Sitting of 17 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 2003, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 2003 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 18 June 2003.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What assessment she has made of the prospects for reform of the common agricultural policy (a) sugar and (b) rice regimes. [126277]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Following the very successful outcome of last month's CAP reform negotiations in Luxembourg, which included agreement on a new rice regime, we are awaiting the promised Commission review of the sugar regime.
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Andy Lebrecht and the agricultural specialists in my right hon. Friend's Department deserve our congratulations on their achievements in the latest CAP reform round. Congratulations are also due to Commissioner Fischler and his team of officials, 'who held out for a fair and rational approach to reform. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, more remains to be done, especially on the sugar and rice regimes. The current sugar regime, which is a
    420
    protectionist regime that relies on exports and refunds, and passes the cost of the regime on to the consumer, is indefensible. May I urge my right hon. Friend not to give up on the United Kingdom's endeavour to have that iniquitous regime reformed?
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will pass on his remarks to our officials. I share his view that this is a major achievement for Commissioner Fischler, without whose determination the scale of reform would not have been achieved.
    Our capacity to get agreement and to negotiate in the Agriculture Council is much assisted by the respect and affection that my right hon. Friend engendered and the relationships that he built, on which foundation we were able to build. He is right to say that reform of the sugar regime remains an important priority. We anticipate that Commissioner Fischler will come forward with further proposals, perhaps in September. I share my right hon. Friend's view, as, I hope, does the whole House. that that regime is in great need of reform. I would go so far as to say that although it will not be an easy process, and it is one beset by complications and difficulties, the question should be when the sugar regime is reformed, and not if.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that what is distinctive about the sugar regime is not merely its importance for developing country exporters but that the resistance to reform does not come only from the usual suspects in France but from powerful grower and processor interests in the United Kingdom? What assurances can the right hon. Lady give us that she is willing to take on those domestic vested interests in order to open markets?
    Margaret Beckett: Precedent.
    Mr. Andy Reed: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the progress that has been made in CAP reform. We know full well about the difficulties that arise in such negotiations, but is she aware of the desire that the new sugar regime should be brought in as quickly as possible? For those of us who have an interest in the developing world, every day of delay is a disaster for individual farmers and their families. Can she assure the House that she will pursue the matter as quickly as possible? As I have said, every day that passes is a disaster for individuals throughout the world.
    Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues. He is entirely right that the present regime is very damaging. The present European Union price is about three to four times that at world level. He is also right that the regime itself distorts international trade. As the European Union has reached the everything but arms agreement, the end to this issue is bound to come. It is a matter of how we best and most speedily manage the transition. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are strong advocates of reform in that cause.

    Waste Management (Essex)
    Bob Russell: If she will make representations to Essex county council to encourage it to exclude incineration as an option in the county waste management plan. [126278]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): County waste management plans are a matter for the relevant county. It is for it to decide, following consultation, what options to include in line with the waste hierarchy and the best practicable environmental option as set out in Waste Strategy 2000.
    Bob Russell: The Minister will not be surprised to be told that that is the usual answer that we are given. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), for being the best friend that the environmental lobby had—some would say the only friend—in this Government. He was of the view that there is no legal requirement on Essex county council to include incineration in its waste plan. Unfortunately, the Conservative-controlled county council claims that there is. Given the confusion, would the Minister come to county hall, Chelmsford and explain exactly why the scheme is necessary, as his predecessor accepted a similar invitation to do just that?
    Mr. Morley: I must say that I did not notice that in the diary, but of course I will look at that invitation and treat it with respect. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the green lobby is not friendless in the Government. As for whether there is a legal requirement to include incineration in the waste plan, the answer is that there is not. It is something for the waste authorities to look at in relation to the disposal hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. In some circumstances, there may be a case for some form of incineration or thermal treatment—incineration is not the only option. However, the choice of the most appropriate disposal and the most appropriate technology for dealing with waste is a local one.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I tell the Minister that if he is going to Chelmsford, he will not get there without going through Thurrock, where we can show him the wholly unacceptable effects of decades of landfill? All those wretched barges that go past the House are heading to Thurrock with London's waste. The message that I want to give the Minister is that waste must be disposed of in the place where it is produced, not in my backyard or that of my constituents. While I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), anything is better than landfill—the polluter must always pay.
    Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend who makes a persuasive case for going to Thurrock as well.
    In the hierarchy of disposal, landfill is at the very bottom, and should he the last resort. We strongly support the proximity principle of dealing with waste as near as possible to the place where it is generated. However, the key is that there must be a clear policy across the country, and local authorities need to play
    422
    their part in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Central Government will play their part through the implementation of waste programmes, including the waste resources action programme. However, this is about meeting those targets, minimising waste and reducing the amount going to landfill.
    Mr. Speaker: Jerry Wiggin.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Thank you Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the rest of my family—I feel very welcome.
    I have just spoken to Essex county council, and the Minister will be interested to know that it neither promotes nor excludes incineration. I can understand why incineration is such a contentious subject in Essex—nobody wants an incinerator in their backyard. Thanks to the fallen stock directive, there will 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock to incinerate, including 1.3 million adult animals, 2.6 million immature ones, and 36 million poultry. Should not the Minister insist on energy recovery from incineration, which might have a better and more important impact on our environment than the fallen stock directive?
    Mr. Morley: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Opposition Front Bench? I certainly look forward to his contributions in future.
    Incineration is not the only option for dealing with fallen stock, as rendering is another important method. On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman made about incineration, I should say that, occasionally, there may well be a role for it. The UK's incineration capacity may be the lowest in Europe in relation to waste structures, but if incineration or other forms of thermal treatment such as gasification are to be used, I agree that. wherever possible, they should be designed so as to recover heat and energy from waste, particularly in combined cycle processes. That option can certainly be considered. I accept that Essex has not ruled incineration in or out, but the priority is finding the most appropriate way of minimising the amount of waste going to landfill.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Harry Barnes: How many representations she has received in the past month about the operation of the common agricultural policy. [126279]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In the past month there have been 15 meetings and events that I, ministerial colleagues and officials from my Department have attended in which CAP reform has formed a major part of the discussions. Those meetings included individual farmers, farming unions, and environmental, consumer and landowner organisations, as well as Ministers from other countries. We have also received

    423
    around 30 letters and a number of telephone calls from hon. Members and members of the public about CAP reform.
    Mr. Barnes: Following the CAP agreement in Luxemburg, what impact on third world agricultural imports and exports does my right hon. Friend seek from the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico? Will the United States of America be influenced by the position adopted by the European Union and being pressed by the Government?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has already made an offer on the issues of market access and related matters, which lies on the table. The element of the negotiations on the world trade round that had not yet been dealt with was the issue of domestic subsidies, which was subject to the recent reform negotiations. I very much hope, and it will be the negotiating aim of the British Government, to improve the position and the access of developing countries, and to liberalise trade in general. With regard to the United States, I am strongly of the view that it will have been a surprise to all our negotiating partners that the EU has moved so far and made such major changes. We believe that that puts pressure now on others to take heed and similarly to consider what moves they should make to contribute to trade liberalisation, and there is some evidence that such rethinking is going on.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With such advances in the reform of CAP, does the Secretary of State have a vision for the endgame on reform? Could we perhaps look forward to wholesale repatriation of the policy, and, if so, on what time scale?
    Margaret Beckett: If by the wholesale repatriation of the policy the hon. Lady means that there should no longer be a common agricultural policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is no good Opposition Members saying hear, hear. It was not we who brought in the single European market, and it is not possible to have a single European market without having a common agricultural policy. What is important, though, is that the core of that common policy should be much more satisfactory than at present. That is what we have just secured.
    Lawrie Quinn: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from upland farmers, such as those who live and work in my constituency in the North York Moors national park? The reforms could have a considerable impact on those farmers who are on marginal incomes, working on marginal land in remote marginal areas. If she has not received such representations, will she consider coming up to the North York moors and meeting some of my constituents to hear what they think about the proposals?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, as ever. I am mindful of the concerns that he and others raise. It was very much part of our approach to the reform negotiations that we should have the capacity to deal with some of the problems and issues that reform will throw up, and we
    424
    were mindful, as were many other member states, of the impact on those who farm marginal land. My hon. Friend and his constituents will like to know that we are about to launch a consultation exercise in England on the options available to us under the reform agreement, and we expect to follow that up with a more detailed consultation later in the year, when the legal texts are in place and there is more detail on the implications. One of the reasons for seeking, successfully, to negotiate a national envelope was to give us room for manoeuvre to deal with the kind of issue that my hon. Friend raised.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady agree on the importance to farm businesses and others of making sure that there is a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new system of payments? Given that her Department's figures, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), show that the Rural Payments Agency is late this year in dealing with more than 230,000 claims worth more than £95 million, what action is she taking to guarantee that the RPA will be capable of introducing the new system efficiently and on time?
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Although we were a little disappointed in some ways that the initial proposal date for reform in 2004 was postponed until the beginning of 2005, that will help us in securing a greater possibility of smooth transition. We are very mindful of exactly the point that he makes. The RPA has been suffering after the installation of new IT, which was much needed, but has certainly caused difficulties. The staff are working extraordinarily hard to overcome those difficulties, with a certain measure of success. I assure him that it is no wish of mine to see valuable reforms discredited because we cannot introduce them as effectively as we would wish.
    Paddy Tipping: Despite comments from Opposition Members, does the Secretary of State recognise that the significance of the mid-term review is that it gives the UK Government and other partner states more flexibility to meet national need? Will she begin a series of meetings with farmers and landowners, so that they can understand the nature of the reforms and plan their businesses appropriately?
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right that we need to get out as much information as we can as speedily as we can through organisations such as the National Farmers Union and whatever other channels we can use. We shall certainly endeavour to do that. As I said, I have already identified a two-stage consultation process, but one of the potential advantages that we see in the reform proposals is that they will allow us to introduce greatly simplified schemes, so I hope that the issues will not be nearly so difficult to explain.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations she has received on the proposals for rural development policy under the mid-term review of common agricultural policy. [126280]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We received 117 responses to our consultation on the Commission's CAP reform proposals, most of which commented on the rural development aspects. Like ministerial colleagues and officials from the Department, I have had numerous meetings over the past six months with a wide range of stakeholders. CAP reform was a part of those discussions, which included the wider rural dimension.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the new system will be overly bureaucratic and extremely expensive to apply? As the current Administration cannot cope with the present rural payments scheme, how will they cope with the new one, which has to be paid into a central pot from which we will get back only a certain percentage to spend in this country?
    Alun Michael: I should point out to the hon. Lady that, for rural development, the package will mean that more funds have been switched from pillar one to pillar two under EU compulsory modulation. The implementation date has been brought forward a year to 2005 and the UK will get a bigger share of those funds, at about 11 per cent. We are working very hard to try to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that is involved in the England rural development programme. One has to accept that it involves a lot of bureaucracy, but we are trying to do all we can to use the mid-term review as an opportunity to simplify systems.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural development policy should include support for the development of biofuels, not only to give us an environmentally friendly fuel, but to create much-needed new markets for farmers? Does he agree that the key to that support is a reduction in duty rates? Are there any environmental reasons why there is such a large differential in the duty rate reductions given for liquefied petroleum gas and biodiesel?
    Alun Michael: The complexity of my hon. Friend's question illustrates the mixture of issues that this matter involves. I agree that we want to see the promotion of biofuels and ministerial colleagues and I are looking at that issue. Of course, the mixture of technicalities, the question of bringing products to market and tax regimes are all part of the bigger equation.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister will appreciate that, under the mid-term review proposals, some farms will be eligible for all their land to receive payment under the new decoupled arrangements, while others such as those that have mixed arable and horticultural crops will still have to pay for all their environmental responsibilities, but not with money related to their whole cultivable land area. What will be done to respond to the environmental demands of those who produce horticultural crops either on 100 per cent. of their land or part of their land under the new arrangements?
    Alun Michael: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, the choices that farmers made on previous occasions have implications. It is also worth pointing out that the Commission has committed
    426
    itself to making transitional arrangements for member states that are operating voluntary modulation; that should enable the UK to roll out the entry level agri-environment scheme, which is important for the industry as a whole.

    Darwin Mounds
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make a statement on her work with the European Commission to devise measures to protect the Darwin Mounds from damage caused by fishing trawl nets at deep water levels. [126281]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We wrote to the European Commission on 23 June pressing the case for it to introduce emergency measures to close the Darwin Mounds to damaging fishing activities.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is fishery protection going to be afforded this summer and autumn; otherwise, it will be goodbye to the Darwin Mounds?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I share my hon. Friend's frustration with the length of time that it has taken for us to get movement on this. However, I remind him that this is the first time that any member state of the European Union has requested that the Commission use its new powers to protect the marine environment—powers, I might add, that we helped to negotiate in the course of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Following talks in Brussels yesterday involving the head of fisheries in our Department, we are confident that the Commission is taking our request seriously.

    GM Public Debate
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How many individuals have participated in the GM public debate. [126282]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): More than 1,000 individuals participated in the six regional launch events. Many more people have taken part in local meetings or through the debate website. Although we do not have exact figures, more than 17,000 feedback forms have been received so far.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand that only 14,000 feedback forms were published, that is a pretty good result. At least someone is contributing to the debate. What was the tenor of those replies? Did they run in favour of the commercial planting of GM crops?
    In the debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, the Minister was good enough to say that although the GM public debate was coming to an end tomorrow, the public would have a chance to inform the ongoing debate when the results of the field trials and other studies were published in the autumn. Will he say a little more about that?

    427
    Will he explain how it will be possible for consumers to ensure that they do not have to eat GM foods, if that is their choice?
    Mr. Morley: On the latter point, labelling and traceability has to be the key. We are strongly in favour of that, and we welcome the proposals that have been made by the European Union.
    In relation to the ongoing debate, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has agreed to facilitate a public event to provide an opportunity to consider the results of the field-scale evaluations once the Royal Society has evaluated them in September.
    Feedback from the public debate was organised by an independent steering board, and the Government have not had a chance to see the full details. The responses will be presented to the Government in due course; we will of course take very seriously the views that have been registered.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: Given that the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported last week that there is currently no economic case for GM in the UK; given that there are clear health and allergy risks as there have been virtually no health tests on human beings in relation to eating GM food; given that the environmental farm-scale evaluation trials are extremely narrow and limited; given that the Canadian experience shows clearly that GM will wipe out the organic sector—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should be only one question.
    Mr. Meacher rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Morley: I understand the views of my right hon. Friend; we have had the opportunity to discuss them on several occasions. The report that came out of the No. 10 strategy unit was fair, balanced, open and transparent. It made clear, with no illusions, the detailed situation in relation to the economic role of GM crops and public reaction to them.
    In relation to the other issues that my right hon. Friend raised, I promised that I would write to him in some detail. That letter has now been completed, and he will receive it in the next day or two.
    Mr. Robert Key: My understanding of the situation is that the Government do not intend that the debate will be closed down on any particular day; that their purpose is to stimulate the widest possible public debate; and that the only people who are seeking to close down the debate are those whose minds are firmly made up and firmly closed. Can the Minister confirm that?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. As with all issues, some people take polarised positions and are not prepared to listen to the arguments. I do not believe that that applies to the majority of the public, who are interested in this issue and who want to see the arguments for and against. I can confirm that this is an ongoing debate. A whole range of issues must be
    428
    decided, such as the evaluation of the field-scale trials and issues of co-existence and of environmental liability. There will be opportunities for public debate and discussion, and we will ensure that the public get those chances.
    David Taylor: But who will speak for those in the poorest and hungriest countries who feel that, at best, genetic modification is a technological fix that tackles the symptoms of hunger but does nothing to tackle the causes? Is it not the case that the problem—corporate control of the food chain through patents and seed ownership—remains unaddressed?
    Mr. Morley: There are a range of issues relating to developing countries, including the claim that GM technology may offer advantages to them. Such claims should be examined on their merits, and examined critically. I also accept that GM is only one of a number of issues in terms of dealing with the problems of developing countries, and we should take all of those seriously.
    Andrew George: But what is the hurry? The public are at best suspicious, the science is not ready, the supermarkets say that they will not stock the stuff, and it would be a public relations disaster for farmers. Does the Minister agree that these decisions should be based on sound science, not quick, make-do or hasty science? Therefore, what reassurances can he give today that he is prepared to face down the GM and biotech lobby and the United States to ensure that we do not take a decision in haste that we repent at our leisure?
    Mr. Morley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this discussion on GM has been going on for long time. I participated in the debate on introducing the moratorium in 1997–98, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That moratorium has been in place, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops has been set up, and we have had the field-scale evaluations. A lot of hurdles remain to cross before we will be able to consider commercialisation in the UK, so I do not believe that there is a great dash towards GM.
    What we cannot ignore, however, is that GM is a fact of life in large parts of the world. We are in a global market, and we cannot ignore the impact of that, which is why we must consider such matters as labelling, regulation, consumer choice and choice for farmers and processors. We are doing all those things in parallel.
    Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend will know that the science review is part of that public debate. Can he give a date for its publication? Does he agree that it must be seen to be objective and independent? Does he share my concern that the food safety section on GM is being written, so I am told, by a Monsanto employee, who clearly has a direct interest in the industry?
    Mr. Morley: I can tell my hon. Friend that the projected date for publication is September—
    Joan Ruddock: Of the science review?
    Mr. Morley: Sorry, that review is expected to be published between the end of July and the beginning of August. It is true that the science panel has two members who are connected with biotech industries, but I should point out that it consists of 26 people, and that two other members are from non-governmental organisations. The idea is that the scientific panel should offer a balance of views, so that there is a proper. balanced, open and transparent submission that people can consider on its merits.
    Mr. John Hayes: It is difficult to have faith in the Government's policy on GM when the former Minister responsible—a man whom I admire, the whole House admires and the Chancellor, apparently, particularly admires—is so doubtful about it. That right hon. Gentleman has called for sound, independent and thorough research, which is surely a prerequisite of a valid debate and valid conclusions. Will the Minister therefore make all such research that the Government have received available to Members of the House, commission new research when it does not exist, and have a public debate based on that kind of research evidence? If the Government do not do so, people will ask, "What do they have to hide?".
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is getting prematurely paranoid on this issue. I can assure him that all scientific papers and reviews will be made available to the House and to the public at large. The whole idea of the scientific review is to pull together the research that is being done on GMs, and I have made it clear that there will be an ongoing public debate on this issue. People will be free to express their views, as will hon. Members on both sides of the House, according to the procedures of the House. We will take that seriously and, above all, we will make sure that everything that emerges from the research, from public concerns and concerns raised by hon. Members is taken into account in an open and transparent way.

    UK Beef Industry
    Mr. Peter Duncan: If she will make a statement on prospects for the UK beef industry. [126283]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The prospects for UK beef are excellent. The recent recommendation by the Food Standards Agency to phase out the over-30-month rule is a demonstration of high confidence in UK beef. Producer returns are at their highest level since 1995, and CAP reform will simplify support systems and encourage beef farmers to produce what the consumer wants.
    Mr. Duncan: The Minister will be aware that the lifting of the over-30-month scheme will be welcomed by everyone in the UK beef industry, particularly in my constituency. However, the manner in which the scheme
    430
    is to be removed poses a real threat to price stability in the industry, with the threat of a collapse in market price if change is effected too quickly. Some very fragile rural communities face uncertainty once more. Will the Minister commit his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to looking once again into phasing out the scheme over two, three or four years, to provide market stability while ensuring that consumer confidence is maintained?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues. It is clear that a large increase in supplies of beef could cause disruption to the market. We are discussing the implications of changes to the OTM rule with the European Commission, which has primary responsibility for managing the market in the EU. We have also set up a working group with the industry to explore the likely impact on the market of increased supplies of beef and how they can best be managed. So we are addressing the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that to get rid of the over-30-month scheme would be an enormous prize for the whole agricultural industry? We had to introduce it because there was an emergency in people's confidence in food and in animal health. That had the consequence of closing our export markets. It would be absurd if we put the cart before the horse and failed to recognise that getting rid of the scheme would be the greatest vote of confidence that we could possibly give our industry. Will the Minister ensure that, even if there are risks of market disruption, they are balanced against the prize to be seized from the scheme's removal?
    Alun Michael: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The confidence that has been placed in the British beef industry is well merited. When one meets beef producers around the countryside, it is interesting to see that many are now taking the initiative to connect well with their market, not only by producing what consumers want but by getting across to them the quality of the product that they are offering. I agree with the right hon.. Gentleman: we should have confidence in the industry.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has said? It would also be reassuring to know that the Minister was keeping under review the need to continue testing over-30-month beef. In particular, will he also keep under review the costs of those tests?
    Alun Michael: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; we are absolutely committed to that course.

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Gregory Barker: If she will extend the period of the Government-sponsored public debate on genetically modified organisms. [126284]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The public debate was announced last July, and we have already extended the timetable by three months at the

    431
    request of the steering board. The public can, of course, continue to debate the issues surrounding GM after GM Nation has formally concluded.
    Gregory Barker: We have heard in the House this morning that there is still a great deal of interest in this debate, as well as a great many unanswered questions. I simply do not understand why the Minister cannot extend into the autumn this clear channel for the public to focus their remarks, given that so much more research is being produced. The university of Manitoba has undertaken an evaluation for the Canadian wheat board of Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready wheat, which concluded:
    "Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada would be environmentally unsafe."
    When this quality of research is coming through, why close down this very useful channel of public feedback?
    Mr. Morley: It is because this is a formal process. The independent GM public debate steering board under Professor Grant has done a good job in encouraging public participation. That is why so much has been written about the subject recently and there is much debate in Parliament. That has been the spin off from that debate. However, we cannot keep a formal structure going indefinitely. That does not mean that the opportunity will be closed off for people to comment and to raise issues, for those issues to be examined, and for answers to be given by our independent specialist bodies, but we do not need a rolling, formal public debate with no end.
    Norman Baker: The public want more time to make their views known. The Food Standards Agency's report yesterday stated:
    "The potential impact of GM crops on the environment was the issue that gave rise to most concern"
    among consumers. In answer to the previous question, the Minister talked about the many hurdles to cross. Does he accept that the most important hurdle to overcome is the complete absence of an environmental liability regime? It would be quite improper to allow any commercial planting until such a regime was in place. Will he guarantee that a regime will be put in place before any commercial planting is allowed?
    Mr. Morley: There are EU agreements on environmental liability. We have also asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how we should structure a particular liability regime in this country. I suspect that existing law provides recourse in relation to liability, but that is a matter for legal opinion. Liability is but one issue that is not yet resolved. We cannot have commercialisation until we have examined a range of issues and established a proper framework to ensure that, as the bottom line, if people do not want to buy and eat GM produce, they do not have to. That consumer choice should be protected, which is our intention.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has the Minister noted that it is possible to produce valuable new species without resorting to genetic modification? Is he aware that F. B. Parrish Farms in Chicksancls in Bedfordshire has produced a new species of onion called
    432
    the "supasweet", which is tear free and a valuable addition to the healthy-eating salad market? Will his Department do all it can to promote that product?
    Mr. Morley: I have heard about this new onion development, and I am very impressed. I do not know whether it also helps with breath odour after eating onions, which would be a particularly impressive breakthrough. There have been an awful lot of advances in conventional agriculture. Although, understandably, people focus on GM, the report from the strategy unit stressed that GM is but one approach, and that there are conventional ways of achieving advances in agricultural technology. The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of that.

