. We have said we will allow local authorities to retain the money from reducing the second homes discount but not from reducing or removing the long-term empty homes discount. We do not require any primary legislation to give effect to our policy.
  For revenue support grant purposes, we will continue to calculate the tax base as if there were no determination in respect of second homes, prescribed as a class under Section 11A(3), inserted by Clause 76. In other words, we propose to calculate revenue support grant on the basis that the 50 per cent discount continues for second homes. And we will make no change in respect of long-term empty property, so that as the tax base goes up, this will automatically be reflected in the grant calculations.
  We have heard a great deal about local authorities keeping the money from charging more council tax on empty homes. But we are concerned that this would create what is probably best described as a perverse incentive to keep property empty. A local authority would retain the resources only if the property continued to be unoccupied, and so success by its empty homes service in getting domestic property back into use would effectively reduce the amount of income it would get. That does not seem sensible. We have said on a number of occasions that we think the decision to change the discount on long-term empty property should be taken on housing grounds and not because it raises more money for the authority.
  Further to Amendment No. 68, in Wales, billing authorities have for a number of years been able to reduce from 50 per cent to 25 per cent the discount for classes of dwellings prescribed under Section 12 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Amendment No. 68 has extended to Welsh authorities the discretion conferred by Clause 76 on English authorities, as I explained earlier.
  Amendment No. 69 would require the National Assembly for Wales to treat the dwellings as if they were still subject to the 50 per cent discount. At present, where Welsh billing authorities reduce the 50 per cent discount to 25 per cent or zero under Section 12 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, this is taken into account to reduce Welsh authorities' relative shares of revenue support grant. Arguably, Amendment No. 69 runs contrary to the devolution settlement in so far as revenue support grant is a matter devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.
  I hope that the explanation addresses the issue that the noble Baroness raised about empty properties. Like her, the Government want to ensure that empty
  962
  properties are brought back into use. However, she has to address the issue of the potential for the perverse incentive to keep properties empty.
  As a former local authority leader responsible for housing, I think any good local authority, regardless of financial benefits, should have in place a sound strategy—they are obliged, I think, to do so—to deal with bringing empty homes back into use. We all support that; I know that noble Lords and Baronesses on the Benches opposite have supported various schemes to ensure that empty properties are brought back into use. That was the spirit behind much of the legislation to deregulate the private rented sector. I know, too, that the "above the shop" schemes for bringing flats back into use and many other empty homes strategies have all-party support.
  I do not think these amendments are the appropriate way in which to deal with the issue. Pursuing the issue in the way in which these amendments seek to do could have a perverse impact. I cannot believe that the amendments would have quite the dramatic impact in that policy area that has been claimed for them this evening.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, surely this is against the spirit of the legislation to allow more freedom for local authorities when it comes to raising council tax. One is assuming the worst about local authorities—one is assuming they will want to pursue a perverse course. We all want to make certain that empty homes are reoccupied unless the people who own them want to keep them empty.
  Surely we are still acting against the spirit of the Bill in allowing local authorities to have more flexibility in the latter. If the money that is raised in this regard is taken into account in the grant calculations, that takes away the freedom that we thought we were giving local authorities. I am still not clear about the Government's policy with regard to the percentage of council tax that local authorities raise that they are allowed to keep.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has listened carefully throughout the debates that we had on Second Reading, in Grand Committee and on Report. I have made it clear, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has made it very clear, that we are in this piece of legislation going through an extensive deregulatory process. The noble Lord seems to be conflating two issues. Is he having a go at the Bill for not being deregulatory enough, or is he having a go at the particular provision and claiming that it is not helping with respect to bringing empty homes into use? What argument is he seeking to rely on?
  I believe that we are being deregulatory in general. The noble Lord should think about the strange nature of the amendment that we are discussing and its potential perversity. He ought to read Hansard very carefully. I heard what was said about the LGA being

  963
  unhappy but probably on reflection, when it thinks about the way in which these matters might work, it may well see the strength of our argument.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, it is a consistent theme throughout the legislation that freedom is given but then part of it is taken away. It is a theme that I have tried to illustrate during the course of our debates.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wrote down the word "spirit" just before the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to the spirit of the Bill. I do not think that it is inconsistent to run both arguments.
  I wish to make it clear that of course we support bringing empty properties back into use for their own sake. I said that I agreed that that was inherently important when I introduced the amendments we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the amendments would not have quite the dramatic impact that we might think. If so, I cannot resist the temptation to ask what he is worried about.
  964
  I turn to the issue of a perverse incentive. Housing is rather like a set of dominoes in that if stock is scarce, that has a knock-on effect along the line. At some point further along that line, a local authority will become involved with the needs of people who might have been housed if there were more housing in use. I suspect that the cost of providing housing is a good deal higher for a local authority than the rates that it might get through the mechanism we are discussing. Therefore, I do not buy the perverse incentive argument. However, I shall be interested to see what the LGA has to say when it has read the debate this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  The Attorney-General: Review of Constitutional Powers
  The Attorney-General: Review of Constitutional Powers
  The Lord Chancellor: Ecclesiastical Patronage
  The Lord Chancellor: Ecclesiastical Patronage
  The Lord Chancellor: Duties
  The Lord Chancellor: Duties
  The Lord Chancellor: Transfer of Functions
  The Lord Chancellor: Transfer of Functions
  Judicial Appointments: Diversity
  Judicial Appointments: Diversity
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Ministerial Overseas Visits
  Ministerial Overseas Visits
  Crown Prosecution Service: Deaths in Custody
  Crown Prosecution Service: Deaths in Custody
  Serious Fraud Office: Annual Report
  Serious Fraud Office: Annual Report
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Iraq: Suspected Vehicles
  Iraq: Suspected Vehicles
  Armed Forces: Suicide
  Armed Forces: Suicide
  Iraq: Interpreters
  Iraq: Interpreters
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  RAF Fylingdales: Early Warning Radar System
  RAF Fylingdales: Early Warning Radar System
  Sponsored Reserves
  Sponsored Reserves
  Armed Forces: Initial Training
  Armed Forces: Initial Training
  Iraq: Multinational Division
  Iraq: Multinational Division
  Gulf War Veterans: Mortality Figures
  Gulf War Veterans: Mortality Figures
  Local Authority Funding
  Local Authority Funding
  Consanguinity
  Consanguinity
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Health Professions Council
  Health Professions Council
  Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities
  Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Section 3A
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Section 3A
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  NHS Direct: Digital Television Service
  NHS Direct: Digital Television Service
  Alcohol Advertising
  Alcohol Advertising
  Euthanasia
  Euthanasia
  Medical Devices: Fire Safety
  Medical Devices: Fire Safety
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report
  CJD Surveillance Unit: Annual Report
  CJD Surveillance Unit: Annual Report
  Clinical Trials Directive
  Clinical Trials Directive
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Report
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Report
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Forward Look 2003
  Forward Look 2003
  High Court Writ Enforcement
  High Court Writ Enforcement
  Pensions and Benefits: Collection at Post Offices
  Pensions and Benefits: Collection at Post Offices
  Licensing Act 2003: Section 4
  Licensing Act 2003: Section 4
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Agricultural Commodities: EU Exports to Moldova
  Agricultural Commodities: EU Exports to Moldova