    Aviation (Environmental Impacts)
    Tom Brake: What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impacts of aviation. [126285]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many issues, including the environmental impacts of aviation. DEFRA Ministers and officials are closely engaged with the Department for Transport in taking forward the aviation White Paper and seeking to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She will be aware that the royal commission estimates that by 2020 aviation's contribution to greenhouse emissions will have risen sharply to 22 per cent. of the UK's total. What assessment has she made of that, and of the impact it will have on the Government's aspirational targets for reducing CO2
    ? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, supporters of an international aviation fuel tax, to raise the issue of such a tax in the international forums that she attends?
    Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am conscious of the royal commission's assessment. I have not made a separate assessment or calculation, although people keep this matter under continual review. Irrespective of whether the precise figures are correct—no doubt different scientists will have different views, because that always happens—emissions from aviation make a substantial contribution, and we are mindful of that. As for a fuel tax, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always pressed the International Civil Aviation Organisation to examine these issues, because they are subject to international, not just domestic, agreement, as he rightly identified.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: During the period preceding the finalisation of moves towards an international fuel tax, has my right hon. Friend considered proposals from the Carbon Trust and other

    433
    organisations for voluntary "green" carbon restitution levies on air tickets, related to the amount of carbon that could be restituted from the flights involved?
    Margaret Beckett: I know of a number of initiatives from various organisations, of which that is one. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to suggestions that, where emissions continue, we should consider creative methods of restitution. I think that that is a valuable and worthwhile initiative, particularly because it publicises the issue; but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to agree, it is not as important as mitigating the environmental impacts in the first place.
    Mr. David Lidington: As the right hon. Lady will know, the Sustainable Development Commission believes that, given current trends, carbon emissions from aviation will negate all the savings made under the Government's climate change programme. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, are the Government now seriously considering bringing aviation within the ambit of the European Union emissions trading system?
    Margaret Beckett: What comes within the ambit of that system is a matter for mutual negotiation, and these issues will obviously be raised during such negotiation.
    As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), there will always be different calculations and different figures. I know the Sustainable Development Commission believes that the emissions will negate all the savings, and I have noted other suggestions that do not go quite as far. I do not think anyone disputes the fact that unchecked emissions and unchecked traffic could make a substantial dent in the savings that we are committed to making. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping all these issues under constant review.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Has the Department considered, specifically and in detail, the environmental impact of airport expansion in the south-east, and have comparisons been made? If so, and if it is decided that expanding Luton would cause the least environmental damage, will my right hon. Friend make that point to her colleagues?
    Margaret Beckett: That is very much part of the evaluation that my colleagues in the Department for Transport are undertaking. I am aware of Luton's inventive efforts to press its case, and interested to note that my hon. Friend supports them.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What assessment she has made of the implications of the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe on processes for reaching decisions in the EU on environmental policy. [126286]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Convention's proposals would leave the main elements of that process largely unchanged. However, we do not support the proposal to create a single Legislative Council.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I am pleased that, in its final proposals, the Convention restored environmental protection as one of the EU's core objectives after its removal from the original draft. Will my hon. Friend assure us, however, that the Government will ensure, in the negotiations to follow, that it remains one of the core objectives? Given the exchange that has just taken place on air fuel, does he agree that there is a strong case for the EU to have a greater role in co-ordinating environmental protection on a Europe-wide basis?
    Mr. Morley: We think that issues such as air travel and pollution should be dealt with in the Environment Council, but I assure my hon. Friend that the statement about environmental protection in the constitution is considered important and is fully supported by the UK. We shall want to ensure that it remains.
    Angus Robertson: During its analysis of implications of the draft EU constitution, what conclusions has the Department reached on why the concentration of marine biological resources is to be an exclusive competence, while the common agricultural policy is not? The Leader of the House was unable to explain that to the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday; can the Minister explain it to the House today?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly give an explanation relating to the common fisheries policy, which has always been an exclusive competence of the Commission. The constitution states the position exactly.
    Mr. Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the draft constitution for the European Union, which include greater powers for the European Parliament, will make further reform of the common agricultural policy more likely?
    Mr. Morley: I think that there is an argument to be had on that point on both sides. We want to ensure that we do not have a hugely bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow decision-making process in the European Union. We recognise that it is important to involve the European Parliament, and there is a very strong role for co-decision, but it has to be balanced against the need to take quick and efficient decisions without excessive bureaucracy.

    Fallen Stock Directive
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: What representations she has received from representatives of the meat trade about the costs involved in the implementation of the fallen stock directive. [126287]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): There is no such thing as the fallen stock directive, but I have received a number of representations about the costs of implementing the ban on the burial of fallen stock under the EU animal by-products regulation.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: I recognise that the policy thrust is right and I acknowledge that the Government have done a lot in this area to date, but will the Minister assure the House that he will talk urgently to his counterparts in the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales to try to establish a common, UK-wide disposal scheme? But in doing so, will he pay particular attention to the very large oncosts that some small butchers are having to deal with in terms of meat and bone refuse and off-cuts? In the course of their work, they are having to pay far bigger charges than certainly I expected. Does he understand that this is becoming an awful problem for Britain's butchers?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, we do recognise that this is a serious problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot provide subsidised collection for retailers because it is against EU state aid rules; we can subsidise national collection only from primary production. I shall take on board his request that I speak to my colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed, I have done so already. We are continuing to work hard towards a successful national scheme.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that hunts provide a very considerable service in dealing with fallen stock, and that if the Government are determined to go ahead with banning hunting, a real animal welfare issue will arise? For example, it is very difficult to get animals with broken legs to a slaughterhouse; often, they have to be transported great distances and endure considerable suffering. Will the Minister consider that issue and see what can be done to ease the problem?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware of the role that hunts play in the removal of fallen stock, but I do not think that it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. A small minority of livestock farmers are involved, and they, of course, are also free to join the national scheme.

    Rural Community Transport
    Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on funding of rural community transport. [126289]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Funding for rural community transport schemes is available from a wide range of sources. They include the Department for Transport's rural bus challenge, which provides start-up funding, and the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership and parish transport fund programmes. Long-term funding is available through the bus service operators' grant, and local authorities can also use their
    436
    revenue support grant, and capital resources provided through the local transport plan system, to support community transport schemes.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that the Countryside Agency has done a great deal to encourage and facilitate the development of community transport throughout the country, but is he aware of the very real concern that exists that, as the pump-priming money comes to an end, there is no sustainable funding to take its place? What is he doing to deal with this issue, and is he prepared to meet representatives of the Community Transport Association and other interested parties to discuss their concerns further?
    Alun Michael: I am happy to confirm the importance of community transport, and I have met several people involved in a number of schemes in the past year. It is also worth noting that community transport plays an increasingly important role in rural areas generally. In recognition of that and as part of the Government's public service agreement target for improving rural services, we aim to increase the percentage of settlements in England benefiting from community transport to more than 50 per cent. by 2006. Pump priming through the Countryside Agency is meant to be just that: pump priming to help kick-start the availability of those activities. I listed in my original answer the various places from which support for community transport schemes is available.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Minister understand the difficulties that local authorities and council tax payers face when rural bus services are funded for three years only? In the fourth year, there is a big hit on the local authority, causing council tax bills to rise even higher. If the services are worth funding, surely they are worth funding indefinitely.
    Alun Michael: It is a little odd to suggest, on the one hand, that we should be helping to pump prime while, on the other, complaining when funds are taken away. Local authorities have a role in developing rural transport for their local communities. Through the local transport plans, they are required to produce bus strategies and to consider how to integrate conventional bus services with health and community transport as part of an integrated public transport network. We have tried to provide funding to enable people to realise that innovative schemes based in local communities are an important part of the solution to the problems in rural areas, in which the Government have made a large investment over recent years.
    Mr. James Gray: As the Minister says, that there are 5,000 community transport schemes, running about 60,000 buses across rural areas. People throughout the countryside are extremely concerned that an overspend in the countryside and rights of way right-to-roam mapping exercise has resulted in a drying-up of the pump-primed funding through the Countryside Agency. Bizarrely, visitors to the countryside—walkers—have been given priority for Government funding over those who live in the

    437
    countryside. Will the Minister reconfirm the central importance of community transport, particularly to the 25 per cent. of rural people who do not own a car, many of whom live in remote areas and are socially excluded? Does he accept that we need not only pump-primed funding, but long-term sustainable revenue funding for those vital services?
    Alun Michael: That was a bizarre, ill-informed and muddled question. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that no cuts of the sort about which he talked have been made. The budget for the rural transport partnership has increased since last year by £2 million to meet demand. A hold was put on the "vital villages" expenditure by the Countryside Agency, which was grappling with the problems of success. It had so many applications that it decided, rightly, to prioritise to make sure that money went to the places where it was needed most. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed when he looks back at the 18 years of Conservative government, during which his Government did nothing to help rural communities in the way that this Government have done.

    Common Land
    Mr. Roger Williams: What plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals relating to common land; and if she will make a statement. [126291]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. In July 2002, we published the common land policy statement, which set out a comprehensive package of proposals relating to the registration and protection of common land and village greens. A working group has developed proposals for agricultural management of common land, and we will consult on those before the end of September.
    Mr. Williams: Common land is not only an important agricultural resource, but provides opportunities for wildlife conservation and recreation. Given that a report produced by stakeholders in the spring of this year was unanimous in its support for further legislation, and given that the mid-term review will give more opportunities for common land to be used in innovative ways, is it not time for the Government to bring this forward as a matter of priority?
    Alun Michael: I have just indicated the way in which we will bring it forward. We recently had the report of
    438
    the working group that we established, and we intend to consult on that by the end of September. I have not read the detail of the report yet because we have only just received it. The hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interest, will know that although the problems of common land and the biodiversity reasons for treating it with great care are understood, it is an enormously complex area of the law. I should be happy to discuss the issues with him once we have published the document, as I know of his constituency interest and the complexities in his part of the world.

    BSE
    Michael Fabricant: What assessment she has made of the threat of BSE infection in the national herd; and if she will make a statement. [126293]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The domestic BSE epidemic has fallen from a peak of over 37,000 cases in 1992 to around 1,000 cases last year. We must not be complacent, but that is significant progress towards eliminating the disease. Equally encouraging, red meat consumption is at its highest since 1985.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and it is good to know that the incidence of BSE has fallen. However, the Minister says that he wishes to be complacent, so does he accept that one of the real risks of re-infection is the importation of illegal meat into the United Kingdom? When I asked his colleague a similar question some months ago, it was revealed that only two sniffer dogs serve all the sea ports and airports in the whole of the United Kingdom. It was promised that something would be done about it, so how many dogs do we have now?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We do not get BSE by importing meat, but the hon. Gentleman is also absolutely wrong about the number of sniffer dogs. Since the responsibility for policing illegal food imports has been given to Customs and Excise, the number of seizures has more than trebled.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
    Communications Act 2003.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the part-time and redistributing Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for the first week of the September sitting will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Water Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 SEPTEMBER—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 11 SEPTEMBER—Motion to approve the Fifth Report on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by a debate on defence in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 SEPTEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will include:
MONDAY 15 SEPTEMBER—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
I hope that the whole House will join me in extending birthday wishes to the right hon. Michael Foot, who will be 90 next Wednesday. Michael remains one of our greatest parliamentarians, who served the House and his constituents with great distinction for 42 years. We salute him and his passion for humanity, and we wish him well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would also like to wish all Members—and, more importantly, all the staff of the House—a very happy and relaxing recess.
Mr. Forth: I am more than happy to echo the good wishes of the House to Michael Foot, and also to all colleagues and staff for the recess.
Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm that the Northern Ireland suspension order will be reconfirmed by a statutory instrument, effectively hidden away in a Committee Upstairs? Does he not believe that that is a matter of major constitutional importance—not just for Northern Ireland, but for the United Kingdom—so it should and must be dealt with on the Floor of the House by the whole House? I hope that he will reflect on that matter, and if it is true, as I am informed, that the Government intend to hide the matter Upstairs, I hope that he will rethink and bring it to the Floor of the House—not least in view of the light business that he has announced for the first week back in September.
On the proposals to abolish jury service, we know that the Government have decided to reverse, here in the House of Commons, their lordships' excellent stand on that matter. Does the Leader of the House intend to deploy Scottish Members yet again to deprive us in England of centuries of judicial history, or will he give
440
an undertaking that, now and in future, Scottish Members will be asked for a self-denying ordinance not to interfere in English judicial matters, as we do not interfere in theirs? I hope that he can give us that undertaking.
Yesterday in PMOs—
Michael Fabricant: PMOs? What is that?
Mr. Forth: Prime Minister's obfuscations. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm his commitment to reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster—a simple enough question, one would have thought. The Prime Minister said:
"No, we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through."—[Official Report, 16 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 278.]
Typically for the Prime Minister, he did not tell us when. Can the part-time Leader of the House tell us when the commitment given by the Government to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster will be carried through? Will it be during this Parliament, and before the next general election? That is a straightforward question and I hope that he can give us the answer to it.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that notices of no fewer than 46 written ministerial statements have appeared on the Order Paper today. One of them is on the important and controversial issue of community pharmacies. We should be modestly grateful that the Government have responded to concern on that important issue in the form of a statement—but because it is a written statement, we cannot ask any questions on it. That statement contains some of the most obscure language that I have seen for a long time, even from this Government.
I shall give the House a small example:
"we will also make it easier for pharmacies to locate in areas where consumers already go, namely large shopping developments. But in doing so we must not undermine the market available to smaller community pharmacies. So only pharmacies wishing to locate in shopping developments over 15,000 square metres in size will be exempt from the control of entry requirement."
I do not understand what that means, and as things stand we will not have the opportunity to ask what it means, because it is a written ministerial statement. It continues:
"We will consult"—
that is good, I suppose—
"at the end of August, giving a full 12-week consultation period for comment."
Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm whether the House will have an opportunity to question Ministers on the issue when we come back in September, so that we can clear up what that language means about an issue of such importance to all of our constituents?
I have been approached this morning by a representative of some of our own staff in the House about a letter that has gone out this morning—in your name, Mr. Speaker—about the Portcullis pension plan. I would like the Leader of the House to give the matter some thought and work out how we may address the issue in the House. It is of the greatest importance to our own staff, because the letter contains a compulsion date

441
of 1 November, by which time they will be compelled to switch to new pension arrangements. I am told that there has not been adequate consultation on the matter and that staff representatives—including unions—have not been given proper access to the decision makers on the matter. I hope, therefore, that it can be revisited before the compulsion becomes effective on 1 November, to give a proper opportunity for consultation, or an element of choice, to be introduced. That is the least that can be done for our staff and their representatives. I hope that in the spirit of good will that the part-time Leader of the House offered us on the occasion of our rising for the recess, he will be able to consider the matter urgently and give some reassurance to our staff, who will be directly affected.
Other than that, I wish the part-time Leader of the House a very pleasant recess.
Mr. Hain: It is good to see the shadow Leader of the House back at his job full-time, having taken time out to be wined and dined by members of the press upstairs last week. He missed an entertaining debut by his deputy, who was described by the Daily Mail's sketch writer as
"Handsome boy. Charming. Moderate. Witty without overdoing it."
The deputy shadow Leader of the House described his own performance in a notable column, in which he said:
"Explaining what I actually do is much more complicated. In fact, I'm still working on it."
The shadow Leader of the House asked several important questions, and I am happy to answer them. First, there is no intention to hide away anything on Northern Ireland. Such matters are debated on the Floor of the House, in the proper way, or Upstairs, in the proper way.
Mr. Peter Luff: The improper way.
Mr. Hain: That is a ridiculous comment. When the Conservatives were in government they had statutory instruments and other matters discussed Upstairs in the proper way.
The shadow Leader of the House says that the first week when we return is very light on business. There are Opposition debates on two of those four days—and if that means light business, the Opposition should consider more serious business and heavyweight agenda items for those days.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament had not been properly addressed. That is not the case. There has been much press speculation that the Government intend to delay the reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, but it was just that—press speculation. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I will come to that. There is no need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House at this stage. The boundary commission is required to submit its report between December 2002 and December 2006, and it is a matter for the commission when, within that time scale, it does that. As soon as may be after the commission has submitted its report, the Secretary of State for Scotland
442
is required to lay the requisite order implementing those matters. We await the boundary commission's report. It is conducting important work, as no doubt you will know, Mr. Speaker. We shall see where we are after that.
On the question about jury service, there is no proposition by the Government to abolish the right to jury trial, or jury service, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged. Some reforms have been proposed that the House of Lords has voted to block. In the process, it also blocked very important measures in the very important Criminal Justice Bill. [Interruption.] Oh yes it did. Those measures deal with violent sex offenders and gun crime, and I would be very interested to see whether the Conservatives follow the leadership of their comrades in the House of Lords and seek to block those vital anti-crime measures that our constituents want implemented.
May I take the right hon. Gentleman up on the important point about the equality of Members of the House? We are all elected as Members of this sovereign House of Commons, whether we come from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, and I will assert to the end the equality of all Members of the House, who come from a United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively talking about dismembering the United Kingdom.
Mr. James Gray: What about Scottish Members?
Mr. Hain: What about Northern Ireland Members? Such remarks are coming from a party that until recently called itself the Conservative and Unionist party—perhaps it still does. Is it a United Kingdom party or is it not? The right hon. Gentleman should come clean. Is he saying that Scottish Members should be debarred from equal consideration?
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Hain: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman arguing—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not shout at the Leader of the House.
Mr. Hain: What about the English Tory Members who Imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We know all about such behaviour.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the 46 written ministerial statements. I think that it is important that Ministers have come to the House before the recess to bring the House up to date—[Interruption.] We have had a very busy time recently—[Interruption.] Indeed we have. That is why we have had to sit past the normal moment of interruption on a number of occasions this week. It is important that we have made written ministerial statements, and that there is to be a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, which will follow immediately after business questions.
The Government have laid out a clear position that will protect local pharmacies. However, the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to question the

443
Secretary of State on that matter after the recess, or even to hold an Opposition day debate on it should he want to.
The Portcullis pension plan is, of course, not a matter for me. However, I want to stress that it was very misleading—inadvertently, no doubt—of the shadow Leader of the House to say that compulsion was involved. There is no compulsion involved in this process, and we would respect staff rights in this matter, along with those of everybody else.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to associate my colleagues and myself with the comments made about Michael Foot. His strong Cornish connections mean that he is especially revered in the south-west. I also endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on the Portcullis pension scheme. There is real concern among staff in the House about the lack of consultation.
Will the Leader of the House examine carefully the way in which the Government's overnight statement in response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform was brought before us? I hope that I can say that he had no part in its handling, because I hope that if I absolve him from responsibility he will take what I have to say in the spirit in which it is intended.
Clearly, after the recess we shall require an early debate on the document, which is a miserable little response to an extremely important issue. It is late—it should have been produced last week—and it is suspicious that it was released at midnight, so that no one could have the chance to consider it carefully. However, worst of all is the fact that the way in which the document has been produced seems completely to deny what happened in this House, because it is deliberately misleading in several respects.
For example, the Lord Chancellor's statement says:
"Those votes resulted in a clear decision in the House of Lords in favour of a wholly appointed House. There was, however, no such clear decision from the House of Commons, which voted against every one of the Joint Committee's proposed configurations."
The Leader of the House knows, because he too voted, that this House voted against a fully appointed House of Lords by a large majority, despite the fact that the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister supported that outcome. There is the first bit of misleading information, because this House voted down that option by a majority of 78.
The Government's response continues:
"The Government agrees with the Joint Committee's view that the Parliamentary votes have shown that there is no consensus about introducing any elected element in the House of Lords."
That is patently untrue. You will know, Mr. Speaker, as will the Leader of the House, that a total of 332 Members voted in favour of a substantial elected element in the House of Lords—more than half the Members of the House. The problem was that they did not all vote in the same Lobby at the same time—some voted for an elected element of 100 per cent., some voted for 80 per cent. and some voted for 60 per cent. It is patent nonsense to say that we did not indicate that we wanted an elected element in the House of Lords.
444
The Leader of the House knows that the following statement is misleading:
"The Joint Committee highlights the position of the remaining hereditary peers. It remains the Government's policy, as set out in its White Paper in November 2001, that the remaining hereditary peers should be removed from the House."
However, that is conditional on the existence of a package of reforms for the House of Lords; it cannot be done as a simple tinkering exercise on its own. The Leader of the House spoke about the sovereignty of the House, and this miserable little document ignores the votes of the House, so we expect him to stand up for us.
Mr. Hain: Of course I will stand up for the House's rights in every respect, because that is my job. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that, which we have already started to do. May I also express my gratitude for his remarks, and those of the shadow Leader of the House, about Michael Foot? As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the arrangements for the publication of the document are a matter not for me but for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Copies of the document have been made available in the Vote Office in the proper way.
I shall now deal with the substance of the issue. Earlier this year, no option was supported by the House, which I regret. I voted for a fully elected second Chamber; that was my preference, and I had a free vote. However, there is no consensus in the House, and until that is achieved a sustainable long-lasting solution to the problem is not readily available.
Nevertheless, there are important issues to deal with in the short term. The Government have a manifesto commitment to abolish the hereditary peers and to deal with the question of a proper independent statutory appointments procedure.
Mr. Tyler: And?
Mr. Hain: Indeed, we also have a commitment to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative, which is clear. We might be able to deal with those matters in the short time and provide a solution to take us a little way forward, but a long-term sustainable solution requires consensus in the House—indeed, in both Houses, I hope—on how to move forward. I look forward to hearing views from the hon. Gentleman, and from hon. Members of all parties, on how we may proceed so that we get a democratic second Chamber.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am happy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank you. Perhaps I may be allowed to develop my point in my own way.
I am happy to associate myself with the observation of my right hon. Friend in wishing a happy birthday to Michael Foot, one of our most distinguished leaders. Perhaps my right hon. Friend may wish to associate himself with me when I recall that one of Michael Foot's most celebrated passages of arms was when he stopped the creation of an all-appointed second Chamber in place of the House of Lords.
My right hon. Friend cannot have forgotten that when we voted on the options, the largest single majority was against an all-appointed Chamber. He cannot have

445
forgotten it because he was part of that majority. In the light of that outcome, will he explain why the Government will propose to the House of Commons that we have an all-appointed second Chamber
"in a stable state for the medium term"?
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has not forgotten—but perhaps others in the Government have—that in our manifesto we promised a democratic second Chamber. As for putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, I remind him that two years ago the first batch picked by the Appointments Commission was such a public relations disaster that since then we have begged it not to propose any more appointments.
My right hon. Friend knows this place. He will understand that unless the Government have a perspective for democratic reform in the longer term, he will have difficulty—and will deserve to have difficulty—in getting this pusillanimous, pathetic, mean measure through Parliament.
Mr. Hain: I understand and respect my right hon. Friend's views. How we voted is on the record. Unfortunately, all the positions were defeated, although as he fairly points out, some more narrowly than others. We know what the House is against; the problem is that we do not know what it is for. In the meantime, we have to deal with the anomaly of hereditary peers, which no one can defend. It is a commitment in the Labour party manifesto, on which we were elected with a landslide victory, to resolve that anomaly. Making the appointments procedure more independent is part of that. We are consulting on that and will come back to the House after the recess to take that forward.
I agree, however, that a fully appointed Chamber in the long term—[HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] I am not talking about the short-term issues that we need to confront. In the long term, a fully appointed Chamber is not, in my view, a sustainable solution to the problem.
Mr. William Cash: The United Kingdom opt-out from the euro has been deliberately excluded from the draft constitutional treaty that emerged from the Convention. The Leader of the House was, of course, the Government's representative in those negotiations. I tabled a question to the Prime Minister for that to be explained, which was due to be answered on 15 July. It was put to the Prime Minister, and he passed it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in turn passed it to the Chief Secretary. I still have not had a reply, but as the Leader of the House was responsible for negotiations, will he be good enough to explain why the arrangements for entry to the euro have been geared significantly against the UK's national interest? Why was the opt-out deliberately excluded? What are the Government going to do about it?
Mr. Hain: On the precise point about the EMU opt-out, a number of protocols in existing treaties have not been brought into the existing constitutional treaty because there was not time for the Convention to
446
address them. The Convention carried out serious and effective work in the intergovernmental conference, as the hon. Gentleman knows—
Mr. Cash: It was deliberate.
Mr. Haina: It was not deliberate. That is another fantasy. It is, frankly, one of those Tory porkies that are spread about Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, they are. A whole lot of porkies have been spread about Europe by Tories and their friends in the media, as though we were involved in a deliberate exercise. A number of protocols, including the opt-out, will have to be introduced through the IGC. They exist and are live. There is no mystery about that.
We know what the real agenda is. The hon. Gentleman, along with his leader, is a supporter of the Bruges group, which on 24 February issued a press release that said of the European Union:
"It would have been better if we'd never joined."
That is their agenda: withdrawal from the EU.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order come later.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Harking back to the argument about the Lords started by the Liberal spokesman—the argument about what happens to the House of Lords in future—is my right hon. Friend aware that the only way in which he could have got what he wanted—a truly 100 per cent. elected House of Lords—was by having a whipped vote on the Labour Benches? I take umbrage when I hear people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), give the impression that they want their say, but only their say. Some of us—well over 100 Labour Members—want to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords. The same thing will happen whenever there is a free vote, but even if the Government want to whip me on the proposal supported by my right hon. Friends, I will still vote to abolish the lousy place. They should come clean. Those people who want their say on the matter should admit that they want a whipped vote, because it is the only way to get it through.
Mr. Hain: It is great having my hon. Friend back in his inimitable fiery form. It is really good to have him putting such questions to me.
Abolition of the House of Lords was another option—for which he and a number of colleagues voted—that was defeated. That underlines my point. All the propositions were defeated. So the House knows what it is against, but it does not know what it is for. I look to a time when there is a consensus in the House for a substantial, long-term and sustainable reform. If a Government Bill is introduced in future, there will, of course, be a whip, because this is a vital matter of constitutional reform.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House asserted his strong, principled belief in the equality of all hon. Members. Will he confirm that after business questions it will be in order for me to go to the Table Office and table questions

447
about schools in Scotland in the same way as Scottish Members can table questions about schools in my constituency?
Mr. Hain: This is mischief making again. [Interruption.] Of course it is. It is anti-Scottish. When the Opposition get round to it, it will be anti-Welsh as well. We stand—[Interruption.] English Members on the Conservative Benches, and some on the Labour Benches, quite properly ask me questions as Secretary of State for Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they should be debarred from doing so? Of course not.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What will my right hon. Friend do about early-day motion 1579, which calls for brief questions and brief answers on the Floor of the House?
[That this House appreciates the regular interventions of Mr Speaker to encourage honourable Members to ask succinct questions and for Ministers to respond in similar ways, thus enabling more honourable Members to be called during question times and in response to Ministerial statements; accepts the wise words of Plato (Protagoras 3429-3436) 'that the art of framing brief taut and telling phrases is a mark of the highest culture'; and affirms its intention to now pursue the recept of Plato for 'laconic brevity'.]
Mr. Hain: Yes.
David Burnside: I rise as a Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland who hopes, for as long as I am in the House, to speak and vote on all issues affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, in the same way as English, Welsh and Scottish Members will speak and vote on issues affecting my part of the UK, Northern Ireland.
Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the peaceful weekend of the 12 July celebrations? Will he praise not only my fellow countrymen who are Orangemen like myself, but our Roman Catholic neighbours, who contributed to the most peaceful 12 July celebrations that I can remember for more than 30 years? The Leader of the House knows that we have not had devolution in an executive form since autumn last year. When we come back for the two weeks in September, will it be possible for the House to debate whether we can get a form of Government up and running at Stormont again that has both Irish nationalist and Ulster Unionist consent?
Mr. Hain: We are anxious to achieve that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We wish to work together with him, other Northern Irish Members and the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly to achieve that result. It is a priority objective for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we share that.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's earlier statement about the equality of Members in this place. The Conservative party has become an isolated party in the United Kingdom, with no representatives in Wales, for example, and a minority representation in England. Those Conservative Members who are seeking to
448
balkanise the House are in a minority position in England, and they will continue to be so long as they advocate such ridiculous policies.
Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will know that as a result of my position in the Treasury Select Committee I have received representations from credit unions over the past few years. They have expressed gratitude to both the Government and the Financial Services Authority for the progress that has been made in respect of their organisations. On a recent visit to Washington, I was informed that both the White House and Congress have credit unions, but the parliamentary estate does not. Within that estate there are thousands of workers, a number of whom are on comparatively low pay and would benefit from such an organisation. Will my right hon. Friend agree to discuss the issue with me to see whether he can take the matter forward?
Mr. Hain: I will be happy to do that. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Credit unions are very strong in Wales, for example, and I am a great supporter of them.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Thousands of criminal cases that involve mandatory life sentences are awaiting the awarding of tariffs. That is causing a great deal of distress to many of the families of victims. Given the huge backlog that has emerged and is developing, will the Leader of the House encourage the Home Secretary to outline to the House a timetable for the setting of tariffs?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when I get a chance to do so.
Geraldine Smith: At this time of year, many hon. Members will, I hope, be considering taking British holidays at our seaside resorts, such as Morecambe, where they will see the splendour of the British coast. What they may not see is the squalor that often lies behind the promenades and facade. Will my right hon. Friend consider after the recess a debate on seaside deprivation? I can assure him that the pockets of deprivation that exist in some of our seaside resorts match anything in the inner cities.
Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. I have visited her lovely constituency town of Morecambe, which is indeed an extremely good holiday destination. She makes the important point that behind the promenade lurks a great deal of deprivation. That is why the Government have a clear strategy for seaside resorts, and we look forward to working with her—
Mr. Forth: It is not working.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman mutters that it is not working. Nothing worked under the Conservatives. We are introducing huge programmes of urban and seaside regeneration. Huge extra investment is coming in that they would cut under their 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts plan.
Tim Loughton: The part-time Leader of the House will be aware that last

449
night we had a lively and well-attended debate on the Laming report and the continued lack of a Green Paper on child protection. Six months have passed since the Laming committee reported, and the Government have not yet made a statement or held a debate in Government time. Is it not therefore adding insult to injury to read in The Times today that a draft copy of the Government's response has been made available to that newspaper, which recommends drastic action such as the phasing out of child protection registers? Given that we have been calling for the immediate publication of the Green Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman at least publish the draft Green Paper, which, apparently, the press can have? Given that he made no mention of the Green Paper in his timetable for the week when we come back in September, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills promised it on the first day back, will he guarantee that there will be an oral statement by the Minister for Children or by her superiors, if the hon. Lady is still in place at that stage, so that Members will have the opportunity to ask those questions that we have been asking for the past six months, to which we have failed to get any answers?
Mr. Hain: I have not read The Times this morning, though I plan to do so on my way home later today; it is a very good newspaper. The proposition that the Government should publish or bring to the House draft reports—
Mr. Forth: Leak.
Mr. Hain: Newspapers are quite enterprising operations and find all sorts of drafts lying in photocopiers, and so on. The proposition is ridiculous and shows how unfit the Conservatives are for government.
On the substance of the matter, after the recess it is the Government's intention to bring forward the paper as published on children's rights. It will be the most comprehensive policy ever brought forward by any Government on children's rights and protection. Of course there will be a statement.
Mr. lain Luke: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the warm welcome given to the strong statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese Government, a Government who still have close trading partnerships with a major British company. Since then, despite further pressure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British American Tobacco has not yet taken a decision to disinvest. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to find time, when we return in the autumn, to bring forward powers similar to those that have been introduced in America, virtually unanimously by both Houses of Congress, to ban all trading relationships, including agreements between British companies and the Burmese regime?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Burmese regime is one of the most odious in the world. The sanctions on it, which the Government
450
support, will continue until it frees the people of Burma and their brilliant leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. It is important that the sanctions are taken forward. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment met representatives of British American Tobacco and urged them to abide by the sanctions, and I hope that they will.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on employment rights, particularly to safeguard those workers who face discrimination based on their sexuality? Early-day motion 1585 condemns the treatment of Canon Jeffrey John at the hands of a bunch of bigots in the Church of England. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning those people?
[That this House condemns the appalling homophobia in the Church of England which has forced the proposed Bishop of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, to stand down; believes that in the 21st century such open prejudice should not be tolerated anywhere; and expresses its real disappointment in the Archbishop of Canterbury for failing to stand up to this bigotry. face discrimination based on their sexuality?]
Mr. Hain: I condemn all bigotry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the bigotry that was released around that unhappy episode. He has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way.
Glenda Jackson: As the newly appointed commander-in-chief of coalition forces has stated that, far from being over, the war in Iraq has moved into a classic guerrilla mode, will the House be recalled should the situation in Iraq deteriorate during the recess, necessitating the possible deployment of additional British troops?
Mr. Hain: The House will be aware that September sittings should alleviate the necessity for requesting a recall. I do not envisage that it will be necessary to recall the House on Iraq or on any other matter. Should such an eventuality arise, the option remains open.
Bob Spink: May we have a debate on hospices, so we might reveal that Government funding of adult hospices is 28 per cent., of children's hospices it is 5 per cent. and at Little Haven children's hospice in my constituency, it is 2.8 per cent? The Government cannot hide behind primary care trust decisions. The Government should take responsibility for the palliative care of these children at a devastating time in their lives. They should come forward with a policy on this matter.
Mr. Hain: I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I share with him support and admiration for the work that is done by hospices. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have noted carefully what he said.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend find time after the recess for an important debate on what could be a far-reaching change in the practice of the House, namely the publication of the Senior Salaries Review Body's report on the payment of Select Committee Chairs? In that debate, is there likely to be

451
an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to consider whether House Chairs should be paid? I hesitate to say this, but given that I am retiring at the next general election, I have no long-term interest in whether the Speaker's Panel should be considered in this regard.
Mr. Hain: We all regret the fact that my hon. Friend is retiring at that next election, as he has been a valuable servant of the House and, indeed, currently serves with distinction on the Chairmen's Panel. We published this morning in the proper way the SSRB report on that matter. It is important that we value the work of Select Committees and recognise the contribution of their Chairmen. The creation of a career path on the Back Benches has been recommended by numerous academics, commentators and independent studies. The Hansard Society commission and the Conservative party's own commission on strengthening Parliament both recommended that the chairmen of investigative committees be paid a salary equivalent to that of a Minister. Indeed, Jeremy Paxman advocated that path, so the policy must surely commend itself to the House. As for the Chairmen's Panel, its members do a very good job and put in a lot of hard work, and we will have to consider the matter. There is also the question of the Chairmen of Domestic Committees, who are not covered by the SSRB report.
Mr. George Osborne: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about the implications of the Sally Clark and Trupti Patel cases. Today, he has written to me with important new details about the way in which the Government will handle the aftermath of those cases including, for example, reviewing current prosecutions, setting up a group to look at previous convictions of people currently in prison and, indeed, producing a new code of practice for pathologists. That is all welcome stuff, but does the Leader of the House agree, given the enormous public concern about those cases, that there should be a statement or debate when we return after the recess so that we can press the Solicitor-General in greater detail about some of those issues?
Mr. Hain: I agree that those issues are important. I will bring the matter quite properly raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of those concerned.
Mr. Clive Soley: In previous answers, my right hon. Friend seemed to accept that reform of the House of Lords is unfinished business. Will he clarify whether the Government regard their role as assisting the process of finding an acceptable solution in this Chamber and, indeed, the House of Lords? May I put it to him that both Houses and the Government should accept that a hybrid system is good for the constitution and a good way of reaching agreement, so we ought to go down that road? Will he consult on that and enable debates to take place on it?
Mr. Hain: The Government will be considering those matters in the coming period. As soon as we are in a position to do so, having undertaken further consultations, we will come back to the House with recommendations on a way forward.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: This morning, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry
452
published a report on post offices and the introduction of the Government's policy forcing pensioners to stop getting their benefits from the post office. That has had a devastating impact and is causing a great deal of concern among many sub-postmasters throughout the country. Is it not time that we debated that issue yet again so that the Government can respond to sub-postmasters' concerns?
Mr. Hain: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Obviously, as I have said in response to previous questions on this matter, local post offices have been under threat for decades because of the changing pattern of consumer behaviour. We must do everything in our power to protect them, and the important points made by the hon. Gentleman will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Brian White: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Communications Bill received Royal Assent today, but he will also be aware that one problem that the Government had during its passage was that parliamentary counsel could not recognise that the definition of a citizen included anything outside the narrow definition relating to nationality. Will he explain why that key area of the public services remains a monopoly, and why it is denied the benefits of competition enjoyed by other public services? Will he look at that as part of his modernisation proposals?
Mr. Hain: I am afraid that I am not going to give my hon. Friend an explanation in business questions, but I am sure that he can get one from the relevant Secretary of State.
Mr. David Heath: Will there be an opportunity for a debate on acute hospital services in the south-west? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that Royal United hospital, Bath, along with the Bristol hospitals have, for the second year running, received a no-star rating, despite the fact that most people agree that there is nothing wrong with their surgical, medical or nursing facilities. The problem is past management mistakes and a huge debt. Will the Secretary of State for Health come to the House and explain what he will do to put things right for the people served by hospitals in Bath and Bristol?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he has an opportunity to raise these matters in an Adjournment debate, but meanwhile I shall certainly bring his point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. However, in the interests of fairness, he will acknowledge that there is now record investment in the health service, and that more nurses and doctors are being recruited than ever before. There are record real-terms increases in health care, reversing decades of underinvestment and underspending on health by the Conservatives.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Members have recently been lobbied by members of the Trade Justice Movement, who are particularly worried about

453
the summit in Cancun in September. Will he make time in the House for a statement and discussion on the debate in Cancun?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look at that. The Government attach a lot of significance to the issue, as does my hon. Friend, and share his view that the objective of achieving trade justice is an important one. We will work to achieve that objective, and shall obviously report to the House in the normal way.

School Funding
1.15 pm
Mr. Charles Clarke: Mr. Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.
I begin with an assessment of the changes that have taken place in the past six years. Our country now has the best results at ages 11, 14, 16 and 18. We have tackled the shameful neglect of our school buildings and, by 2005–06, we will be investing over £5 billion in repairs and new buildings. We have delivered major increases in school spending, and school funding is up by more than 25 per cent. in real terms per pupil. It is no secret where the money has gone. We now have 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more support staff than in 1997. Moreover, teachers' pay has improved significantly. For example, in 1997, a teacher with six years' experience received £20,040, while their counterpart today will, from September, receive £26,460, which is a real-terms increase of 13 per cent. We have also started down the road to a fundamental improvement in teachers' work load and working arrangements. Those are all achievements of which teachers, heads, governors, local and central Government can be proud.
There is no doubt, however, that many schools have experienced real difficulties this year with their budget allocations. As I set out in my oral evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Skills earlier this week, a wide range of factors contributed to that situation. I will not repeat them here, but I wish to put on record my appreciation for the hard work of head teachers and local education authorities across the country in coping with those difficulties and continuing to improve the quality of education provided by their schools.
In my statement on 15 May, I said that I would keep the House informed of my thinking, and give head teachers and LEAs early indications of our approach to help them begin planning for next year. My purpose today is to outline the first steps that we are taking to respond to schools' practical concerns about the present system. Following continuing consultation with representatives of local authorities, chief education officers and head teachers, I will make a further report to the House in the autumn. My guiding principles on the changes needed in the schools funding system for the next two years are as follows. First, every school should receive at least a guaranteed per pupil increase in funding for each year. Secondly, central and local government should make earlier announcements of the financial allocations to schools so that heads have greater certainty and time to plan. Thirdly, we should provide greater stability through a two-year settlement on teachers' pay, ring-fenced grants and the guaranteed per pupil increase in school funding. Fourthly, there should be greater transparency in the overall system of funding for schools. Finally, the reforms agreed with the key work force partners, as reflected in the national agreement on raising standards and tackling work load, should be sustained.
The Government have been working intensively to identify a package of measures that will deliver those aims. This year, my Department provided a guaranteed minimum increase in the education formula allocations for each local education authority. In 2004–05 and

455
2005–06, I intend to go a stage further. My central proposal for each of these two years is to provide a guarantee at the level of the individual school, so every school will receive at least a minimum increase in its funding per pupil. Of course, many schools will receive more than this minimum. We intend to implement that through fair funding regulations, placing each local education authority under a direct obligation to provide for such a minimum guarantee. I will confirm the minimum percentage increases for 2004–05 and, provisionally, for 2005–06, by the time of the provisional local government finance settlement in November, when we have completed our analysis of costs in the system, in particular, on teachers' pay. We will share that analysis, and the rationale for the level of the minimum percentage increase, with our education partners.
This guarantee will provide for a minimum funding increase in every school. That minimum will be based on the average cost pressures for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Obviously, it cannot match the precise composition of each school's current spending profile. For example, it cannot insulate schools from the effects of changes in their pupil numbers, or reflect their wide range of different staffing arrangements. Heads and governors will continue to need to plan ahead, with their LEAs, to take account of those features that are specific to every school, but I believe that our average per pupil guarantee will give schools a far more stable foundation.
We are already discussing with our education partners how the guarantee will work in detail, and we will consult further. We will seek to agree guidelines to underpin the operation of these new arrangements, in order, for instance, to take proper account of the extra protection that LEAs already provide to very small schools. Within this framework, LEAs, heads and governors will work together through their schools forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied.
For sixth forms, the Learning and Skills Council will, in both the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years, provide each school with guaranteed minimum increases in funding equivalent to the per pupil guarantee for schools. The LSC will consult all heads of maintained schools with sixth forms in the autumn on its plans for improving the operation of sixth form funding for 2004–05.
Some schools have found it necessary this year to spend from their reserves or from devolved formula capital allocations; others have set deficit budgets by agreement with their LEAs. Of course, schools and LEAs have the primary responsibility to manage the ongoing consequences of such decisions, including maintaining sound financial management and balancing budgets. The changes that I am introducing for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will help them to do so. However, I recognise that there may be some cases where doing so could be beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs. In those few cases, I will be prepared to consider limited, transitional support to avoid damage to children's education, where that is part of a locally agreed recovery plan between the LEA, schools and the Department. I shall discuss with head teachers and local authority representatives how best to provide such support.
456
Of course, the minimum guarantee that I am offering today to schools can be fulfilled only by ensuring that each LEA has the necessary resources within its schools budget. There are two key elements. First, in both 2004–05 and 2005–06, I will set the minimum increase for schools formula spending share—SFSS—in each authority at a level that will cover the school level guarantee and provide the headroom necessary to enable the local fair funding formula to work, and to help provide transitional support to individual schools, where necessary. Secondly, we will ensure that the local authority receives sufficient central Government grant to passport in full the increase in SFSS into its schools budget.
The Government will also provide additional resources for other local services, including children's social services, which are now my responsibility, over and above those announced for them in the last spending review. That will help to ensure that the arrangements I am announcing today do not create difficulties for other local services. The details will be announced in the autumn. Having provided these resources, the Government are determined that each and every school should benefit in the way intended.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to every local education authority setting out the Government's clear expectation that, barring wholly exceptional circumstances, each and every LEA should passport the full increase in its SFSS into a matching increase in the schools budget. That is essential if heads, governors, teachers and parents are to have full confidence that the resources intended for schools will indeed get through to schools. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget, and I will be prepared to use those powers where it is necessary to do so.
This year most LEAs' spending on centrally funded pupil services, such as special educational needs and excluded pupils, has increased significantly faster than their spending on budgets delegated to individual schools. It is essential that, in future, the individual schools budget receive its fair share of any increase, so my intention is that, in 2004–05 and 2005–06, spending on such central items should rise no faster than spending on the individual schools budget. I will consult on how fair funding regulations can ensure that this is delivered. In doing so, I will take account of the need for local flexibility on items such as the expansion of nursery provision to meet the Government's commitments.
It is clear that a significant source of problems for some schools this year has been the changes in the standards fund. I will help to provide stability and security by maintaining and inflation-proofing the support that the standards fund provides to schools at its 2003–04 levels. That means that I am reversing the reductions previously announced for standards fund support to schools in 2004–05 and 2005–06. That will provide more than £400 million in each of the next two years, over and above existing plans. I will also be making earlier announcements on standards fund distribution, before the announcement of the provisional local government finance settlement.
I am able to make such additional funding available from my end year flexibility, and other redirection of existing resources. I set out for the House in my Department's annual report the planned and prudent

457
use of accumulated end year flexibility over the next three years to supplement resources secured through the spending review. This additional commitment means that my accumulated end year flexibility is now fully committed to support children, young people and adults in achieving their full potential.
Head teachers should know their budgets in good time for the beginning of the financial year. I am taking a number of steps to provide earlier notification of their funding. As well as earlier notification on the standards fund, the Government will bring forward the date of the provisional local government settlement to the middle of November. We also intend to bring forward the date by which local authorities are obliged to notify me of their passporting intentions by one month to the end of December, and the Government will propose an appropriate amendment to the Local Government Bill on Third Reading in another place.
It is vital that the reforms that we agreed with key work force partners, as reflected in our national agreement on raising standards and tackling work load, are sustainable. That remains a key priority for my Department. By maintaining the standards fund at its current level, we will help to ensure that schools receive the core funding that they need to make progress on implementing the work force agreement.
On 11 July, I submitted my evidence to the School Teachers Review Body. That evidence makes the case for a two-and-a-half-year settlement on the basis of current targets for inflation. I have set out a clear strategy to enable sensible progression along the upper pay scale while controlling the costs, and I have asked the STRB to report on all the major issues in early November, so that LEAs and schools will have much earlier certainty about the level of pay cost pressures for the next two years.
This year's problems have underlined the need to provide more and better support for schools and LEAs in planning and managing resources, and for schools forums, which have a key role to play in helping to secure local consensus on distribution. We will be discussing with education partners, the National College for School Leadership and others how best we can make rapid progress.
Finally, I want to make it clear that this package is designed to secure stability and restore confidence in our funding arrangements for schools. We need to ensure that the schools funding system commands broad support, works to promote our overall objectives for raising standards in education, and so ensures that resources are used in the most effective way to secure higher quality and better levels of achievement in schools. I will, of course, be monitoring the impact of the changes I am announcing today, with a view to considering whether further changes are needed for 2005–06. It is critical to ensure that funding arrangements for schools are sustainable in the long term.
I recognise that this has been a difficult year. However, I believe that the steps I have outlined today provide a realistic framework of stability and certainty for the next two years. We will work with LEAs and
458
schools, within the framework I have set out today, to deliver the further improvements our children deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Damian Green: I am, as always, grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement.
The crisis that has caused the Secretary of State to come to the House with this statement has been both unnecessary and hugely damaging to our schools. Twelve months ago, his predecessor presented the Government's plans for education spending as a triumph. Six months ago, it was obvious to heads, teachers and parents across the country that the reality was cuts, redundancies and disappointment. For those six months, the Government have turned all their energy on a hunt not for a solution, but for a scapegoat. They tried blaming local authorities and they have even tried blaming heads for paying teachers too much.
The ludicrous nature of that attempt to shift the blame from the Department, where it belongs, has finally been revealed today, when we learn that the Secretary of State's Department underspent by £846 million last year. So hundreds of teachers are being made redundant while his Department is sitting on the money that could have kept them in work. He referred charmingly to his accumulated end-year flexibility. Can he explain what is more urgent in his budget than stopping teachers being made redundant?
The statement contains some detailed proposals that improve the current system. Bringing forward the date on which the School Teachers Review Body reports and the local government settlement so that schools' budgets may be set earlier will be helpful. But quite apart from the point about whether that is an adequate response to the crisis, there are key questions about the Government's own behaviour. One important point that the Secretary of State has made this morning is that he is recentralising, after last year's short flirtation with trusting local government. More of the pot of money will come from his Department in future, but does he not recognise that it is often his own Department that is the cause of the delays? Some schools do not know what money they will receive from the standards fund until well after they have set their budgets. He has tried to reassure them today. Can he give the House a guarantee that individual schools will know the amount of centrally distributed money that they are to receive before they have to set their budgets?
Even more importantly, what will the Secretary of State do about the Government's besetting sin—trying to do the jobs of heads and governors for them? He will know the widespread view in our schools that the standards fund money is too often an excuse to tie schools up in a web of bidding and form filling to meet the needs of the latest ministerial initiative rather than of our children's education. If more money is coming directly from the Department, what does he propose to do about that micro-management?
The most obvious gap in the statement is the absence of any hard numbers. Today, schools are going into deficit, cutting their capital budgets and sacking teachers. They want to know what their position will be next year. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said clears that up. He has promised what he called a

459
minimum funding increase guarantee for schools next year. But this year, according to the comprehensive spending review, there was a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent., and yet we have had the crisis. So is he promising more than 3.4 per cent. next year? Is he also promising that the increase will meet all the extra costs that Government impose on schools? Will it meet the added costs for schools that have gone into deficit this year or that have spent their capital budget on revenue spending? If it does not do so, we will be back here next year with a repeat crisis.
Will the Secretary of State also clear up what he means by an increase in funding? Funding sounds like it means a grant from central to local government to pay for schools. However, as he knows, in the arcane and rarefied world of local government finance, it can also mean the schools formula spending share, which is simply a theoretical estimate of what each council should spend. If all he is going to do is announce a big figure for that estimate that is not accompanied by the money from his Department, which is what he did to many LEAs this year, he will provoke a repeat crisis, with cuts in schools and a sterile argument between central and local government about whose fault it is. His words in this area were carefully opaque. Can he clear up the question whether the grant will meet not only the increase in the SFFS that he mentioned, but the backlog that so many LEAs have faced and has caused the crisis this year?
The statement also appears to threaten the provision of spending on children with special educational needs and on the rescue services for pupils who have been excluded. I really cannot believe that he means to restrict spending specifically in those areas, where the most vulnerable children will be worst affected. Can he confirm what he appeared to suggest—that he intends to take powers to himself to stop local authorities spending too much on children with special needs?
The Government will not be forgiven by parents and teachers for failing to cope with this year's funding crisis. This statement is designed to prevent another crisis next year. What the Secretary of State has to offer is greater predictability. Of course, predictability is good in itself, but if we discover in the autumn that schools are able to look two years ahead and simply predict more misery, cuts and redundancies, this year's level of anger will be multiplied, and this Government will go down as the Government who betrayed our schools.
Mr. Clarke: I have to say that there was very little substance in those remarks. Let us get the facts clear. First, I am announcing today more money for schools throughout Britain in both 2004–05 and 2005–06. Secondly, I am absolutely clear that we need to ensure that the money that is allocated to local education authorities for schools is spent on them, so that money gets there in the right way. Thirdly, I am absolutely clear and I have announced today that the increase in expenditure between individual schools and central budgets should be balanced so that schools themselves get the resources that they need in an effective way.
I am also clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that there is no commitment of any description from the Opposition to any level of funding increase whatever. Indeed, judging by the rhetoric of his party in the past,
460
its commitment is to reduce funding on schools, and I think that we should take that into account in considering what it has to say.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about numbers. It would indeed be foolhardy to offer numbers to schools when we do not know the level of the teachers' pay settlement, which forms such a substantial amount of any expenditure. That is why the commitment that I give is to make that announcement when we know the teachers' pay settlement following the proper review that has been set up. I think that that is an entirely correct approach. There is new money for schools in this approach in order precisely to give the confidence and stability that the system needs.
I acknowledge—this is the one point that I acknowledge from what the hon. Gentleman said—that my Department needs to improve its practice on the allocation of standards fund information in good time. That is why I said that we would provide that information much earlier in the year than traditionally so that both schools and local education authorities can know better where they are. We are not interested in micro-managing schools' budgets. What we are interested in doing is ensuring that schools have enough money to take the decisions that they have to take to enhance education opportunities for themselves.
I am proud of the announcement that we are making today. I think that it can offer the stability that is needed and that everybody will observe what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and notice the enormous hole at the centre of what the Conservative party has to say.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I give my right hon. Friend's statement a cautious welcome? It seems to address the major points of concern that we in the Select Committee on Education and Skills were putting to him only this week, so I give it a guarded and cautious welcome. It is a complex statement and we will want to go away and pore over it in some detail. There was an element of concern as he touched on special educational needs and pupil referral units, and on whether schools will be able to decide how much they spend on those matters.
Overall, I give the statement a cautious welcome. My right hon. Friend seems to have hit the three main targets. Let us make sure that the Government are really on target when we consider the statement a little more closely.
Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. As he says, this is a complex matter, and that is why I appreciate the detailed study that his Select Committee has made of this issue. I look forward to hearing any comments that he wishes to make once he has had the chance to have a considered look at the detail of the statement, but I appreciate the remarks that he has made at this stage.
Mr. Phil Willis: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, but he ought to be ashamed of the cowardly way in which he sneaked it out on the very day that schools go into recess for the summer, when they can do absolutely nothing about it.
To date, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have arrogantly tried to blame everyone for this crisis but themselves. He told us in April that local authorities had

461
stuffed £500 million down the backs of their sofas. He said in the Select Committee on Education and Skills that head teachers were incompetent for not managing their budgets. His latest excuse was that teachers are being paid too much. When the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I were at the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers' conference in April, we were told that we were scaremongering, and that that was why schools did not get the budgets that they need.
Today, we heard not a single word of humility from the Secretary of State about the chaos that has been caused. He was not able to name a single local education authority that has not satisfied his Department about its allocation or passporting of money to schools. At the Local Government Association conference in July, Barnaby Shaw, the Department's school improvement and excellence manager, said:
"When you try to analyse what went wrong, the fault lies with the DfES."
That is one of the Secretary of State's senior officials. Does he agree with him? Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who, at the same conference, accused him of exacerbating the situation with ill-thought-out statements?
Today's statement is also ill thought out. Will the Secretary of State confirm that not a single teacher or classroom assistant who is made redundant today will be re-employed as a result of it? Will he confirm that no additional resources will be given to schools with deficit budgets that have used all their balances or devolved their capital unless they are part of the recovery plan? Will he confirm that the recovery plan is in fact a loan that schools will have to pay back? Will he agree that when he appeared before the Select Committee on Monday, he let the cat out of the bag by saying that schools with insufficient resources will not be able to implement the work load agreement within the relevant time scale?
We welcome some aspects of the statement, including the longer-term settlement, the prospect of a two-year pay deal, and guaranteed per-student increases; but that is what the Secretary of State promised for this year. What additional resources has he obtained from the Chancellor in support of the next two-year settlement? If he has no more money, this is a hollow promise. If he has a sealed envelope, money must come from somewhere else to pay for the real increases that he has guaranteed. Who will be the new losers in this settlement? What plans has he actively to model the proposals at a school level? To be fair to the Secretary of State, we are pleased that he is going to bring forward the School Teachers Review Body process and that local authorities will have all the information before them. His ministerial colleagues refused to do that during the passage of the School Standards Bill, even though we proposed amendments that would achieve it. Does the Secretary of State accept that this year's transfer of standards fund money was in reality a sleight of hand by which he removed £350 million? That had a severe impact, especially on newly qualified teachers.
Finally, will the Secretary of State abandon the ludicrous idea of individually funding 25,000 schools? As we have seen this year, he is not competent to run his
462
own Department, let alone 25,000 schools. When he lounges on the beach somewhere in Europe this summer, he may be reminded of the hundreds of teachers and classroom assistants who are being made redundant and will have to find jobs elsewhere.
Mr. Clarke: Perhaps I could visit the hon. Gentleman in Harrogate this summer and lounge on the beach while I consider what to do. On the other hand, I might find that people come up and shout at me, having been inspired by the hon. Gentleman.
I am delighted by hon. Gentleman's warm welcome for the substance of our proposals, particularly on the two-year deal, the standards fund and the extra resources. It is a shame, however, that he had to hide it under a great shower of rhetoric that did not add up to much.
I have acknowledged throughout, and continue to do so, that mistakes were made in relation to the shared responsibility of my Department and local government for funding schools. I have said that in this House and in the Select Committee, and I have sought to analyse why and how it happened. It is precisely because we need to rectify those mistakes that I am making this statement. It is important that schools are well managed—that is why recovery plans to deal with deficit budgets and suchlike are necessary. It is not the case that a tap of money is turned on and schools spend, spend, spend. The situation has to be well managed and well directed, and that is what we will do. We are modelling the proposals in detail; I was at pains to point out the various consultations that I intend to have with local government, head teachers and others.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the funding formula, it is not necessary to withdraw a proposal that I never made.
Joan Ruddock: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which contains much to encourage us. I particularly thank him for the additional money for children's social services, as we had been greatly concerned that that might be badly affected by his ring-fencing. Can he clarify how the baselines will be established? Many schools are adopting deficit budgets, and unless they get back to where they should have been, an increase for 2004–05 will not be sufficient and may lead to redundancies, which we have managed to stave off for the moment.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's general support. Having discussed the situation with many of her colleagues in the London borough of Lewisham, I am well aware of the pressures that her local schools have experienced. I want to make two points in response. First, I have been told by many schools, governors and local education authorities that the single most important thing to sort out at this stage is certainty about the future and stability. That is what I sought to offer in the statement.
Secondly, I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says—we have discussed it outside this Chamber—about schools that have spent from reserves or from devolved formula capital, or where deficit budgets have been set. I also acknowledge that in some cases resolving those issues could be beyond the capacity of individual

463
schools and LEAs. In those few cases, I will be prepared to consider limited transitional support to avoid damage to children's education and consequences such as those that my hon. Friend describes. However, that must be part of a locally agreed recovery plan. The local authority—in her case, Lewisham—and schools must discuss among themselves, then agree with us, a plan that will deal with such problems. That is the responsible approach, and it allows stability for the future.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State is welcome to come to the Isle of Wight to lounge on the beaches, where he might meet the 40 or so staff who have lost their jobs as a result of this year's schools funding crisis. He said in his statement: "LEAs, heads and governors will work together through their schools forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied." Does that mean that this year's increase might be based not on the actual funding, but on a lower figure?
Mr. Clarke: That depends entirely on pupil numbers and the overall situation. I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, there are issues involving deficit budgets. We will take those into account in the way that I set out.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: In warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, I suggest that he needs not only to ensure that there is a stable and predictable funding system in future, but to provide ample flexibility for individual schools to experiment with new teaching methods and innovative use of resources on their premises. In that context, I commend to him the online learning system that is being pioneered by Manor college of technology in Hartlepool. The point is that without greater freedom and flexibility being permitted for individual schools, such innovative teaching advances are likely to remain restricted in the future.
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why I so energetically rebut the suggestion from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that I am interested in micro-managing schools. The truth is exactly as my right hon. Friend says: not only Manor college in his constituency but a large number of schools in the country are behaving in an innovatory way in an entirely outstanding application, for example, of information and communications technology, with different partnerships outside the school, which is all focused on raising educational standards. That can be done only if there is freedom and flexibility at the school level. That is what this statement is designed to offer.
Mr. Peter Luff: As many Worcestershire schools have welcomed the increased capital money made available by the Government to local schools, I am sure that they will welcome aspects of today's statement. They will be concerned, however, that the Government have brought forward no proposals at all to address the growing gap between Worcestershire's funding and the English national funding average, despite teachers being paid on a
464
national pay scale. When will the Government address the iniquity of schools in similar situations in similar local education authorities getting wildly different sums of money, which is forcing counties such as Worcestershire to charge their council tax payers considerably more than the Government think that they need to?
Mr. Clarke: I, too, represent a shire county in which the kind of issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are real. We have asked the School Teachers Review Body this year to look at whether there is a case for regional variations and so on, which is part of my remit letter that I published last Friday. To be blunt, the key area in which that is so important is London and the south-east, where there is already a whole system of extra pay to deal with those circumstances. It is a bigger factor there than in some other parts of the country, including Worcestershire. It is important to make an assessment, however, for the reasons that he states.
Glenda Jackson: Could my right hon. Friend help me by giving a little more detail about how the budgets for the following years will be defined? Despite my local authority, Camden, passporting all Government money to our schools, and despite finding an additional £1.8 million from other budgets for education, it is still facing a shortfall of £1.5 million. That is resulting in a loss of teachers and classroom assistants, deficit budgets, of which there have been 14 to date, and capital projects are being lost as well as certain educational programmes. Will he help me by saying what will be the minimum budget, given that there can be no argument that Camden has always passported, and will continue to passport, all Government money, and has always found additional funds for education?
Mr. Clarke: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Camden council, which has had substantial discussions with my officials and schools within the borough to address the problems there. As she knows, Camden is relatively well funded, being the seventh highest-funded education authority in Britain, but it has had serious issues that it has been seeking to address in a constructive way. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I am not prepared to put a figure on the amount of money that we are talking about until we know the pay review body settlement in particular, because that will be important. One of the issues this year was that the pay review body recommended, and I then agreed, a significantly greater pay increase in inner London, in boroughs such as Camden, than across the country, for the reasons that were referred to in the question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). I agreed that but it put greater pressures on the budgets of schools in inner London. That is why I am not prepared to give a figure for next year until we know exactly what the situation will be on teachers' pay.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Whatever the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, he seems not to have addressed the real crisis that exists at the moment. That can be no better explained than by looking at what happened in Barnet, where the Government, through the revenue support

465
grant, gave an additional £8.1 million to cover all services, but required the LEA to pass on £14.5 million to the schools, which the local education authority has done, causing a huge hike in the council tax. He has admitted that there have been failures, and that problems exist, and Barnet brought in an independent consultant who totally vindicated the LEA. Will he look at how, this year, he can immediately redress the injustice and help Barnet to cover this deepening crisis?
Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his parliamentary colleagues representing Barnet have been extremely energetic in making precisely the case that he sets out. I and my colleagues have been ready to meet colleagues from Barnet to discuss the situation, and continue to be ready to discuss it in every way that is appropriate. I remain of the view that the security and certainty that I am offering in this statement is a major means to resolving the issues of funding in the current year, including in schools in Barnet. That is why I commend my proposals to the schools and local education authority in Barnet, as well as more widely.
Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State recall his visit last month to Colchester when, as the Evening Gazette graphically reported, large sums of money were pledged? In particular, will he give a guarantee today that those schools that draw a large number of children from the Army estates will receive additional funding for the turbulence factor, which he led all those head teachers whom he met to believe would be forthcoming? Given his statement today, will he guarantee that the money for state schools that cater for service children will be provided?
Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had a constructive meeting with the heads of the schools around the Army base in Colchester to discuss precisely the issues that he describes. In short, the problem is that when garrisons move, and therefore families move, that can cause instability in the numbers in a particular school. This statement does not address that point because it is not about pupil numbers. The commitment that I gave to those head teachers—I give him the assurance that I continue to give—is that we are addressing the 250 schools altogether in the country that have that problem as garrisons move around, and we are discussing with the Ministry of Defence and others how we can give such schools the kind of stability that they seek.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I straightforwardly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He is absolutely right that there is too much brokerage as the money finds its way to schools. He is also right that the single most important cause of the difficulties that schools face is the cut in the standards fund, which was itself suggested by local government. He is right to reverse that, and I congratulate him on charming £400 million extra out of Prudence to support the reintroduction of the standards fund. Will he ensure, however, that the recovery plans, the changes in local formulae for distributing money to schools and the future distribution of the standards fund are all properly
466
consulted on locally in good time, so that everyone can see exactly what is going on and that there is fairness not favours?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm remarks, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks that the result of this will be to give clarity to every school about what the funding regime is. One of the relatively few silver linings that emerged from the grey cloud of funding this year was a much closer relationship in most parts of the country between the local education authority and the schools within that area, and a more serious debate about where resources were really being allocated. I believe that my statement today will accelerate that process.
Mr. David Amess: On average, in Southend, secondary schools have faced a funding shortage of £400,000 and primary schools of £50,000. In the light of the Secretary of State's statement today, will his officials kindly liaise urgently with officials in Southend to see whether the redundancy notices that were planned should not be sent out, preferably before the meeting with the Minister for School Standards on 9 September?
Mr. Clarke: I am happy to confirm that my officials would be very happy to meet the officials of the local education authority to discuss those points.
Mr. Andy Reed: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the useful meeting that Leicestershire MPs had with him earlier this week. Will he use the flexibility that is possible in what he said today to address the situation that was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), which is the gap in funding between the best and worst funded local education authorities. I know that he was able to allow some flexibility this year, with an additional £835,000 for the county when a shortfall was highlighted. Will he use that in his talks with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to look again at the area cost adjustment to help reduce the enormous gap that has opened up? I very much welcome the other steps that he is taking in today's statement.
Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. We had a very useful discussion with him and his colleagues from Leicestershire earlier this week, and I can confirm that I and my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to discuss these matters.
Mr. David Bendel: The Secretary of State said in an earlier answer that mistakes had been made. When we have a fiasco like this before us on the Public Accounts Committee, Members from all parties often put to the permanent secretary the question that I would now like to put to the Secretary of State. How many Ministers or civil servants have lost their jobs as a result of this fiasco?
Mr. Clarke: None, and I do not intend that any should.
Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his openness at this early stage; we

467
are now giving some clarity to the schools system. I remind him that the importance of the standards fund—as I know he recognises—was that it precisely targeted the most disadvantaged pupils in the most disadvantaged communities, and that it undid some of the great damage done by the previous Conservative Government. Will he make it clear how far we are able to tell such schools that next year they will have budgets that allow them to operate in the same way as last year?
Mr. Clarke: I think that we can be sure that schools can operate in that way. In so saying, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done with schools in central Manchester to improve the situation there. It was the evidence that he and his colleagues brought to me about the impact of the reductions in the standards fund on some of his schools, in the most challenging circumstances, that convinced me that the course of action that I am announcing today—to reverse the proposed cuts in the standards fund—is necessary to give the kind of assurance that he seeks.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Six long years after the Prime Minister promised to make education his top three priorities, can the Secretary of State look you in the eye and tell the House that that promise has been fulfilled—or even, Mr. Speaker, look you in the eye and tell the House that that promise has been fulfilled?
Mr. Clarke: Yes I can, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have set out in the statement in terms of increased resources, teachers, classroom assistants and teachers' pay, and of better results and outcomes. The contrast with the Conservative years of the past could not be greater.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I note that my right hon. Friend's statement refers to increased funding for sixth formers in sixth forms attached to maintained schools. I do not have such a sixth form in my constituency, but I have a sixth-form college. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the differential funding between pupils in sixth-form colleges and those to which I have already referred will be levelled out as soon as possible?
Mr. Clarke: It is true that the essence of this statement has been about the funding of schools, rather than of colleges, whether sixth-form colleges, tertiary colleges or general further education colleges. I can confirm, however, that it is the Government's intention directly to reduce the gaps in funding that exist between schools and colleges when educating sixth formers. That remains one of our priorities.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I thank the Secretary of State for receiving a cross-party delegation of Members from Leicestershire on Tuesday to discuss the worst crisis that we have ever had in education in the county. Is it not a fact that 40 to 50 per cent. of our schools now run deficit budgets, and that the Secretary of State is directly responsible for that? Will he tell the House whether the limited transitional resources to which he has referred will be applied to Leicestershire in the short term? Although he says that he is not going to
468
micro-manage schools' budgets, is it not a fact that he is thinking of directing LEAs on how and where they should spend the money in their budgets?
Mr. Clarke: The principal direction that I am offering is that there should be a minimum increase per pupil for every school. I think that most people in the House will welcome that direction and say that it offers the kind of stability that it would have been good to have had in the past. On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, I think that people sometimes have very short memories. In his own constituency in Leicestershire, there are now more teachers, better-paid teachers, better results, and more classroom assistants. The Government whom he supported did nothing for those people.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will be aware, following my meeting with the Minister for Children, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), that Hemel Hempstead is facing particular problems at the moment because of the huge cut in courses available at the local further education college. Schools in the area will need a considerable increase in their facilities to compensate for this. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that, when schools face pressures of this kind, his funding arrangements will be adequate?
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, one of the specific mandates of the learning and skills councils is to address the relationship in 16-plus education between schools, sixth-form colleges, general colleges and so on, in a way that will address the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Assuming that LEAs passport funds as required, how will today's proposals help schools in the lowest-funded authorities such as Poole and Dorset? Guaranteed percentage increases on a low base will not be enough to stave off crises in the future.
Mr. Clarke: There will be enough to achieve a guaranteed per pupil increase for every school in Poole. I know that there have been problems in Poole, and a delegation has met my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to discuss them. The decisions that I have been able to announce today on the standards fund will assist schools in Poole and also in other parts of the country.
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I remind him that schools in my constituency and in many other metropolitan districts in the north of England suffered deficit budgets, year on year, for every year of the old Tory funding formula. Is it not the case that the introduction of a floor for the increase in spending for each individual school will impact on the pace at which the floors and ceilings for each local authority's spending can be phased out? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how long it will now take to phase out those floors and ceilings?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot give my hon. Friend that information until we have the figures later in the year. I can, however, confirm that his central point is correct.

469
That is why I have worked so hard to ensure that I could make this statement today on the extra money for the standards fund, so that there would not be such an impact on the floors and ceilings as there would otherwise have been, thus ensuring that schools in his constituency and others will be able to benefit to the greatest possible extent. I shall, however, give him the detailed answer that he wants when we publish the figures based on the School Teachers Review Body report.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State will be aware that this year Essex had the toughest grant settlement of any county in England. Bearing that in mind, this seems to be a complex statement, and 1 suspect that the devil will probably be in the detail. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whatever guarantees he is offering will be fully funded by central Government, so that no unfair burden is placed on local council tax payers to finance them?
Mr. Clarke: I can give that assurance. I have visited Essex, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, on a couple of occasions. My journey from Norwich to London takes me through Essex, and, rather than just looking from a distance, I prefer to engage with the populace and to discuss these things with them. The impact of the funding formula was variable across schools, and some schools in Essex did very well out of it. My candid advice to the Conservative county council and its leader, who sits in the other place, is to make less political capital out of this issue and to focus more closely on the specific situation in the schools.
Roger Casale: Thanks to the excellent work of teachers and head teachers in my constituency, many of those parents who are fortunate enough to be able to choose are now entrusting the education of their children to state schools rather than paying to have them educated privately. If we are to continue to accommodate and encourage this increase in demand, should we not allow the oversubscribed schools such as the Hollymount and Wimbledon Chase primary schools to expand? Should we not also ensure that schools such as Pelham and Dundonald primary schools and Raynes Park high school are no longer faced with the kind of budgetary pressures that they have faced this year? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to work with me, the schools and the local authority to tackle these problems and to get to the bottom of why they have arisen, so that we can ensure that the improvements that are being made can be built on in the coming years?
Mr. Clarke: I give those assurances, and will add to them. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), is working hard through the London Challenge precisely to deal with the problem of over-subscribed schools and to get more flexibility in these areas. That is being done for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) states, and we will continue that work.
Mr. Richard Bacon: During the Secretary of State's sojourn from the Palace of
470
Westminster to Norwich, South, he passes through my constituency, and we were pleased to see him engaging with the populace at Loddon just the other day. Does he accept that teachers and classroom assistants in my constituency and elsewhere in Norfolk are losing their jobs? Does he also accept that it is just possible that the very complexity of the educational finance system may be part of the problem? Will he at least consider a pilot in which the money available from the state that is spent on education is given directly to parents to spend as they choose?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman from my neighbouring constituency that the system is complex and difficult, and that it is necessary to get more clarity into it. I am not prepared to contemplate a pilot such as he described at the moment, but I suggest that he talks to his political colleagues on Norfolk county council to see whether they would consider such a step in his constituency.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, today in particular, because it helps us for the summer and perhaps messes up the Liberal Democrats' summer campaign. That apart, will he define what he means by sufficient central Government grant for next year? My authority had a £14 million passport figure, but only a £10 million increase this year. Does it mean that any passported sum will be fully funded?
Mr. Clarke: The short answer to that question is yes, but we will deal with the context and quantums later this year. I acknowledge that Brighton and Hove council has had to address a number of difficulties, and my lion. Friend has raised those with me. We will endeavour to deal with them in those circumstances.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On the Secretary of State's stately progress from Norfolk to London, perhaps he would like to stop and visit schools in my constituency, which are running deficit budgets because they want to retain teachers, not make them redundant. He talks about a guaranteed per pupil increase for next year. Does he accept that for those schools the key concern is that it reflects not only the unavoidable additional costs in 2004–05 compared with 2003–04, but meets some of the unavoidable costs that arose in this financial year that were not covered in the settlement available to Cambridgeshire? Although Cambridgeshire passported 113 per cent. of its increase in formula, it did not make up the disparity that many schools experienced.
Mr. Clarke: In answer to previous questions, I have dealt in some detail with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I do not have anything further to add. If I am invited to visit his constituency, of course I will be delighted to do so.
Ms Oona King: I apologise for being a few minutes late for my right hon. Friend's statement, but I was receiving a petition from the Tower Hamlets parents association signed by hundreds of residents. Like me, they are desperately concerned about the £5.5 million funding shortfall for education in

471
Tower Hamlets. I thank the Secretary of State for seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and me about this problem. I particularly welcome his announcements on standards funds. What assurance can he give parents, teachers, governors and local government that schools that set a deficit budget as a result of the reduction in standards funds last year—not this year, but the 2003–04 financial year—and the increase in teachers' pay will get the additional funding they need to prevent redundancies and to set a balanced budget?
Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the issues in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am grateful for her acknowledgement that we had a useful meeting to discuss these questions. I do not think that there is anything I can add on deficit budgets for this year, but I shall certainly take her remarks fully into account.
Mr. Mark Hoban: Last year, Hampshire county council received one of the lowest settlements of any local education authority, and that has contributed to some of the funding problems in local schools. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the relative shift in funding will continue next year? If so, does he recognise that that will put more pressure on local schools?
Mr. Clarke: I think that I have clarified exactly what the Government propose to do for Hampshire schools and those elsewhere in the country. Like others who have contributed to this discussion, I am a Member of Parliament for a shire county, and I acknowledge that serious issues need to be addressed. My statement offers stability to create conditions in which they can be addressed.
David Taylor: As I mentioned to the Secretary of State when he carefully and courteously received a cross-party delegation of Leicestershire MPs on Tuesday, the 50 schools in northwest Leicestershire have had a difficult time as a result of this settlement, not least because of the impact of standards fund changes. Will he reassure the House that the extra £400 million per year that he is injecting into that mechanism starting next year will not be top sliced from some other educational pot, and is new money? Does he agree that the corollary to the national distribution formula reflecting economic and social need should be that the distribution mechanism within LEAs reflects the needs of individual school catchment areas?
Mr. Clarke: I can give the assurance that the extra resources that I have announced today will be targeted on the specific needs of schools. We have made that announcement to create the stability that we are seeking.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The statement is welcome, particularly the average per
472
pupil guarantee and the Secretary of State's decision to reverse next year's reductions in the school standards fund. I am also grateful to the Minister for School Standards for meeting a delegation of heads from Bognor Regis to discuss their funding problems. It seems that this year's problems arose from the complexity of the funding arrangements. Will the Secretary of State model these changes and the funding for each authority, as suggested by the director of education in West Sussex, so that we can be absolutely sure that this year's problems will not recur next year?
Mr. Clarke: The reason I sought Mr. Speaker's permission to make a statement today was to set out the structure and architecture of the arrangements that we will carry through. I shall announce the money when we know the result of the teachers pay review body and other matters. We will use the time between now and then to work with LEAs and schools to model the detailed impact of the changes, so that when we come to make the money announcement in the autumn it reflects the real situation and is properly prepared.
Geraint Davies: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will know that an extra 549 teachers and teaching assistants have been appointed in Croydon since 1997, but this year we face particular difficulties. Will the transitional funding applied in exceptional circumstances for deficit funding come from his Department or from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? How confident is he in his dialogue with the Deputy Prime Minister that enough money will be available to fund the forecasts for next year, alongside provision for other vital services, without a large increase in council tax? Will the money also fund people with special educational needs, so that they have the services that they deserve?
Mr. Clarke: I have had good discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and with other Departments about the best way of achieving the funding. We have reached agreement, which is why I am able to make this announcement.
Dr. John Pugh: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury prior to this announcement about bypassing local authorities and funding schools from his own Department, and what was the upshot of those discussions?
Mr. Clarke: There have been substantial discussions between Ministers and officials in my Department with the Treasury. I explained the upshot of those discussions in my statement.

Personal Statement
2.18 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to make a personal statement with regard to a report about my conduct by the Standards and Privileges Committee. This was the first time that an MP has referred allegations about his own conduct to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I am grateful to the Standards and Privileges Committee for authorising the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate. I fully co-operated with the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigations.
The Parliamentary Commissioner concluded that there had been no misuse of public funds by me, and I had not used my position as an MP in any way to influence a visa decision. I wish to add that at no time did I mislead or seek to mislead a Customs official. The Standards and Privileges Committee concluded that I had made two errors of judgment. The Committee determined that the first of those required no further action, and that the second was made when I was under enormous personal pressure.
I have unreservedly apologised to the Committee, and now do so to the House, in respect of these matters. I acknowledge the full recommendations of the Committee, which I accept.
Finally, I am grateful for the tremendous support that I have received throughout recent months from family, friends, parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, local party members and constituents.

Point of Order
2.20 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a written statement on community pharmacies which was detailed and fairly comprehensive. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Health published a document entitled "A Vision for Pharmacy in the New NHS".
As you will know, Mr. Speaker—as you are often herein the late evenings—many Members hand in petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country supporting community pharmacies and small businesses. Given the amount of public concern, and given that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that a statement would be made before the House rose, surely the right hon. Lady owes it to the House to make an oral statement enabling us to question her on what are very technical and complicated matters. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to urge and persuade Ministers to give us such opportunities in future?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to take on the responsibilities of a Back Bencher. The matter could easily be raised today during the Adjournment debates that are about to take place. That would enable the hon. Gentleman to register his complaint.

Point of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    Mr. David Chaytor, supported by Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Alan Simpson, Brian White and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue new Building Regulations in relation to the installation of boilers in domestic premises; to make provision for the continuation of the energy efficiency commitment in relation to domestic premises; to require the Secretary of State to consult on extending that provision to non-domestic premises; to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult on reducing value added tax on energy saving materials; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed. [Bill 153].
    CARE HOMES (TENANCY)
    Mr. Paul Burstow presented a Bill to establish the tenancy rights of care home residents; to provide for continuity of care where a care home is closed; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed. [Bill 154].

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
2.22 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to raise two important issues. The first relates to sleep apnoea and road safety.
Last year I helped to organise a working group to examine the problems of sleep disorder and its impact on road accidents. I also tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by 126 Members of Parliament. The motion recognised that a significant proportion of all road accidents resulting in death or serious injury were caused by sleepiness, and that that led to misery. As well as noting the obvious human misery caused by fatal road accidents, however, we should note that a fatal accident costs about ?1 million, given the cost of emergency services and the cost of any subsequent inquiry.
I am raising this issue in an attempt to secure more Government recognition of sleep disorders and their impact on society, especially in relation to road accidents. It is currently estimated that sleep disorders affect approximately 770,000 people in the United Kingdom, but despite the number of sufferers there is no mention of sleep disorders in the national health service plan or other Government health guidelines—notwithstanding research showing that treatment is cost-effective, and a recent estimate by sleep experts that untreatable sleep disorders are costing the NHS ?432 million a year.
Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, the road safety charity, issued a statement today saying
"It's a horrific thought that thousands of people setting off on long holiday drives could be unwittingly putting their families at risk because of a sleep disorder. Tragically, people are already dying on our roads because sleep disorders lead drivers to doze off at the wheel. These deaths are preventable and it is high time that"
there was some
"action to educate drivers about sleep disorders and give doctors the resources they need to treat them."
The most common disorder is obstructive sleep apnoea, in which obstruction of the airway during sleep can lead to excessive daytime tiredness. Many sufferers remain undiagnosed because they assume that they are suffering from exhaustion rather than a specific, treatable condition. Dr. Melissa Hack of the Newport Sleep Centre says
"Sleep disorders have a huge impact on the quality of life of the sufferer. Greater attention must be paid to sleep related disorders which can be identified and treated".
This is an important issue, which has been ignored. I have tied it in with road safety because of recent research published in a report called "Dead Tired". It concluded that sleep caused 20 per cent. of accidents on our motorways. I urge the Government to take the problem seriously; I will certainly raise it again when we reassemble in the autumn.
I want to say a quick word about Iraq as well. I think that our Government are digging themselves deeper and deeper into the mire. The Untied States has finally been forced to admit what the rest of us already knew: that
476
the war is ongoing, and is costing a fortune. Last night we witnessed an extraordinary scene—American troops in Iraq appearing on television to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. As for the authority of the British Government, we seem to be shifting from farce to tragedy. As the weapons of mass destruction issue unravels, it looks increasingly likely that the case against Iraq was exaggerated by both the United States and our own Government.
On the matter of uranium from Niger, for example, President Bush and the Prime Minister are not even singing from the same hymn sheet. Let me remind Members of events. At the end of February 2002, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Niger, at the behest of his Government, to investigate claims that uranium was being sold to Iraq. According to his own recently published account, he found that documents purporting to disclose that were forgeries, and the US embassy staff on the ground certainly agreed with him. According to his account, he told the American authorities that several times, but inexplicably his reports seem to have been ignored.
Six months later, in September last year, our Prime Minister presented his first dossier, which contained the claim that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. This week the Foreign Secretary informed the House that it was not until mid-February this year, a full 12 months later, that British Ministers were apprised of Mr. Wilson's findings. The Foreign Secretary has also assured us in writing—placing a letter in the House of Commons Library—that
"although the CIA told the British government about their reservations concerning this element of the September dossier, UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which the government had not shared with the USA."
I have quoted from the Foreign Secretary's letter, because I think it makes the case for me.
Meanwhile, inconveniently—the timing was unfortunate to say the least—the Prime Minister was appearing before the Liaison Committee to assure its members that the dossiers were based on well-founded intelligence. Across the water, the White House was informing the American public that the reference in President Bush's state of the Union speech on 28 January this year had been wrong—a mistake that the CIA has subsequently "coughed up" to. Contrary to that, in a new development this weekend, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld insisted on American television that the President had done nothing wrong: he had simply stated what the British Government had told him. The British Government had told him that Saddam Hussein was attempting to procure uranium from Niger, and therefore his statement was technically correct.
It seems to me that many lives—those of thousands of Iraqi families, as well as the families of dead and injured British and American soldiers—have been shattered on the basis of technicalities such as this. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, President Bush has executed a further about-face. In direct contradiction to what his aides have been saying, he now stands by the "damn good" intelligence that he received.
Finally—and let us hope that it is final—the British Government's assertion that the dossier's claims about Niger uranium were based on other reliable intelligence

477
has now been thrown into question. According to Reuters, a western diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency insists that the intelligence on which the UK says it relied came from the same group of faked documents that Joseph Wilson discredited as long ago as February 2002.
The Government owe Parliament and the British public an urgent answer to the following questions. First, why were the Government not informed about the forged documents until a year after Joseph Wilson's report? After all, we are the Americans' closest allies. Secondly, when did the British intelligence services get wind of those forgeries? Thirdly, what other evidence exists to back up the claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger, and is the source in question free from the taint of forgery? Fourthly, is it true, as The Independent claims today, that the Government are refusing to hand over this evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency?
By the Foreign Affairs Committee's own admission, it had insufficient access to sources and personnel in order to judge whether the intelligence was faulty or misinterpreted. If the Government accept the right of Parliament to question the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, as the Foreign Secretary did in his statement yesterday, why will the Prime Minister not take the next step and set up an independent judicial inquiry? These are very important matters, which we should look at again soon and urgently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): May I remind all Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?
2.31 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: I want to raise an issue that is of importance to my constituents and I and to the House as a whole. In essence, I want to talk about the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to China and the opportunity that it presents, within the context of the war against terrorism, to give voice to the non-violent aspirations of the long-suffering people of Tibet. I hope that he will take the opportunity in the days ahead to carry with him the hopes of the Tibetans and of their countless friends throughout the world, especially in this House. He will know of the important work done by the all-party group on Tibet under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He will also be familiar with early-day motion 834, which raises current causes for deep concern, especially the recent execution of Lobsang Dhondup and the two-year suspended death sentence imposed on the respected Buddhist leader, Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche. In particular, I ask that those on the Government Front Bench convey to the Prime Minister our feeling that he should impress on the Chinese Government the need to make meaningful progress in the current talks between the Tibetans and the Chinese, and to press the Chinese Government to enter into proper negotiations with the Tibetan Government in exile, without stipulating impossible preconditions.
478
The Prime Minister is going on a world tour—to the USA, Japan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong—and I wish him well; however, I want to concentrate on China. We as a country have great experience in dealing with China over the years, particularly during the years of negotiation on Hong Kong. There is new leadership in China and the United Kingdom wants to be China's European best friend. Business men are going with the Prime Minister, which is good, but we have to deal with China with our eyes wide open.
Tibet has been occupied for 53 years now. The Government are very knowledgeable on United Nations resolutions, a number of which cover Tibet. They deal with the human rights abuses; the transfer of the population on a massive scale; the destruction of whole communities, monasteries and cultural buildings; the degradation of the environment; and the assault on the freedoms of the nomadic way life. International pressure can, and has, made a difference.
The all-party group on Tibet was fortunate to be visited recently by Ngawang Sangdrol, a 23-year old young woman from Tibet whose story illustrates what peaceful protest means there. For demonstrating with a small group of young nuns when she was 13, and for calling for Tibetan independence, she was imprisoned for two years. Because she would not recant and sang songs honouring the Dalai Lama, she was subjected to brutal punishments and stripped of her civil rights. She has been released after 11 years, only though the efforts of Amnesty International and many others, including our colleagues here, particularly the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). Still deprived of her civil rights, Ngawang Sangdrol was allowed to leave Tibet for medical treatment on the condition that she sign an undertaking not to speak of her treatment. That success is due in large part to the fact that people all over the world hung on to her name. Now, we can see her face to face.
Ngawang Sangdrol is one of hundreds of political detainees—of young people born under the Chinese occupation of Tibet who have steadfastly followed the Dalai Lama's non-violent approach. It would surely be far easier for many of them to follow the more familiar path of the dispossessed and aggrieved of today's world—to meet violence with violence—but they do not. The difference for the Tibetans is the Dalai Lama: a man of enormous authority to his people, and of absolute peace to the world. He is a firm believer in non-violence, and states:
"We are freedom fighters unique in our peaceful approach to liberation …Should this experiment prove successful, it could have a revolutionary effect on future struggles for freedom".
Let me set that in a context that I hope the House can appreciate and will understand. Our country is acutely aware of the threat of terrorism, both internally and internationally. I have supported the Government in their actions in recent months, and I believe that we are right to protect our own interests against organised terrorism. But I also recognize—I know that the Government do, too—that, currently, much in the world situation is feeding the recruitment of terrorists. This, uniquely, is not the situation with the people of Tibet. Where others speak the language of war and practise it, the Dalai Lama speaks only the language of peace and seeks a non-violent resolution of his people's

479
desperate plight. Is that not what we ask all world leaders to do, and should we not seek to help those few—those very few—who actually do it?
UK Governments past and present have shown the value of innovative non-violent approaches in Northern Ireland. The UK speaks with first-hand experience of terrorism and the path to resolution—so, in our own sphere, we believe that there is another way. It surely follows that we should be prepared to demonstrate this to the world at large, and to say that those who follow peaceful advocacy of their cause can, and should, gain an advantage. Their grievances should be heard, and resolutions should be found to their legitimate concerns; otherwise, we leave them no alternative but violence and terrorism.
A very important moment came in September 2002, with re-establishment of direct contact between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. That was a very brave decision on the part of the Dalai Lama. No political leader since Gandhi has so steadfastly followed the path of non-violence, and none has had their determination to remain non-violent put to such a tough test as the Tibetans, on whom the Chinese have inflicted that test. The Dalai Lama has been abused and vilified by the Chinese authorities as if he were an armed terrorist. Meanwhile, foreign Governments, various world bodies and countless individuals have heaped much praise on the Dalai Lama for his peaceful approach. But however much praise has been given to the Dalai Lama and to the Tibetan people, in practical terms it has been almost meaningless. Tibetans could easily point to numerous examples of violence achieving the desired results.
The Dalai Lama's representatives have paid two visits to Beijing in the past 12 months, but there is no sign yet that the Chinese Government are genuinely willing to work toward real negotiations. Those are still discussions about discussions, and at the moment they appear to be going nowhere. Some believe that the Chinese Government's motive is to string out these talks to curb the Dalai Lama from speaking in public at all. The Chinese have already secured a tight self-restriction on campaigning by the Tibetan world diaspora and Tibet's friends—this in order to demonstrate the Tibetan commitment to dialogue. It is surely in both the international community's and China's interests to show that a non-violent approach warrants a civilised response and practical outcomes.
During his forthcoming visit to China, the Prime Minister can play a significant role in convincing the Chinese that the current talks have to be for real, that they are in their interests and will be to their credit. He speaks with the authority of one who has been personally involved in handling attempts to resolve a terrorist approach to nationalist aspirations. Our Government's policy is to recognise China's special relationship with Tibet on the basis that Tibet enjoys genuine autonomy. This, too, is the policy of the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minster has to underline the fact that the Dalai Lama has made a major concession by not pressing for the independence demanded by many of his people.
As the deputy Leader of the House will know, Chinese diplomacy on such issues is aggressive, and to have any impact at all a similarly robust approach is needed. Indeed, such an approach is also respected, as
480
we know from the example of Hong Kong. For both historical and current reasons, we owe a moral obligation to the Tibetan people and to the Dalai Lama. In the current world context, it is in our interest to give them our support, and to show the Chinese that that is also in their interests.
The opening of dialogue can reflect only creditably on China, but it has to be a genuine dialogue. It must be dialogue that is not made impossible by Chinese pre-conditions, such as demanding that the Dalai Lama should subscribe to statements, knowing that he is in no position to do so.
In summary, I ask the Government to encourage the Prime Minister to urge the Chinese leadership seriously to discuss the issue of Tibet by entering into a proper dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. This needs to be done against the background of mutual understanding and trust. The Dalai Lama is offering that to the Chinese and they should respond in like manner.
Clearly the Chinese Government are not yet serious, so we should implore the Prime Minister to press China's leaders to understand the opportunity that is presented by the Tibetan leader. This would be in the best interests not only of the Tibetans and the Chinese, but of humanity as a whole. Against the background of the international war against terrorism, there should be a global message that non-violent protest against gross violations of basic human rights deserves our support and should be helped to succeed.
2.40 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I wish to raise three issues in the 10 minutes available to me, the first of which is transport. At Transport questions this week, I raised with Ministers the reduction of services at Hartford station in my constituency. I now want to elaborate on the problems that we are experiencing there.
In 1988, British Rail issued a press notice that described Hartford station. It stated:
"Located at the heart of Mid-Cheshire … ideally situated to provide a fast rail service to various parts of the country and is quickly becoming the recognised centre of convenient rail travel in the Vale Royal area. Since electrification of the West Coast Main Line in 1966, Hartford's role has steadily increased and from May 16th 1988 the service has been vastly improved, with over 20 InterCity trains calling at the station in addition to a further 10 extra holiday trains on Saturdays during the summer. The regular hourly service of local trains throughout the day links Hartford with all stations on the Crewe-Liverpool line."
The notice described how the station served not only Hartford, but Northwich, Winsford, Middlewich, Knutsford and a wider area. It had 100 free car parking spaces, which recently had been extended. The press release explained a number of other services that went through Hartford. In 1988, Hartford was becoming a busy station.
Privatisation stopped all that. In 2001, Virgin Rail ended the west coast main line service that stopped at Hartford. The Virgin Cross Country services that used Hartford were stopped in 2002. Now, the Strategic Rail Authority has confirmed that the Liverpool to Birmingham service will no longer stop at Hartford, although it may well stop at peak periods.
What is most striking about this are the reasons given for the diminution of services at Hartford. A letter from the Strategic Rail Authority stated:

481
"It may help if I set out the overall context in which the timetable changes are being made. Since last September the timetable has not worked satisfactorily. This is borne out by our performance statistics, which show that the performance of many operators is still below par. For instance, in the last quarter of last year, punctuality on Virgin Cross County fell by 47.6 per cent. It was clear that, in the interests of passengers, a new approach was needed."
The letter then mitigates the position, saying:
"The section of the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Weaver Junction is double-track only, which creates a 'pinch point' with a lot of pressure on available capacity. For this reason a number of Hartford stops will be removed".
I find it hard to bring together what British Rail was able to do in 1988 with what the SRA is telling us now. I want more trains to stop at Hartford station to encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transport.
Virgin Rail says that it has finished the Hartford stops, but that passengers can get a free train from Hartford to Crewe and then the intercity line from Crewe to London. However, the first train to leave Hartford will not get business men or women to Crewe in time to catch a train to be in London for 9 o'clock. They have a choice; they can either drive their cars to Manchester airport and fly or get on the M6 and drive. I am looking to Ministers and the Department for Transport to see what they can do to improve the services that use this excellent station in my constituency, and I look forward to that happening.
On a related issue, Cheshire county council has decided, in its wisdom, to cut £250,000 from school bus services. Three services serve my constituency, all of which are threatened. The Weaver to Helsby service takes a large number of pupils on a tortuous journey through my constituency to an excellent school. If that service is removed, the parents of those children will have a choice: they can take the children in the car or they can put them in a taxi, as it is far too far to walk. That is an ill-thought-out proposal.
The proposal to remove the services to Aston primary school in the north of my constituency is equally poor. The school is rural and the narrow roads that service it are not fit for children to walk along. Cheshire county council says that it wants children to get in their parents' cars to go to school, or to make a dangerous journey. That is not acceptable.
The third transport issue that I want to raise relates to the Competition Act 1998. Two bus companies serve the northern part of my constituency, Arriva and First North Western. On one route, from Helsby to Chester, one could until recently interchange tickets on that route. The inter-availability of tickets has been removed because of the transport companies' fear that they will fall foul of the Competition Act, because both companies charge the same price for the journey. That scheme has been in existence for about 16 years, from when the route was split between the two.
The scheme does not threaten competition but it serves my community well and has done so for many years. Because of the threat that the companies may be acting in contravention of the Competition Act, they have had to remove the inter-availability of tickets. I
482
want common sense on the issue, rather than the red tape that is bringing about another diminution of transport services in my constituency.
The second issue concerns Cloughwood, a residential special school for boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I have been associated with the school for about 15 years. When I worked in special education, I visited the school, and I have kept a close association with it since becoming a Member of Parliament. It is the premier residential EBD school in the country. Its last Ofsted report said that it was an excellent school; Ofsted could find nothing to criticise in the school.
For boys aged from about eight to 11 who have failed everywhere else in the education system, the school provides a real opportunity to succeed. They do well in GCSE examinations; the school's league table position is there for all to see. The school is represented nationally in trampolining competitions, and the art work in the school is fantastic; the school has a charter mark for art. It is a first-class school, but it is under threat because Cheshire county council, short-sightedly, wants to save some money.
Since September last year, the council has reduced the number of admissions to the school and now says that there are surplus places. It wants to change the residential nature of the school into a mixed residential and day-care school. Anybody who has worked in special education will know that that mix does not work. The only way that one can succeed with boys presenting such problems at 10 or 11 is to have them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has to be done that way and I am appalled that Cheshire county council has made the decision without properly consulting. I want to give notice that I shall oppose the move by the county council as vigorously as I can.
The third local issue concerns Halton hospital in my constituency. On 1 July this year, the clinical director at North Cheshire Hospitals Trust unilaterally, without consultation and without following due process, decided to close two intensive care beds in the hospital. He did so on the pretext that he did not have enough anaesthetic cover for the two hospital sites. Nothing has changed, as far as I can see, in the last two months.
Now, anybody in Halton hospital who needs intensive care must be moved through Widnes to Whiston, or through the southern part of Runcorn to Warrington general hospital. That is a diminution of service at Halton general hospital to which I am totally and utterly opposed. Efforts to get the clinical director to change his mind have so far not succeeded. However, I shall be looking to the North Cheshire Hospitals Trust and the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority to come forward with a plan that will reinstate those intensive care beds to a hospital that serves my constituency well.
I am grateful for the House's attention to these matters.
2.49 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: As the House knows, two issues are so important to my constituency that I have promised my constituents that I will raise them al every practical opportunity on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that they are

483
the future of the royal hospital Haslar, and the risk that 400 young men may be accommodated on the Daedalus site in the inner Solent.
The background to the Haslar hospital problem is that the Government decided in 1997–98 to investigate the clear deficiencies, particularly in respect of senior consultants, in the Defence Medical Services. Those deficiencies were well known for some time, and a committee comprising no medically trained staff decided that the way ahead was to build a new centre of medical excellence—along the lines, they hoped, of Guy's hospital in London or the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford—and to close the only remaining military hospital in the United Kingdom, the royal hospital Haslar in my constituency.
When they pressed ahead with the plan, they found that, apart from Birmingham, there were no takers for the new centre of medical excellence. I have to say that it is with some considerable reluctance that medical staff are now being moved to Birmingham as the plan proceeds. I have met all the senior people involved and I know that they are capable. They are not medical but military people; if they had been tasked to take Basra, no doubt they would have taken it. However, they were tasked to close Haslar hospital and to move defence medicine to Birmingham: they are getting on with it efficiently.
The question for the future is what will happen to defence medicine and to the royal hospital Haslar? Defence medicine is not thriving at the moment in the key faculties of general medicine, general surgery and orthopaedic surgery and there are dramatic shortages of anaesthetists. There are only 23 anaesthetists out of an establishment of 120, and only 18 general surgeons out of an establishment of 44. Clearly, things are not going well in the field of defence medicine.
Of course we must all wish the Ministry of Defence well and hope that it is successful in its innovative plans to increase pay and retention payments in an attempt to ensure that doctors who join the Army, Navy and Air Force actually remain there. The problem is not recruitment—people are willing to enter the armed forces and be paid for their training—but retention. It often seems more attractive for doctors to move outside the services once they have received the qualifications that they want. We wish the Ministry of Defence well in the task of retaining doctors, nurses and other staff. I for one am convinced that, if Haslar hospital were retained a s the centre of esprit de corps of the Defence Medical Services, it would have a significant effect on retaining medical staff.
I move on to the civilian side, because the Haslar hospital has served the civilian population, as well as the Army, Navy and Air Force, for many years. It is an integral and necessary part of the medical establishment in the area. I received an assurance from the then Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in a letter of 28 January 2003. She said:
"As you may know the Health Authority undertook a local consultation from January to April 2000. Following this consultation a commitment was made to the people of Gosport to develop a substantial facility as RH Haslar (subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site), with day case surgery, diagnostic services, outpatient clinics and the Haslar Accident
484
Treatment Centre. The local NHS remains committed to this vision, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to take it forward."
The problem is the proviso,
"subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site".
Currently, there has been no arrangement between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS on the use of the site, and without that agreement the Ministry of Defence remains locked into owning a hospital that it does not want to run, and the NHS has superb facilities available to it, but cannot come to a final conclusion.
As we sit here today, a private finance initiative bid is being considered for the other local hospital, the Queen Alexandra hospital, Corsham. Once the hospital trust sorts that out, it will be able look into the longer-term position. I maintain that, with the superb diagnostic imaging treatments available at Haslar, the MRI scanners and the ultrasound facilities, which are built into the structure of the building and are incapable of being moved elsewhere—quite apart from the 280 beds and other facilities—the NHS will not be able to cope without Haslar's facilities. I maintain that the Minister should follow through her commitment of 29 January 2003 and confirm that arrangements are being put in hand to transfer Haslar hospital from the ownership of the Ministry of Defence to the NHS, and then the NHS hospital trust could plan ahead. That having been done, I am confident that the Ministry of Defence, recognising that the Haslar facilities remained and would not be closed as currently projected in 2007, could examine its own plans further and continue to use the royal hospital, Haslar as a centre for medical excellence and esprit de corps in the Defence Medical Services. That is my plea today.
The second issue is the Daedalus site in Lee-on-the-Solent. It came as a bombshell in February this year when the Home Office announced that it was considering, initially, 550 families, and subsequently 400 young men, to be located at the Daedalus site, a former naval air station at Lee-on-the-Solent. The area of west Lee-on-the-Solent has been in shock ever since. A local estate agent told me that he has not sold a single house there since the announcement was made. Yet when I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration what consultations she had undertaken with local estate agents before stating that the identification of the site of the accommodation centre would not have an effect on house prices or sales—her assurance was that she had no reason to believe that it would have such an effect—the answer was, of course, none.
The truth is that it has affected local house prices and the transferability of houses. I feel particularly sorry for a constituent who e-mailed me yesterday saying that he was under threat of redundancy and might need to sell his house, but could not afford to do so at a reduced price. Clearly, other areas where accommodation centres are under consideration—namely, Bicester and Newton—will affect decisions about the Daedalus site. The decision on Bicester, which was expected two or three weeks ago, has been delayed until the autumn. I believe that the delay may be due to the inspector's reservations about placing an accommodation centre in a quiet rural location next to a small village. It seems that the decision on Daedalus will await the Bicester decision. I regard waiting as good news because we

485
know that the Government are considering the screening of applicants for political asylum outside the UK as urged by the Conservative party. If the Government are capable of pursuing that proposal, it will put off completely the need to have accommodation centres.
I end by saying that siting an accommodation centre in Lee-on-the-Solent and placing 400 young men in a quiet seaside retirement area is viewed locally with horror. Local residents are worried about security because there are many military establishments in the area. They are concerned about pressure on resources. They know that young men from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia would not integrate locally. They are vehemently opposed to the plan. I hope that the Home Office will take my plea into account before taking a decision on Daedalus.
2.58 pm
Geraldine Smith: I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to participate in an end-of-Session Adjournment debate. These debates really do provide Members with an opportunity to comment on a wide range of issues right across the political spectrum.
The first issue that I wish to comment on today is the war in Iraq and its aftermath. I was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on the occasions when this matter was debated in the House, especially before the conflict, and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to put my position on the public record.
I abhor the use of violence in all its forms. It runs contrary to my moral, intellectual and religious beliefs, and I find the appalling carnage, death and destruction that occur during a war almost too horrific to contemplate. Yet, despite having those deeply held views, I am also pragmatic enough to know that, in the dangerous world in which we live, there are occasions on which the use of military force is both necessary and justified. I had to be totally convinced that the use of military force was essential and that it complied with the requirements of international law before I supported military action against Iraq earlier this year. Throughout the pre-war period I was greatly encouraged by the Government's attempts to secure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq, under the auspices of the UN Security Council. The Government's role in persuading the US to follow the UN route, and in securing UN resolution 1441, was commendable.
The policy of backing up resolution 1441 with a credible threat of military action if Iraq did not fully comply with its terms offered the best chance for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq then. However, as we are all aware, the French declaration of an intention to veto any resolution that specifically allowed the use of military action effectively scuppered that course of action. In my view, that collapse of the diplomatic process made war inevitable. The only question that remained to be answered was whether Britain should commit its armed forces to the conflict.
I was convinced that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons and had to be disarmed. I was also convinced that weapons inspectors would not be able to
486
achieve anything meaningful without the full and active co-operation of the Iraqi regime. I was further convinced that the Iraqi regime had no intention of giving that co-operation. Additionally, I believed that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to use his weapons, or to supply them to terrorist organisations for use, against his perceived enemies. He and his regime had a proven track record of crimes against humanity. We have all now seen the mass graves. Of course, I could have been wrong then, but I was not prepared to take that chance and therefore I supported the Government's decision to commit our forces to the conflict in Iraq.
The fact that as yet no weapons of mass destruction have been found does not lead me to conclude that the intelligence provided to the British and American Governments was seriously flawed. If we consider the situation in Northern Ireland and the issue of disarming the paramilitaries, we see that small organisations have been able to conceal arms and explosives in a relatively small area, and the combined efforts of the military, the intelligence agencies and the police force have been unable to detect them for more than 30 years. So it is hardly surprising that in a country the size of Iraq the former Iraqi regime has been able to hide its weapons. In my view, that merely demonstrates the futility of endlessly continuing with the UN weapons inspections. Throughout the Iraq crisis, the Prime Minister has displayed great fortitude, leadership and statesmanship and I commend him for that. The same cannot be said for the Leader of the Opposition.
I shall now touch briefly on a couple of other issues. Although they are completely unrelated, they do have a common thread in that there are heated arguments in political circles about whether or not they should be the subject of referendums.
Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Lady has been uncharacteristically curt and ungracious about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Many hon. Members will share her admiration for the Prime Minister's statesmanship, but will also be prepared to put on record their admiration for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, from the start of the war to its finish, was wholehearted in his support for the Government and the British national interest.
Geraldine Smith: The Leader of the Opposition did fully support the Government during the conflict in Iraq. He called for us to take action and was behind the action that was taken, but now he seems to have changed his mind. He is taking an opportunistic view of a serious matter that should be above party politics.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Geraldine Smith: No, I am sorry, but I am limited to 10 minutes. I have moved on to the forthcoming European constitution—which may prompt more interventions—and to the proposals for English regional government and, in particular, a referendum for the north-west. I shall make it clear at the outset that I am not in favour of a referendum for either proposal.
Taking the European constitution first, it appears to, me to be premature, if not slightly absurd, to call for a referendum on a matter that is still very much subject to

487
negotiation, the final outcome of which may have no significant constitutional impact on our citizens. Referendums should be held only when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held only when people know exactly what they are getting. I would therefore urge the Prime Minister to continue to resist the ill founded and opportunistic calls from the anti-European element, in the House and elsewhere, for an open-ended commitment to a referendum, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations on the European constitution.
On the question of regional government, it would perhaps be more appropriate to refer to it as local government reorganisation, because it appears to have far more to do with the latter than the former. In this instance, I am opposed to a referendum being held, because we have more important matters to address, such as health, education, crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also opposed to what is being proposed and fully intend to campaign actively for a no vote when a referendum is held in the north-west region.
To proceed with referendums on the basis of a favourable outcome on the minuscule return of a consultation process involving a tiny fraction of the electorate is both absurd and wrong. The decision looks even more bizarre when we remember that neither the few who were consulted, nor the even fewer who bothered to respond, had any detailed knowledge of the make-up of the forms of government that would be put to them in a referendum.
It is clear that while the subject may excite many politicians, the general public appear to be indifferent to the whole idea. Equally, the business community is far from convinced of the benefits of regional government and is concerned about the adverse impact that it could have. I see little in the proposals for regional government that would kindle a spark of enthusiasm in the public or alleviate the concerns of the business community.
Local democracy will be diminished rather than enhanced by the abolition of the county council structure and its replacement by a remote regional assembly. The cost of implementing the changes to local government structures will be enormous and the brunt of the cost—if not all of it—will be borne by local businesses and taxpayers. The Government will no doubt absolve themselves of any responsibility for the cost, on the grounds that it was local people who voted for the changes. While it may be argued that in the longer term the new structures will produce savings through economies of scale, such savings invariably fail to materialise in real life.
What the regions of this country require now is additional resources for regional development, not additional regional government. If political change is required to achieve that, those changes should be made here at Westminster where the power and resources lie. The parliamentary programme should be changed to allow regular specific regional debates and, indeed, regional Question Times. The Government should appoint Ministers with responsibility for the development of a designated region, who can be held to account by the Members of Parliament for that region. That is the direction that we should take towards establishing a stronger, more effective role for the regions.
488
I could have mentioned many other issues—the shortage of NHS dentists in my constituency, the need for still more police on the beat and community support officers, and the problems of rogue landlords in seaside towns—but I am aware that many Members wish to speak. I will say no more other than to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy recess and to urge all Members to—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
3.10 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: We heard a refreshing and honest speech from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), and a characteristically distinguished speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has consistently represented the interests of his constituents vis-à-vis the future of the defence hospital at Haslar. I recently visited the site with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I very much hope that it can stay in medical use and that it will be used by the civil population and the military. It is tragic that an institution of such distinction and historic excellence should be put at risk. I trust that wiser counsels will prevail.
I also trust that wiser counsels will prevail in respect of the future of the cancer centre and the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency. For many years, since the advent in power of this Administration in 1997, I have had cause to come to the House to make speeches about the future of Mount Vernon hospital at Northwood and of Harefield hospital in my constituency. Both are regional specialist hospitals.
The Northwood cancer centre is not just a centre of clinical excellence, but the Gray Cancer Institute, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan centre for cancer care and the Michael Sobell hospice for palliative care for cancer patients are all on the site. It is an integrated facility that is second to none in our part of the country. Furthermore, it takes patients not merely from north-west London but from Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and beyond, as does Harefield hospital. Harefield is a cardio-thoracic centre that has done more heart transplants than any hospital in the world. Yet Her Majesty's Government are prepared to see both institutions so greatly reduced that they will have no significant standing in the future and their services will be transferred elsewhere regardless of the strong desire of patients, staff and local people that they should stay in their present locations, which are ideal.
I will talk about Mount Vernon and, under the parliamentary procedure of the old days, I would have had cause to do so at this very moment. The official consultation on its future is paradoxically being carried out by the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority and it will conclude on 1 September before the House returns after the recess. It is urgent that the arguments to keep the cancer centre where it is be advanced once again.
There has been huge investment over the years, and not just from the national health service. Many generous subscribers and charities have also invested there. I refer to the Gray Cancer Institute, which is funded almost

489
entirely from private donations, as is the Restoration of Appearance and Function Trust, RAFT, which does marvellous pioneering work in the disciplines of burns and plastic surgery. Their work is recognised the world over.
It is extraordinary that institutions of such excellence should be run down in favour of mega-hospitals that cost hundreds of millions of pounds and that are based in locations that are less than ideal. They are not ideal for my constituents or those who live in the catchment area currently served by Mount Vernon and by Harefield. Harefield is in a quiet rural village in green belt, but its services are to be transferred to Paddington. If one goes out of the hospital gates at Paddington for one's recuperation, there is a strong likelihood that one will be mugged. That is not the best way to recover.
Let us consider the alternatives to the Mount Vernon cancer centre. One is in Hatfield on a greenfield site that has not even been identified. The other is at Hemel Hempstead, and I see the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) in his place. From my constituents' point of view, it is very remote and hard to reach.
When we had a meeting in the House about the proper place for the cancer centre, the unanimous verdict of those Members present was, with, I think, one exception, that it should be where it is now at Mount Vernon. That was the view of the eminent professors from the Gray laboratory, the clinicians who work at Mount Vernon and tens of thousands of my constituents and others who have signed petitions in favour of Mount Vernon. However, because there is the extraordinary outlook that Whitehall and the NHS know best and that the planners should carry more clout than those who use or work in the service, we are facing a move away, with disastrous consequences for my constituency and an adverse effect on those who have enjoyed the quality of service at Mount Vernon and Harefield. I have never received a complaint about the quality of cancer care at Mount Vernon, so I do not comprehend why the service it provides that should be put at risk.
We carried out an independent study about the relative costs of Harefield and Paddington. The net cost of the transfer of the cardio-thoracic services from Harefield to Paddington was about £135 million as against a cost of £20 million for the cost of modernisation of the existing facilities. The position at Mount Vernon is even more complicated because of the scanners and radiological facilities there.
At long last, the North West London strategic health authority has come into the equation and it has persuaded the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority that the views of north-west Londoners should at least be taken into account. A parallel consultation is going on about the North West London strategic health authority's proposals. However, its proposals are predicated on the recommendations already made by Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Therefore, all that North West London will say is that some residual cancer services should be retained at Mount Vernon. It has in mind an ambulatory service whereby outpatients can have radiotherapy and chemotherapy at Mount Vernon. It has been argued
490
that, because no significant surgical facilities are left on the Mount Vernon site, thanks to the previous depredations of the NHS planners who have moved services to Hillingdon hospital and elsewhere, it is unsafe to maintain cancer treatment in depth at Mount Vernon. In view of the total infrastructure of cancer support and research at Mount Vernon, my argument is that it is infinitely cheaper to bring in additional surgeons as required.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making an extremely revealing speech. Does he think that such perverse thinking on the part of the central planners might explain why the massive increase in expenditure on the NHS has not been matched by a commensurate increase in clinical activity?
Mr. Wilkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I see rays of hope. A new facility called the Anzac centre at Harefield has been opened. At last, more NHS investment is going in. At Mount Vernon, scanners are being modernised and extra facilities provided. An interim development is in process and, at long last, this is at the very least giving the NHS the option of going for a more cost-effective solution by building up the existing facilities. That is what my constituents and the patients who are treated at Mount Vernon would wish. It is important for plastic surgery and cancer treatment to be available on the same site so that we may have the totality of cancer care that Mount Vernon hospital provides. That is the desire of my constituents and in the weeks before the consultations conclude, I hope that such arguments will carry the day—they deserve to.
3.20 pm
John Robertson: I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), wish to put several points on the record.
I shall go straight to the Iraq war. Many of my constituents cannot understand why I have not spoken in any of the debates on the subject, so I now take my chance to do so. When I voted against the Government last March, I did so with a heavy heart. I am not one of the usual suspects, as they are called, but I have always been a party loyalist. I believe in collective responsibility, so I take some of the blame or credit for what has happened, depending on one's point of view.
The amendment that was moved during the debate in March echoed my own reservations about the war. It did not say that Saddam Hussein was not an evil tyrant or that he should not be overthrown. In my opinion, it was not the right time to go to war. The inspectors had found little evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and although I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime had the capability to make and deploy such weapons, I thought that the process was at too early a stage to start a war.
I also thought that the war was being hurried because of external factors. I believe that the fact that the US presidential elections are to be held next year had a great deal to do with the timing. The proof of the Government's position still needs to be shown, but I am

491
willing to wait, because finding the weapons could take some time. After all, our servicemen have been in Northern Ireland for many years and we have hardly found a weapon. Why should we think that it would be easier in a country the size of Iraq?
I supported the Government in the second vote on the Iraq debate because the motion contained a specific reference to United Nations involvement, about which I feel strongly. I was in Iraq between 10 and 12 June this year as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and our people on the ground were disappointed by the UN. Distribution of water by the UN in the Basra area has been poor and irregular, and the armed forces believe that aid would be distributed regularly if they were in charge of it. That has not happened under the UN and, as a result, local people blame the armed forces for poor water and food supplies although it is the fault of the UN. I take my hat off to the armed forces because they are doing an excellent job in conditions that hon. Members would not believe.
We should now draw a line in the sand and look to the future. It does the people of Iraq no good when all we hear is politicians arguing over history and how it will be written. What those people want is their country back and to be fed and happy. They want a future to look forward to.
My next point is important to my constituents in Glasgow, Anniesland. There are 13,500 pensioner households in my constituency and about 18,000 over-60s—it has one of the highest concentrations of elderly people in Europe. I am always keen to ensure that the Government implement measures to increase financial assistance and support for our pensioners.
I recently met pensioners in my constituency specifically to discuss the new pension credit, which will be introduced in October. The credit is an excellent idea—anything that puts more money in pensioners' pockets is more than welcome. The overwhelming message that I am receiving is that pensioners welcome the credit but that there are worries about its implementation. Some letters that pensioners have received are complicated and should be simplified. We have yet to find out how the help systems will alleviate such problems, and I want an assurance from the Government that we will not have the same debacle that occurred with the new tax credits and that the system will be ironed out before October.
I wish to mention shipbuilding, which I have spoken about many times in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Any Glasgow Member with a constituency that borders the Clyde knows that BAE Systems is important to the area because it employs more than 2,000 people. However, I was dismayed to read in this week's newspapers about an argument that is creeping up about how much the new carriers will cost. The situation is another example of BAE Systems misusing its power on Ministry of Defence matters. I hope that the Government will sort out the situation. It is a bit worrying that the price of an aircraft carrier can practically double overnight. I hope that the Government will ensure that the company adheres to the agreements that it made when it signed the contracts.
I chair the all-party group on telecommunications. I sighed with relief on Monday when we finished our consideration of the Lords amendments to the
492
Communications Bill, which has now received Royal Assent. Over the past 18 months, we have addressed such issues as competition in the industry, regulation, the development and availability of new technology, conditions in the industry and consumer protection. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
I want to raise a couple of issues that were neglected during our consideration of the Communications Bill. When an industry such as the communications industry is buoyant, the problem is that highly trained people are headhunted by more profitable companies that place little value on training. The EU high level taskforce on skills and mobility reported that 80 per cent. of today's skills will become obsolete in 10 years. Employees who were once highly skilled do not undergo sufficient training in the industry at present. It was unfortunate that during our consideration of the Bill, we could not reach the same agreement on training for communication workers as we could for broadcast workers, who were covered by the Bill. I hope that the White Paper on skills will lead to a consideration of that. The White Paper's foreword says:
"The skills of our people are a vital national asset. Skills help businesses achieve the productivity, innovation and profitability needed to compete. They help individuals raise their employability, and achieve their ambitions for themselves, their families and communities."
I hope that those matters will be considered for communication workers.
I hope that Ofcom will do a better job than Oftel. I raised that with the then Leader of the House, when I asked:
"Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restrictive practices that are being applied by NTL and Telewest in relation to the new directory enquiries system? They are not permitting any of their 5 million customers to contact the other"
82 companies with "118" numbers
"that are allowed to provide services and have paid a lot of money to obtain their numbers"
when the ballot was held on the new numbering scheme. I went on to ask:
"Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate, or get in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and in particular Oftel, which has refused to do anything on the grounds that 5 million people are too small a number to be bothered with? Perhaps one of the Opposition parties would consider requesting a debate next week."
The Leader of the House replied:
"I was not aware of that, and I thank my hon. Friend for telling me about it. If what he says is accurate, it is extremely disturbing, and at the very least it is something that I should bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will do that."—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 327.]
I am still waiting for a reply.
I have received communications from both companies, but neither is prepared to allow free unlimited access to other "118" numbers, and will do so only if a financial agreement is arranged. That is deplorable. The 5 million customers, some of whom are in my constituency, receive an inferior service. At best, they could pay through the nose. I hope that Ofcom will look after consumers better than Oftel. I, for one, will not be sad to see it go.
Dr. Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman share my regret that many telecommunication companies are not registered with the telecommunications ombudsman's excellent scheme? Will he join me in congratulating Virgin Mobile in Trowbridge on recently joining that scheme?
John Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on plugging his constituents.
When the "118" numbers for directory enquiries were auctioned off, no one was aware that 5 million people would not get access to them. The companies did not realise that they would have to make a deal with companies like Telewest or NTL for the numbers to be accessed. Five million is not a small number. After all, it is probably more people than voted Liberal.
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I will not respond to that last remark by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson).
I am delighted to contribute to the debate. A number of us contribute regularly to these debates. Unlike so many other occasions in the Chamber, I am impressed by the sincerity of the contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House; there is little artificiality.
I want to pick out three contributions by hon. Members who referred to the Iraq war. Although the contributions were different, they were all sincere. I hope hon. Members accept that my colleagues and I acknowledge the sincerity of others on the subject. I hope that that will be reciprocated. I do not think that people have been opportunistic—the issue is very important. It is, perhaps, the biggest that most of us will face in our political lifetimes. Hon. Members have genuinely felt it necessary to take a particular approach in difficult circumstances. I do not think that it is so much a case of deliberately deluding other people as a case of self-delusion. It is important for us to remember that.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said. She reflected the important deep-seated concerns of many of our fellow citizens. That is summed up appositely by a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rodric Braithwaite, who said in the Financial Times on 10 July:
"Fishmongers sell fish: warmongers sell wars."
It is all too easy for those who have adopted an attitude to find good reasons to support it. That is not necessarily an exaggeration. Inevitably, if one has taken up a position, one tends to emphasise the things that support it rather than the things that oppose it. I recognised the sincerity of all three hon. Members who talked about Iraq.
The hon. Member for Halifax also referred to sleep-related driving accidents, which is another important issue. I have worked with her and the excellent pressure group, Brake. It is a sad fact that 20 per cent. of accidents on motorways are due to sleep-related tendencies. That is serious.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Tibet"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tibet?"] I mean the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), who spoke eloquently on behalf of the people of Tibet. He was right. It would be a great mistake for the
494
Prime Minister not to take the opportunity to represent the views of the forgotten people of Tibet when he meets the Chinese leadership. We all hope that the UK Government will continue to give robust and consistent support for the Dalai Lama, who has been put in a difficult position by recent developments.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) drew an interesting parallel between the issues that related to his constituency, all of which seemed to be about consultation. It is a feature of discussion on occasions like this that we are all concerned about the extent to which quite complicated proposals are put before us and before our constituents, but often in a way that either makes a fait accompli seem to be inevitable or, perhaps in some circumstances, makes it impossible for us to make a reasonable and intelligent contribution to an ongoing decision-making process.
That is true for the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I have followed him on four or five occasions in this sort of debate. On one occasion he was not in the Chamber when I had prepared my comments about what he would say, in anticipation. Although his efforts on behalf of the royal hospital have not been fully successful, the very fact that he has been persistent in seeking to draw the attention of all authorities at all levels to that centre of excellence has had an impact. However, there will now be a period of indecision. That is one of the problems of trying to hold back an unwelcome decision. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the special expertise that the defence medical team has had at the royal hospital, and moving it to Birmingham will inevitably be dislocating in the literal sense. I recognise that that is a real problem, but it is one that we all face.
Every time we challenge an apparent decision that is put before us, we shall inevitably increase the period of indecision. That is a price that we have to pay, but one that as local representatives we are only too willing to pay in most circumstances, if it results in a better decision in the longer term.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about referenda. I hate the word referendums; it does not sound right. I thought that the hon. Lady was rather pushing her luck when she said that she was against a referendum on regional. devolution but she would argue vociferously against the proposal that would be put forward. That sounds like not having one's cake and not eating it. That is an extraordinary attitude. If there is not to be a referendum, the hon. Lady would not have the opportunity to advance her argument.
Geraldine Smith: I said that I was against a referendum in the north-west at this moment because there are more important issues to deal with such as health, education, crime and antisocial behaviour, and because there was no support for a referendum.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Lady also said that she would argue strongly against it. If she did not have a referendum, she would not have that opportunity. She said that she was against all referenda, before she came to that section of her speech. I made a careful note. She said that she was against referenda. She also said that she was against a referendum on the European Union

495
constitution because it would be premature. That is perfectly reasonable, but there may come an opportunity and a moment when we have to have recourse to the British people, to give them an opportunity to express themselves. I believe that that is highly likely, and so do my colleagues. For the hon. Lady to say in advance that we do not know what is in it and therefore we should not have a referendum is just as absurd as saying, "We don't know what is in it, therefore we should have a referendum." Clearly we should wait to see what the question is, and then decide how best to put it to the British people.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—this is a subject that I have heard him speak about before—
Mr. BercowIt is pronounced Ryeslip.
Mr. Tyler: I come from the far Celtic west and I confess that I do not know where these places are.
The issue was, of course, consultation. I accept very much what the hon. Gentleman said. I know a little about Harefield because some of my constituents have benefited from the extraordinary professionalism and skills at Harefield hospital. I am not so well aware of Mount Vernon hospital. However, that would seem to be another example where consultation is at the key of what will happen. Of course, in such a case, it is a matter of consultation not only within the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the immediate area around it; so many people, including some of my constituents, have benefited from the high quality of service at these hospitals.
In a sense, this is a half-term report. Unfortunately, I do not have an opportunity at the end of the debate to speak on behalf of my colleagues. However, I respect what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said about the debate on 18 March. It was a seminal moment for the House. There was not a free vote exactly, but it became a real debate. The hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the arguments and he took a view. 1 respect his sincerity. His view happened to be the same as mine. I equally respect the sincerity of those who took a different view, having listened to the debate.
On that occasion—I give credit to the Government in this respect—we clipped the wings of the royal prerogative. I doubt whether any future Prime Minister could possibly go to war—could send troops from this Country to any major hostilities—without coming to the House for a definitive debate and a definitive vote. That is an important step forward for all of us who believe that parliamentary democracy should be strengthened.
I should like to put in my two-penn'orth now, and deal with my own hobby horse. I would like to tell the House a cautionary tale. Last Wednesday, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister. It happened to be the clay on which, by firm convention, the Government should have given the House its response to proposals by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. They had two months to respond, but did not do so. As I said in business questions, they gave their response yesterday, and it was published at midnight.
496
I therefore asked the Prime Minister
"how he intends to fulfil the undertaking to make the House of Lords more representative and democratic."
In his response, the Prime Minister did not shuffle the matter sideways, as has often been the case in the past, but said:
"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on 7 July".—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 853W.]
I therefore looked at the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who asked the Prime Minister
"what plans he has to ensure that political opinion in Northern Ireland is proportionately represented in the House of Lords."
The answer was:
"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 15 January".—[Official Report, 7 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 617–18W.]
I went back again and found that on that occasion the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I am sorry that he is not here—asked the Prime Minister
"if it is his policy that the political balance of the House of Lords should be maintained prior to the implementation of legislation completing the second stage of reform."
The Prime Minister replied:
"While the way forward on reform of the House of Lords is still under consideration, arrangements for identifying new members of the House remain unchanged. Membership of the House is kept under ongoing review."—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 632.]
I should like to make two points to the House. First, those are three very different questions. Even if the first answer was right, it is clearly not right for the other two questions. Secondly, and much more importantly, since that first question and answer, we have had a major debate in both Houses and a major Division in the Commons, substantially rejecting the option of a fully appointed upper Chamber, which was promoted by the Prime Minister in concert with the then Lord Chancellor. There were 78 votes against that option—the biggest majority of the evening. Moreover, the Joint Committee has undertaken a careful analysis of the position and reported to the House. The Prime Minister, however, ignored that, because he referred me to an answer that preceded all those events.
I am not someone who thinks that the Prime Minister treats the House of Commons as a doormat, although I know that some Members think so. However, that is heavy and substantial evidence of the Prime Minister's level of respect not just for what is said in the House, but for its votes. The House voted firmly and securely against a fully appointed House of Lords and, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said immediately after my contribution to business questions this afternoon, the House clearly does not want a House full of Tony's cronies—we do not want a fully appointed upper House. However, the paper published by the Lord Chancellor today talks about a House that in the medium term, and not just the short term, would get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers and appoint all its Members. With that proposal for a fully appointed House of Lords, he is telling the House of Commons, "I do not care what you think".

497
The attitude of some hon. Members to House of Lords reform, and especially its electoral aspects, has been conditioned by the concern that the Commons should remain pre-eminent. We have all heard that argument, but what does it say about the Government's respect for that view if, when the Commons votes against a fully appointed upper Chamber, they say, "To hell with you, we do not care what you think"? It is a ridiculous situation, and as soon as we return from the recess we must take the issue very seriously indeed.
Mr. Bercow: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that democratic legitimacy and parliamentary scrutiny alike dictate that the Government should now proceed to fulfil their manifesto commitment on an elected second Chamber, does he not share my concern that the present Leader of the House of Commons does not seem to be as willing to flex his muscles on this subject as, to his great and enduring credit, was the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?
Mr. Tyler: All I can say is: let us wait and see. I hope we may find that the Leader of the House is prepared to stand up for what the House has said and clearly determined in its votes. Let us wait and see—there will be opportunities. As the right hon. Gentleman told the House earlier this afternoon, he voted for a 100 per cent. elected House, an 80 per cent. elected House and a 60 per cent. elected House.
I draw to the attention of colleagues again the fact that 332 hon. Members voted for one or other of those options. From the Lord Chancellor's paper, one would think that he had not read our debate. Pretending that there was no consensus for a substantial elected element is being economical with the truth. It is ridiculous. A majority of the House voted for a substantial elected element in a new second Chamber, and the Government should be prepared to accept that. If the Government say that this House is predominant, they should listen to what is said here.
This is an extremely important issue. The House should establish its credentials as the proper place to ensure that the manifesto commitments of an incoming Government are implemented in full. It is not just the Cabinet that is committed to making the House of Lords more democratic and representative; it is every single Member on the Government Benches who stood at the last general election on that manifesto and has that mandate.
3.46 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis: I raised the case of Cyprus in the Whitsun Adjournment debate on 22 May this year, and in many debates before that, and I return to the case of Cyprus today. I do so because on the surface it appears that many changes have taken place during the past few months; the reality, however, is different.
I remind the House that Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974—some 29 years ago—violating just about every conceivable international norm. Two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots were uprooted overnight,
498
5,000 were killed and some 1,600 are still missing. Countless UN resolutions, debates and efforts to find a solution have been thwarted by Turkey and by the leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash. The Council of Europe regularly finds against Turkey, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld all cases against Turkey, but no positive responses to its resolutions have been forthcoming from Turkey. It is now being suggested by Turkey that all that has changed. That can easily be refuted.
Yes, indeed, there were general elections in Cyprus in 2002, when AKEL, the socialist party, became the largest party. Yes, indeed, European Union accession negotiations have resulted in Cyprus signing the treaty of accession on 16 April this year. Yes, indeed, a new President, Tassos Papadopoulos, was voted into office on 16 February this year, and the new coalition Government of Mr. Papadopoulos of the Democratic party, DIKO, with AKEL, the Ecologists and the Social Democrats—EDEK, formerly called KISOS—have made an excellent start.
However, none of the above or any other changes, such as allowing Greek Cypriots to visit their own properties and villages in the occupied part of Cyprus, which Mr. Denktash announced some two months ago, has any bearing on an acceptable political solution. There is no solution at present. All we know is that Mr. Denktash said no on 11 March 2003 in The Hague to Mr. Kofi Annan's latest proposals.
To my mind, those UN proposals are now dead, but there are some interesting developments that throw some light on the matter. Turkey is fast losing its influence in the United States and other nation states. It is also deeply in debt. Turkey is totally focused on joining the European Union and it is in a bind. It has an abominable human rights record not only with regard to Cyprus, but in many other respects. Opening up the border between the legitimate part of Cyprus and the occupied part is an attempt to give the impression that democracy and human rights now prevail. Nothing is further from the truth. It has become crystal clear that Turkey should not be invited to start accession negotiations with the European Union until its attitude to human rights has improved considerably.
Like previous UK Governments, this Government apparently remain convinced that Turkey is a humane place and a parliamentary democracy. The other day, our Government mentioned that Turkey had recently given up the death penalty. That is rather curious, since, as a member of the Council of Europe, it should have done so many decades ago.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to the Foreign Secretary the fact that I and many colleagues in the House would want to see real changes in Turkey, and for some considerable time., before even contemplating allowing it to commence accession negotiations.
3.51 pm
Alistair Burt: I shall not necessarily follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) down the line that he took, but having been a councillor in the borough of Haringey many years ago, I am well aware of the importance in that area of matters affecting the Cypriot, Greek and

499
Turkish communities, so I understand why he raised those subjects. Instead, I wish to follow the line taken by colleagues on both sides of the House and raise a number of constituency issues. I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would convey some of my questions directly to his colleagues.
Constituents have asked me to raise a number of issues before Parliament adjourns for the recess. Some were prompted by recent meetings at parish councils, but the concerns relate to parish, county, regional, national and international issues, so I shall do my best o get through them in the next 10 minutes.
First, on parish issues, I am sure that I speak on behalf of many of us in saying a word of thanks to those who fill places on parish councils and work so hard for us at a local level. We very much appreciate the work that they do. A number of issues that parish council members raised with me can be handled locally, but they wanted me to bring one or two to the House. First, they are still rather uncertain about the Government's view of them. They worry about the burden of regulation and the increasing amount of audit to which they are subject. Do the new proposals for ensuring that members must declare all their interests indicate some degree of suspicion about those on parish councils? Surely not.
I ask the Government to keep constantly under review the bureaucracy that affects parish councils. Will they let us know what representations have been made in the past 12 months about the burden of bureaucracy that parish councils now face, how many vacancies currently exist on parish councils throughout the country and what notification has been given of people leaving parish councils in the past 12 months?
The second issue that parishes raised with me, which has a wider impact, is their concern about young people. Most parishes have the same worries about some youngsters in their localities and the fact that not much guidance is available to them. In trying to do something for them, the same issue repeatedly arises—the lack of adult volunteers who can look after youngsters these days, including those in voluntary groups, uniformed societies and others. We know some of the reasons why that is the case. People are perhaps busier than they have ever been. Those who work away from home have longer travelling times and cannot give their time to the community as they did in the past.
There are other more difficult issues that the Government might consider. Rising insurance is a continuing problem. Everything connected with societies and activities for youngsters seems to attract increasingly large insurance bills these days. That is preventing some activities from taking place. Again, the burden of regulation and the hoops through which people have to jump in order to show that they are fit and proper persons to look after youngsters are significant. No one wants youngsters to be put at risk, but are we placing so many barriers in people's way that we are stopping them coming forward to fulfil roles in local communities that people have filled for many generations? Perhaps as a Parliament and as a nation we might put out a national call to encourage more people to be prepared to lead youngsters, using whatever skills they might have to provide a measure of stability and extra expertise to bring them on in our communities.
500
Another issue that was raised by the parishes, but applies on a wider county basis, concerns the statement that was made earlier this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Education. Bedfordshire, too, has suffered from the problems in education funding this year. Some 52 schools have applied to run a deficit budget; last year, only 11 schools in the county were in that situation. Four schools have told the county council that they are unable to set a budget. That is clearly very serious.
Although the Secretary of State's admission of error is welcome, I would be grateful if the Government would clear up one particular issue. On 2 May, the Department for Education and Skills sent a letter to my county council asking for information connected with the suggestion that county councils were retaining funds and withholding them from schools. On 12 May, Bedfordshire county council's local education authority replied to the letter, making it very clear that they had indeed passed on the money. The Government have provided no response beyond a generic letter suggesting that its reply was too detailed and that people cannot now expect a proper response. That is not good enough. If my county council is prepared to deal with the Government's allegation, the Government should be prepared to deal properly with the council's response. That would help to assuage the anger that people feel about the matter.
On health, my constituents are worried about the gap in health funding between different parts of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority. Three Bedfordshire PCTs are underfunded in terms of their distance from target. This year, on average, their distance below target is 4.7 per cent. At the end of this period of funding, which runs until the end of 2005–06, they will still be 4 per cent. below target. By contrast, Hertfordshire authorities are above target and three of them will remain above target at the end of the same period. The plea from Bedfordshire is that the gap between targets and budgets should be closed. When a group of all-party MPs from Bedfordshire went to see the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), he received us very well. I was surprised to learn from him that because the 2001 census figures were being used to calculate expenditure over the next few years, the funding system did not have built into it any provision for an increase in population between the current year and 2005–06. Bedfordshire is expanding very rapidly. Will the Government reconsider their funding mechanism to see whether it could be given any increase in forthcoming years to make up for its rising population?
One of my constituents' concerns reflects a national concern—the problem of Yarl's Wood. Hon. Members will recall that Yarl's Wood, the largest asylum detention centre in Europe, was burned to the ground in February 2002. It is planned to reopen part of it later this year. We still have no information relating to the causes of the fire. The existing building is of the same construction as that which caused the fire, and we are not convinced that those who are detained there and work there will be safe. The criminal trial of those who are suspected of causing the fire, which is currently taking place, is likely to come to an end during the summer. Could the Government delay the reopening of Yarl's Wood until after the trial and the publication of

501
the inquiry report so that my constituents and those who will work and be detained at Yarl's Wood can have some idea of why the buildings caught fire so quickly and be sure that it will be safe in future?
On an international point, I, like many people who were born and brought up in the industrial north-west of England, have a passion for hills and mountains: in my case, those close to the Lake District and to north Wales. I draw the House's attention to the international year of the mountain that took place in 2002. I should like to ask the Government for their response to that. The international year of the mountain was designed to give the world an understanding of the issues affecting mountain communities. It was intended to ensure the present and future well-being of mountain communities by promoting conservation and sustainable development, increasing the awareness and knowledge of mountain ecosystems, and by recognising that in much the same way that the world depends on rainforests, it also depends on mountains.
I am indebted to Trail magazine and its deputy editor, Matt Swaine, whom I met to discuss these issues, for recognising that these issues are international and also affect this country. Our mountain areas are not as high as some in the world, and are concentrated in Scotland, north Wales and the Lake district. Will the Minister assess and let us know what success or otherwise the Government think that the international year of the mountain has had internationally? As far as this country is concerned, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the international year of the mountain in the UK, and have they assessed the representations made during that year by those who love the mountains? What mechanism do they have in place for monitoring the resolution of various issues in relation to access, safety and other matters? I would be indebted if he would provide that information.
4.1 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I was never much of a mathematician but my simple calculation is that I should probably restrict my speech to no more than five minutes, lest all Members who wish to speak do not have the opportunity so to do.
My subject is events in the Brain valley, which may not be as familiar to hon. Members as the Thames valley, the Colorado valley or the Rhine valley. It is nevertheless a picturesque piece of north Essex countryside, which is faced by present threats and problems. The River Brain makes its way down to the Blackwater and thence into the North sea, but the part to which I refer is that further upstream, and particularly involves the villages of Black Notley and White Notley. All villages have some dispute as to the origins of their name, and I am led to believe that one version is that Black Notley was affected by the black death, but those who lived in White Notley escaped that plague. The two villages are two or three miles apart, but between them lies a small hamlet known as the Green, which is adjacent to Black Notley, but most of which is in White Notley. The problem that faces this hamlet is an extension of a golf course.
Black Notley will be familiar to those who have studied science, as it was the birthplace of John Ray, the eminent botanist and naturalist, who in many parts of
502
the world is regarded as superior to Darwin himself. That is certainly the view locally. The threat today is not from a malicious weed, however, but from the extension of a golf course that is already situated there. The golf course already has 27 holes, and its owners intend to extend it by a further nine holes, and thus the little hamlet of the Green will become surrounded by a golf course. To some hon. Members, that might seem to be paradise, but to those who do not play golf it is not.
Primarily, the concern is the loss of high-grade agricultural land, and the extension is strongly opposed by the residents. It is also argued that there is probably not a need. My political division already has eight golf courses—it would be superfluous to name them—and adjacent divisions have others close to our boundaries. The question that I put to the House and thence to the wider world outside is whether there is a need in that particular place. Should it not be incumbent on those who make applications of this kind to provide numbers to show that there is insufficient provision at present? Indeed, it should be incumbent on those at the Notleys course as it now stands to show that there is an over-demand for the playing of golf as opposed to one for the use of the social facilities.
Local plans are mysteries of philosophy that few follow until a problem comes along, at which point people study them with great ardour. The local plan has this to say about the development of golf courses:
"The development of golf courses on prominent sites, scarp slopes, valleys, exposed plateaux and ridges will not be permitted."
I do not know which of those prominent sites is relevant in this case, but the proposed course is to be on very high ground overlooking the whole sweep of the Brain valley, which has already been defaced by the existing course. The local residents are therefore concerned that there will be a fundamental breach not only of their privacy but of the local plan.
The final argument against the extension to the golf course, which would cause great harm to local residents, is the dangerous condition of the country road that winds its way along the slope of the Brain valley between the proposed golf course and the existing one. A 40 mph limit applies on that road, but those hon. Members who represent rural divisions will know that the adherence to such limits is not as strict as one might like it to be. One can imagine the risk to the lives of motorists and golfers as the golfers walk across the road with their trolleys, chatting to each other about the state of play at hole 27, as they make their way over to hole 28.
I raise this matter not because I am opposed to golf or because I believe that there should not be golf courses. There should, however, be a limit to the number of golf courses and to the number of holes that each course is permitted. We should strike a balance between the construction of golf courses and the preservation of our historic and scenic countryside, and we should give the latter the greater priority, rather than creating a surfeit of golf courses for which there appears to be no immediate need.
4.6 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I am privileged to represent a constituency that contains the most beautiful scenery in the country. However, the drawback of such a large and remote constituency is that transport issues are always to the fore. Cutting the costs and increasing the frequency of transport links are vital to expanding economic activity and public services in the highlands and islands. That is why I want to use the opportunity of this debate to speak in favour of the HITRANS—the Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership—proposals for creating a network of frequent and affordable integrated air services throughout the highlands and islands and to other destinations such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The proposals will also mean improvements to the infrastructure of island airports and new construction work to provide, for the first time, scheduled air services to Oban, and from Oban to the islands of Coll and Colonsay. The market alone cannot build up and sustain such a network; Government financial support is required. The scheme has strong support from the Scottish Executive and from local government throughout the highlands and islands, but, because it requires public service obligations—PSOs—to be put on the routes, it also needs the support of the UK Department for Transport. That is because the decision to apply to the European Union for permission to impose a PSO on the network is a reserved power vested in the Department for Transport here. I hope that the Government will support this exciting new initiative, and I stress that it will not cost the Government here a penny; all the costs will be paid for by the Scottish Executive and local councils.
I hope that the Government will support the scheme and actively seek to persuade the European Union of the need for this PSO. The use of PSOs to secure regional air services at affordable fares and a regular frequency is commonplace throughout the rest of Europe. Countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Norway use PSOs frequently for this purpose. Given that the highlands and islands are the most sparsely populated area of Europe, surely we can do the same there. I believe that this is the only way to regenerate the economy of the highlands and islands and reverse centuries of population decline in the remoter parts of the region.
I also want to speak briefly about broadband. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee got it right in its recent report when it called on the Government to develop a strategy to make broadband accessible to all, and to set out the funding to be made available and the steps to be taken, according to a clear timetable, to achieve this objective.
A few years ago, we were all hopeful that the internet would be a great benefit to businesses in remote rural areas, allowing them to compete with businesses based in urban areas on equal terms in many fields. However, because of the slow progress of broadband installation, that objective is very much in doubt. If we leave broadband installation up to the market, it is obvious that remote areas of the country will never be connected. The amounts of money that the Government have so far given are insufficient to enable broadband connection in remote areas. Telecommunications is a reserved power, so I urge the Government to act urgently, implement the
504
report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and ensure that broadband access is available to everyone.
I conclude by giving an example of a Government official who does not appreciate the geography of the highlands and islands. One of the staff at the Government's much maligned tax credit helpline told one of my constituents in Campbeltown to go to his nearest tax office in Rothesay to collect an emergency payment. Those familiar with the geography of the west highlands will know that, to do that round trip, my constituent would have to make four ferry journeys and drive 128 miles. I am sure that the House will agree that the helpline was not particularly helpful.
Given the unique geography of the highlands and islands, unique solutions are often required to solve the problems created by that geography. I urge the Government, and, most important, their helpline officials, always to bear that geography in mind.
4.11 pm
Joan Ruddock: I want to speak on genetic modification. I believe that, with the exception of Iraq, GM is the most important issue that the House faces. Tomorrow is the closing date for the Government's public debate on genetic modification. Six days ago, the strategy unit reported on the costs and benefits of GM crops. Two weeks ago, the European Parliament ruled on labelling, traceability and co-existence of GMOs and GM crops, in effect ending the moratorium on commercial growing of GM crops in Europe. Today, the Food Standards Agency released its findings on consumer views on GM food. The science review is expected next week. However, we have not had a single debate on the Floor of the House about the momentous decision that could be taken in our name before the end of this year.
The public remain hostile to GM, yet we, their elected representatives, are woefully unengaged in a debate that could lead to our constituents having no choice but to eat GM food. Why do I say no choice? Because evidence is growing that gene flow is a reality, and that once GM crops are grown commercially in this country their genetically modified traits will spread to non-GM crops and weeds. That phenomenon makes it extremely unlikely that the status of non-GM crops and organic crops co-existing with GM crops could be guaranteed. Without that guarantee, consumers will be denied choice, and the unpredictable consequences of GM Os in our food chain and our living environment will be irreversible.
Recent studies have shown that pollen can move much further than previously predicted. In Australia, herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape was found to cross-pollinate with oilseed rape up to 3 km from the source fields, yet the separation distance currently used in the test crops in Britain is only 200 m. French researchers have shown that the seeds of sugar beet weeds can travel more than 1 km from their source by hitch-hiking on farm machinery, leading the researchers to predict that the likelihood of gene flow through seeds has been much underestimated.
Even more spectacular than the evidence of scientific studies is the experience of Canadian farmers, who enthusiastically embraced commercial growing of GM

505
crops in the mid-1990s. About 75 per cent. of Canadian canola—oilseed rape to us—is GM herbicide-tolerant, enabling farmers to treat weeds with chemicals such as Round Up without harm to the plant. Not only has herbicide-tolerant gene flow to non-GM plants been a problem, but farmers growing entirely GM crops have experienced difficulties that seriously undermine the whole rationale of herbicide tolerance.
GM seeds shed at harvest time remain in the ground and germinate in future years. The result is that treating fields with, for example, Round Up before sowing a GM crop is no longer sufficient, as many of the weeds—or "volunteers" as they are called—are tolerant of the herbicide. The solution is to add a herbicide to the pack to kill the volunteers that have been modified for tolerance to the main herbicide. Thus a regime that was supposed to reduce herbicide use and introduce more benign herbicides now includes the much more toxic 2.4D and paraquat.
Resistance to more than one herbicide is also occurring, by a process of gene-stacking from the pollination of one herbicide-tolerant variety by another. In a paper reviewing the Canadian experience, English Nature said that it believed that such processes would be undesirable in Britain and out of keeping with our agri-environment policy. Gene flow, however, is not the only issue in the debate about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and consumer choice of foods. Contamination incidents are becoming more and more frequent. We expect new European laws to be enacted later this year, which will give more teeth to traceability and listing; but if crops are grown commercially in the United Kingdom, such laws may serve only to prove that separation has become impossible.
In August last year, GM oilseed rape grown in the UK for farm scale evaluation was found to be contaminated with another GM variety that was not approved for use. In the United States last November, soya beans destined for human consumption were mixed with GM maize containing genes to produce pharmaceuticals. The two crops had been grown in rotation on the same land.
Once again, the experience of Canadian farmers is most telling. In a recent sample of 35 canola seeds, 95 per cent. were found to be contaminated by GM, and 50 per cent. of those had double resistance to glyfosate and glufosinate. As a consequence of contamination, organic canola farming on the prairies of Canada is impossible, and has been abandoned by most in the business. The Canadian experience is devastating. I have dealt only with the science, not with the farmers' many bad experiences with Monsanto, but suffice it to say that virtually all the agriculture industry—including the Canadian National Farmers Union and the Canadian Wheat Board—now oppose the introduction of GM wheat to Canada.
Friends of the Earth has looked at how that experience would be translated in Britain. It recently mapped out, for the first time, the locations of five of the wild plant varieties that are most closely related to oilseed rape, such as wild turnip and wild cabbage. The maps show that those species, which are known to cross-pollinate with the arable crop, are widespread across the
506
country. That suggests that if GM oilseed rape is grown practically anywhere in the UK, cross-breeding will be almost inevitable.
Experience is also being gained in the use of the herbicides themselves. One of the most positive points made about GM was that it could reduce the use of herbicides. Studies show that a decline in the use of chemicals on GM Bt cotton has taken place, while there have been no such results in the case of GM soya beans. The failure of GM-tolerant maize to provide the weed control advantages that were anticipated has necessitated the addition of the persistent chemical atrazine to the glufosinate weed killers designed to be used with GM crops. Furthermore, a GeneWatch study of GM Bt cotton suggests that even its success may be short-lived, as pests not killed by the Bt are on the increase.
I have dealt with only a few of the environmental issues surrounding GM crops in highly developed countries. The problems that such crops might inflict on the diverse and fragile environments of developing countries could be even more acute. Time does not permit me to pursue the potential health effects, but I know that a recent paper in "Nutrition and Health" found that there had been only 10 published studies of the health effects of GM food and feed. More than half were carried out in collaboration with GM companies. They found no effects on body organs, whereas several of the independent studies found unexplained changes.
GM is still a very new and untried technology for environmental release. This Government have worked hard to develop a sustainable agriculture policy, which would be fatally undermined by the commercialisation of GM crops. I urge my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that a full debate take place on this subject when we return in September, so that Members can take account of the wealth of information now available that points to the completely unacceptable effects of commercialising GM crops in this country.
4.20 pm
M r. David Amess: There are several points that I wish to raise before the House adjourns for the summer recess, and I shall try to deal with them very quickly. The first concerns Jo Martinson, a constituent of mine who died in a car accident last year at the age of 19. She was driving along Hamlet Court road with her boyfriend, and Mr. X, who was in a van, backed out of a turning, causing her to swerve into a tree. As a result, she lost her life.
The Solicitor-General has done everything that she possibly can to try to help the grieving parents and family of Jo Martinson to try to get justice for their daughter. As of this moment, there has been no trial of the person who is believed to have been in the vehicle responsible for Jo's death. Jo's family are very angry, and I should certainly be failing in my duty were I not to continue to raise this issue until justice has been done. Jo's mother recently wrote to me following a letter from the Rayleigh road policing unit. She says that she read Mr. X's letter
"with a now familiar sense of disbelief; he has chosen to reflect on that which is accepted yet ignore salient, contentious issues.

507
The Director of Public Prosecutions reported that 'The offence, (no insurance), was alleged to have been committed on 7th November 2001, but the Police did not lay the information until 24th May 2002, seventeen days after the six month limitation had expired'. He continued: 'it could not be argued that the Police were unaware of the insurance matter'.
As you know, he was clear that: 'in advising the Police to support any charges relating to Miss Martinson's death, the reviewing Crown Prosecutor did advise that the other Road Traffic Act offences relating to Mr. X's vehicle were made out …it remains the responsibility of Police to start proceedings'."
The Solicitor-General agreed with those points. My constituent continues:
"The police clearly did not follow advice. The Solicitor General recognised errors and allegations 'should have been pursued, and they were not'.
It is therefore difficult not to take issue with
the letter from Rayleigh, which was "dismissive" and "irrelevant". She continues by saying that, "incredibly", the gentleman writing the letter
"considered the newspaper statement accurate and acceptable, suggesting complacency is a standard Police response."
My constituent feels that the gentleman from Rayleigh attempted to evade the issues and to evade responsibility.
Mr. X's car—which backed out into the road, thereby causing the accident—was untaxed and not roadworthy, and Mr. X had only one eye. To this day, all that has happened is that he has received a £60 fine.
The second issue is the trial of three British nationals that is taking place in Egypt. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms) are also affected by that trial, on which we have spent a great deal of time. The three Britons are accused of being involved in an organisation that is intent on undermining the Egyptian Government. The trial has been in the national news and has gone on for a very long time. It has been started and then stopped, and I am delighted that Baroness Symons has made a very strong statement about it. Those involved became ill when they were brought to court, and the trial was again stopped. However, I am delighted to say that today, the defence will be heard. We had a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador, and I hope that matters will now proceed very swiftly and that there will be a successful outcome for our constituents.
The Secretary of State for Education made his statement to the House, which we all welcome. I hope that it has not come too late for Southend where, on average, secondary schools face a £400,000 shortfall in funding and primary schools face a £50,000 shortfall. The chairman of the local secondary heads association has written to me to say that
"several schools in Southend are forced to declare deficit budgets in this current year (including my own), and we are having to meet LEA officers to draw up four-year recovery plans. In my school, we are in the absurd position of having a £3 million new extension project due to open this September, but we will not have the money to clean it or maintain it!"
That is absolutely crazy.
Marvellous things are happening in education in my constituency. We have a new special needs centre; I was fortunate enough to be present at the opening of the Whitehall performing arts centre, which is adjoined to
508
Eastwood school; I shall be going to the opening of a new sports centre shortly. I hope that the school funding fiasco never happens again.
My next point concerns mobile phone masts. I am totally dissatisfied with the way in which this matter continues to be handled. The Library briefing states:
"Mobile telephones emit radio waves that can penetrate human tissue, producing a heating effect. Safety guidelines produced by the National Radiological Protection Board are based solely on avoiding the known biological consequences of excess heating."
Sir William Stewart amplified his warnings to the British Association in September 2001, and called for the cost of handsets to be increased to restrict their use by children. He said also that he would not allow his grandchildren to use a mobile phone. Concern about children relates partly to the thinness of their skulls; up to 50 per cent. more radiation is absorbed by children compared with adults. I should have thought that, following the recent disgraceful episodes concerning the abuse of the internet, this House owes it to our children to give a greater steer on the overuse of mobile phones than we have at the moment.
This week, a campaign called "Keep Mail on Rail" visited this House. I was concerned to learn from a constituent that the mail is to be taken off the railways and put on the roads. I agree with those who lobbied us saying that that would result in increased pollution, undermine the Government's transport policy, cause significant job losses and result in an inferior delivery service. The gentleman who suggested this change does not have a marvellous track record of success and I hope that Ministers will look at it again.
On crime, I hope that the Minister will urge the Home Office to look again at the pay and conditions of police officers. In Southend, we are continuing to lose police officers to the Met, where the pay is £6,000 more. There has also been a cut in overtime. We have seen drug offences rising by 16 per cent. over the last year, with violent crime up by 20 per cent. and gun crime up by 35 per cent. Anyone who says that we do not need more police is wrong.
In conclusion, if any Members want to pop to Southend to enjoy our glorious summer, they will receive a warm welcome.
4.29 pm
Tom Cox: I wish to speak about Pakistan. I declare an interest as I am the chairperson of the British-Pakistani parliamentary group. We are an active group of Members of both Houses of Parliament with a close relationship with the Pakistan High Commissioner here in London. I am also the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch, but I do not speak in that capacity today.
What Members of both Houses who belong to the all-party group on Pakistan seek is Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. I understand that the Commonwealth ministerial action group will meet in September to discuss the issue. Nine Commonwealth countries are members of that group, and they will make the recommendation for or against Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. The United

509
Kingdom is not a member of the action group, but has great influence within the Commonwealth, as I well know, and I seek the UK's support on the matter before the discussions take place.
We all know that the history of Pakistan since independence has been clouded with problems. There have been military takeovers and parliamentary elections in which different political parties have been elected. When those parliamentary elections took place, we all hoped that the elected Government would bring about real changes within Pakistan. Sadly, that did not happen for a variety of reasons, including Government incompetence, general corruption and corruption at the highest level.
Pakistan is a country of 130 million people and it has close links with the UK. Large communities of people came to this country from Pakistan. They have made their homes here, but they all retain links with Pakistan. They are proud of the country of their birth. When I meet them locally, I find—as I am sure do other hon. Members—that they always mention Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. I would like the Government to give their fullest support in discussions before the ministerial action group meets.
Let us reflect on the appalling political circumstances of Pakistan in 1999. General Musharraf took power—thankfully, in a bloodless takeover—and said clearly that the return to parliamentary democracy, free of corruption and the incompetence of political parties, and with the support of the people of Pakistan, was a key commitment. I am delighted, as is the all-party group, to say that progress has been made in Pakistan in respect of many of the problems that it faces. Tough action has been taken to root out corruption at every level of government.
We all know about the evils of terrorism in Pakistan, involving various terrorist groups, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Pakistan faces the ongoing problems that resulted from the military actions in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union, and the more recent military action after which nearly 2 million people went into Pakistan as refugees. That is Pakistan's responsibility, and it is to the country's credit that it has—with very little help from any other organisation in the world—housed, fed and done everything possible to support those refugees.
As a further example of what is happening in Pakistan, elections for the national assembly took place on 10 October last year. Out of more than 70 million registered voters, over 29 million voted. The assembly met on 16 November last year and was in session until 22 April this year. Several parties were elected to the assembly, including three major parties. There is clearly a move to parliamentary democracy in Pakistan.
Recently, President Musharraf made an official visit to the UK. He met many senior politicians, including the Prime Minister. He also met the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I am told—I am not a member of the Committee—that a frank discussion took place between the President and members of the Committee. After that meeting, the President spoke to a well-attended meeting of the all-party Pakistan group. He was frank and honest with us, and explained the
510
problems that he faces. He also spoke of his commitment to govern Pakistan with the help of members of the national assembly and the people of Pakistan, and to see that the move to parliamentary democracy continues. The President then went to Washington, where he had several meetings with President Bush.
The meetings in London and Washington are clear signs that Pakistan is being accepted by the world— and rightly so—as it returns to parliamentary democracy. The need to encourage the return to parliamentary democracy and the introduction of many other reforms, for which the President readily accepts the need, is so important that the all-party Pakistan group believes that it is essential to grant the country a return to full membership of the Commonwealth. The UK, while not a member of the group that will make that decision, has enormous influence on it. I know that because as the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch, I meet Heads of Commonwealth countries regularly and chat about many issues. I know the respect and influence that this country has in the Commonwealth, and that is why I have sought to raise this important issue today.
4.38 pm
Bob Spink: As a result of bad odours in south Essex, residents have felt great anger and fear. People's quality of life has been severely damaged, and many have reported serious health consequences. Therefore, the Yellow Advertiser ran a campaign and a coupon petition. Many residents wrote in and, as a result of the campaign and the information about their experience, several recommendations were put forward, which I will now summarise for the House.
The first recommendation was to establish funding and support for 24-hour testing of air quality by general circulation models, strategically placed to monitor areas around Pitsea landfill, BP Coryton and other key sites. BP has agreed to install its own monitors, but only for the first three months. The second is to ensure that all information is passed to the Environment Agency and made public within 14 days via the agency's website, so the public know what is going on if it happens again in the future. Experience has shown that the Environment Agency has in the past relied solely on air quality data and notification of breaches supplied by the very operators that it is supposed to be regulating. This so-called self-regulation is not economic for the Environment Agency; there is an obvious conflict of interest and it is not an effective way to monitor possible offenders.
Thirdly, the analysis and testing on samples of emissions taken at Pitsea in May this year by Golder Associates should continue until irrefutable evidence that they pose no threat to health is available to the public on the Environment Agency's website. Fourthly, if any possible health risks are identified, all appropriate legal action must be pursued against the offender. That has not been done, even though there have been smells for seven months.
Fifthly, under current legislation, environmental health departments are unable to take action of any kind against offenders polluting the environment from a neighbouring district or borough. The Pitsea tip is in the

511
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), although the smells mostly impact on my constituents who live next door to the tip. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great campaigning efforts on this matter.
The problem has meant that Castle Point borough council's environmental health department has been unable to bring any action against Cleanaway, the pit operator, even though the smells have caused serious health problems—that has not been refuted—for several months. Although it is accepted that the Environment Agency has that responsibility, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should investigate the matter with a view to preventing a culture of buck passing. That has been the greatest and most persistent complaint that residents have made to me and the Yellow Advertiser over the past six months.
Sixthly, through the Yellow Advertiser, residents asked Ministers to investigate how the Environment Agency deals with bad smells in the future with a view to developing a protocol of proactive guidelines to regulate how it investigates and pursues any reoccurrence of the problem. That will avoid the trial-and-error approach that was adopted at Pitsea from February 2003. That led to a haphazard and, ultimately, longer remedial process, and therefore much longer suffering for the residents of Castle Point than was necessary.
For example, if the Environment Agency receives 10 or more complaints of odours that are accompanied by reports from doctors of possible health symptoms within a 24-hour period, GCMs testing should be deployed to pinpoint the source and to identify the compounds present at the earliest possible moment so that action can follow and the public can be reassured rather than left unduly concerned for six months, as happened this year.
The Environment Agency did not test the emissions despite numerous reports of stinging eyes, choking, nausea, inability to sleep, headaches and even a death from asthma on a playing field close to the tip. Instead, it relied on archaic wind direction reports and physical smell checks to pinpoint the source. In today's technological world, that is just not good enough. It amounts to a "Dad's Army" type farce, and is both incompetent and unacceptable.
I congratulate the Yellow Advertiser on its superb and public-spirited campaign, with Steve Neale at the helm. The newspaper did a great job looking after the public interest.
I turn now to the Government's attack on communities through their policies for post offices, chemists, police stations and, indeed, fire stations and retained fire officers. In particular, however, I shall consider post offices. There are 11 million pensioners and 5 million of them collect their money from post offices and 1 million of them do not have bank or building society accounts. They do not want to deal with banks; they fear that as they are anxious about PIN numbers and technology. The Government's policy has not been thought through. They are driving post offices out of business, and that shows a callous attitude towards the elderly people who put the "Great" in Britain. They created the wealth of this country, but do not get a fair share of it. Retired people deserve better.
512
The Government must have a cooling-off period in which to make it much clearer to everyone that they can be exempt from the changes if they so wish and can remain exempt for as long as they wish. The Government should promote and not damage post office accounts.
Let me give an example from the mail that I have received during the past two weeks. Mr. K.S. of Canvey Island wrote to me saying that he had decided to apply to have his pension paid into a Post Office account. He said:
"A welcome pack duly arrived with an information leaflet containing at least six reasons why I should go to a Bank or building society rather than my chosen course. One of these was that the administrator of this scheme disclaimed any liability for any discrepancies or failure to pay money into my new account, very reassuring!"
He continued:
"since this government have been in power it has become increasingly obvious that the general public and the pensioners in particular are being treated with complete contempt".
I put that matter to one side and turn to the European Union. On 14 July, I asked the Government how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Cabinet Office in each of the past five years. The Government replied that the average figure was 2,800. That is costing business an enormous amount. The British Chambers of Commerce says that there is too much regulation. It claims that the situation destroys jobs and the economy, undermines investment in this country and removes our competitive advantage, especially over continental Europe. Such regulation runs alongside massive business tax hikes and 60 stealth tax rises, so the Labour Government are leading the country toward a high tax and low wealth generation economy. They are taking the "Great" out of Britain.
It is time for us to consider the common agricultural policy again—it was past its time some 20 years ago. The policy is too costly, it damages international development and it is holding back enlargement, which would improving security on continental Europe. The control and subsidy of agriculture in this country should be repatriated to this country for the benefit of our farmers, all British consumers, our environment and the developing international community.
4.47 pm
Mark Tami: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. The League Against Cruel Sports recently made me aware of welfare concerns surrounding greyhound racing. I am not an opponent of the sport. Indeed, I have attended many events, although I always manage to leave them with less money than when I started.
I was unaware—like many hon. Members, I am sure—of the industry's problems until recently. Thousands of dogs go missing each year after their racing careers have ended, as do thousands of puppies that do not make the grade required to race. There are worries about what happens when dogs are racing. We should examine issues such as the size of tracks and the treatment that dogs receive in kennels.
I emphasise again that neither the League Against Cruel Sports nor I think that the sport is inherently cruel, unlike hunting with dogs. I do not advocate a ban

513
on the sport, but real issues must be addressed. Reform is required, and the ideal tool with which to achieve reform is the animal welfare Bill that we expect to be published in draft later this year.
As long ago as 1990, the Home Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into the greyhound racing industry. Although the report concentrated on the financing of the industry, it made reference to animal welfare concerns, especially the problem of re-homing dogs. The Committee recommended that track owners and bookmakers should be required to donate part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. It is a great shame that, some 13 years later, that has still not happened.
As hon. Members may be aware, the greyhound racing industry is extremely lucrative. For example, the Walthamstow track has an annual turnover in excess of £8 million. Many greyhound stadiums are set to apply for casino status under the proposed gambling Bill, so the tracks will probably become more profitable. There is no doubt that there is a lot of money in the business, but a miniscule percentage of the money bet on greyhound racing goes toward the welfare of the dogs. That is pitiful and a great shame. I support the league's campaign to give a penny in the pound of gambling turnover to the welfare of the dogs. They deserve more than that, in my opinion.
There are welfare concerns about the greyhounds before their careers begin. About 5,500 are bred for racing each year across the country. Many of them sell for more than £1,000. Some 2,000 of the puppies, however, never make it to the tracks; they just disappear. The same problem occurs in Ireland on a much greater scale. We have to assume the worst and accept that they are not all humanely put to sleep by vets. Licensing greyhound breeders is a way to address that problem. All puppies could be registered at birth and the statistics published in full. That would avoid the misery experienced by thousands of puppies that go missing each year, many of which are killed in a less than humane way.
There is also the massive problem of re-homing retired greyhounds after their racing careers have ended. That is mainly due to lack of provision. Some 10,000 greyhounds retire from British greyhound racing each year. Most of them are untraceable. Only about 2,000 a year are known to be re-homed by welfare groups, including the Retired Greyhound Trust. That figure is extremely worrying. A strategy clearly needs to be put in place so that every dog is re-homed, not just the 20 per cent. that are currently re-homed.
Although greyhound owners should accept responsibility for their dogs, so must the industry. Contrary to popular belief, greyhounds are suitable as pets. I am sure that many owners keep their dogs after they finish racing. However, that is perhaps not the case for the majority. Once the dogs start to cost their owners money instead of making them money, the owners are tempted with a quick way out of the tie of keeping the dog. We must address that.
There are also concerns about the dogs' welfare during their racing careers. That is sometimes difficult to detect, but some conditions in which the dogs run
514
damage their health and welfare. Dogs frequently have to run around very tight bends or run with minor injuries. Track surfaces are often the cause of concern, with too hard or too soft surfaces causing injury to the dogs. Paddy Sweeney, Britain's best known greyhound vet, argues that tracks should have a larger radius to enable the greyhounds to run upright so that their joints are not strained by the centrifugal force exerted on them when they run around tight bends. The suggested recommendation is that all new tracks should have a radius of at least 80 m.
Track vets are employed by racing promoters, which means that they may come under pressure not to pull dogs out of races if they are injured. Clearly, we cannot generalise about the standards of the vets employed in the industry, and I am sure that they are of the highest quality. I merely explain that they may come under pressure to make the "right" decision. Perhaps the solution is for an independent body to employ the vet, who would have full rights to stop races and/or withdraw dogs if they are unfit to race. Vets are solely there to look after the welfare of the dogs. It is also necessary to have fixed minimum standards at track kennels. I remember reading about the dog Football Focus, which died in track kennels at Catford last year owing to the lack of air conditioning. We must prevent accidents like that occurring.
The greyhound industry does not protest about the lack of funding for welfare. Both the British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club were invited to make a submission to the consultation on the animal welfare Bill. Neither thought it sufficiently important to respond. The Department for Culture Media and Sport has spoken to the industry about greyhound welfare and recognises that there is room for improvement.
In May 2002, the greyhound industry signed up to the charter of racing greyhounds. Although that is welcome, it is not binding and does not by any means cover all the issues that need to be addressed, especially the employment of independent vets. The league's idea of a penny in the pound for greyhound welfare has a great deal of merit. That would take the form of a statutory levy, similar to the one in the horse-racing industry. The provision would enable homes to be found for the 12,000 dogs that are surplus to requirements every year and could also go towards grants to upgrade tracks and kennels. It could even enable the micro-chipping of dogs so that they can be monitored and so that the circumstances surrounding those that go missing can be properly investigated.
The animal welfare Bill that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will introduce will provide an ideal opportunity to address this issue. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support that measure. It is a long-awaited Bill that will provide the necessary means to reform the industry of greyhound racing by making better provision for greyhounds, upon whose welfare the industry relies, and ensure its continued success, which I am sure we all want.
4.55 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: I shall touch on two issues in my 10-minute slot, which I shall try not to use in full. The first issue has already been mentioned,

515
and that is Iraq. The number of speeches on Iraq indicates that Members wish to see the issue debated fully and properly. Perhaps there is a need for a cross-cutting Question Time on the matter, given that a number of different Departments are dealing with restructuring and humanitarian aid. There are serious questions to be asked, and some confusion has arisen from Ministers' answers. A debate would give us the opportunity to resolve that confusion.
I shall give an example. On 25 June, the Prime Minister told the House that the Iraqis were being disarmed. It was clear by implication that they were being entirely disarmed. Having been to Iraq with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) at the beginning of June, I knew that the Prime Minister's answer was not fully correct. I asked the Ministry of Defence the same question: what was being done to disarm the Iraqis? The answer was slightly different from that of the Prime Minister. I was told that they were being allowed to hold on to non-automatic rifles and small arms. Again, that is not a fully correct answer. I was told clearly on two occasions by British commanders while I was in Iraq that they were allowing Iraqis to hold on to automatic weapons for their self-defence. Some clarity is required.
We need a debate. We also need a Question Time that will enable us to get answers from the Government. I have written to the Prime Minister on that issue and I am still waiting for a reply. It will not come this side of the recess; I suppose that it could be waiting in my pigeonhole, but I doubt it.
A number of other issues arose while we went round with the different battle groups. A huge number of munitions are lying around on the ground. It is horrifying. The Iraqi third army used metal containers as ammunition dumps. These containers are scattered across the desert, and little is being done to clear them up. The poverty of a number of tribal groups is such that children are being sent into the containers to take munitions out of wooden boxes so that they can be burned to boil water. Water has to be boiled because there is no clean water supply. At one location, mortar shells were scattered on the ground, the wooden boxes having been removed.
The poverty is such that the metals that make the shells have a value on the black market. Children are taking the shells back to their families, so that the shells can be taken apart and the metals sold on the black market. It is not surprising that a number of children have lost their lives doing this. The Army is doing what it can to advise and warn parents. It has a poster campaign. It is doing the best that it can with the resources at its disposal to clear up the munitions. However, it does not have sufficient resources.
An electricity supply is necessary so that water can be boiled by that means. The electricity system was installed by the Russians. Some power stations were damaged during the first Gulf war, and they have not been repaired since. Some power stations are running at only 10 or 20 per cent. of their capacity. The system is interlinked so that different power stations have to be online before there can be a supply. I have asked why the Russians are not there helping to rebuild their power stations. They put them in and they understand them.
516
However, they are not there. Serious questions need to be asked. Why are we not engaging the Russians in the rebuilding of the power station system?
The Army is doing all that it can to provide and maintain a water supply. Damage is being done to the water supply, and more needs to be done to maintain it, not by the Army but by the Department for International Development, other Departments and the UN. It is frustrating that British soldiers constantly have to repair electrical cables and the water supply when their primary task should be security and maintaining law and order. To put it bluntly, there are not enough non-governmental organisations to do the work, and there is not enough aid from the Government.
I shall touch on two final issues to do with Iraq. First, we visited a doctor's surgery. It had been looted at the end of the conflict and everything was taken. The Army had done a wonderful job, because it arranged for builders to put new doors and locks on, and made arrangements to help with the restocking. The UN had provided some drugs, and the surgery also had some shelves. From its limited budget, the Army provided a refrigerator to keep drugs at the right temperature, but essential items were missing from the pharmacy. I was given a list, by the lady doctor in charge, of the basic equipment that was required, including an autoclave, a baravan, stethoscopes, a water cooler, air conditioning so that drugs could be kept for longer, bandages, and simple chairs and tables. Why, several weeks after the end of the conflict, was more not being done to make sure that those essential items for the running of a medical centre were provided?
Secondly, I asked DFID what we were doing to help restore the banking system, which is in chaos. However, I have to say that when I worked in Iraq in 1982, the banking system was in chaos—the exchange rate at the bank was very different from what it was on the black market. The Army has had to provide help to establish and run the bank in Basra. The Army has many tasks and talents, but running banks is not one of which I am aware. However, it is doing what it can to try to provide stability. When DFID says that it is doing nothing to help the banking system, I despair, because we ought to be doing something to help it. Getting it running properly is essential to the economy. I therefore hope that the Government will give us more time to debate those important issues.
I shall touch briefly on another issue on which I have been trying to press the Government for answers—the present status of general development orders. The Government are currently reviewing the planning structure, but nothing is going to be done about general development orders, which allow dock companies, railway companies and airports to build what they like on their land, provided that it has something to do with the running of the port, airport or the railway line. Those developments can have a dramatic impact on people who live close to them. Railtrack is currently putting up mobile phone masts along the length of its tracks. No planning consent is required—it can just build them. Local people fear that, once those structures are up, if Railtrack applies for commercial use it will be hard for inspectors to refuse such an application. The structures are already in place, so it would be illogical for inspectors to turn down that application and say,

517
"You've got a structure, but don't use it." Many communities fear that unsightly phone masts are being constructed for commercial use at a later date.
I shall give an example in my constituency, which includes Teignmouth port. I wish it every success, but it has the right to build whatever it likes on the quay. A few years ago, it took down its old sheds and built a new one. Someone standing in their front garden in Alexander terrace can see a short bit of road—it is about the same length as the distance between the Government and Opposition Benches—then a railway line and another bit of road, with a tin shed along half its length which is about as high as the lower part of the Chamber. The railway track runs between the tin wall and the houses, and the tin wall acts as an echo chamber. No environmental consideration was given to its construction. If there had been a normal planning process, no one would have allowed such a structure to be built, creating such environmental damage. We need to review general development orders. I am not suggesting that they should be part of the normal local authority planning process, but something needs to be done to impose some control on what is allowed to be built by our ports and airports. At present, they can build what they like.
5.5 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: On Monday I received a helpful response to a question that I had tabled to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I want to share the information with other Members, and I hope it will be passed on to their constituents to whom it applies.
My question was:
"when the two-year probationary period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain will come into force."
The reply from the Minister stated:
"The two-year probationary period on marriage was introduced as one of a number of changes made to the Immigration Rules in 1 April 2003.
The changes were part of a package of measures to tackle the growing menace of fraudulent or abusive marriages to circumvent immigration control."
For hon. Members who do not deal with such cases, I should explain that over the past six years I have dealt with about 40 cases of young women who were not forced into marriage, but went along willingly with the arrangements made by their parents to marry a young first cousin in Pakistan. They went over to Pakistan to marry him and subsequently came back and applied to act as a sponsor to bring the young husband to the UK. He came here, and shortly before the year was out, the young lady would apply for indefinite leave to remain for him.
What happened in about 40 cases that came to my attention was that as soon as the young men received their indefinite leave to remain, they left their wife and went to live with the extended family. Sometimes the girls would be pregnant by that time and would be extremely upset. Their parents were extremely upset because they had arranged the marriage. The girl would come to me and say, "I want him deported", and I had to say, "I'm sorry, you've just applied for him to have
518
indefinite leave to remain. There is nothing that I or the Government can do. He is going to stay. He has his indefinite leave to remain."
The change is that the man cannot have indefinite leave to remain for two years. It is not much of a concession, but it will help to deter young men who were planning to come to the UK and get round immigration controls. The Government could probably go further. Often the young men go back to Pakistan, meet up with the young lady whom they would have married in any case, go through a marriage in Pakistan, come back and apply to act as a sponsor to bring the Pakistani young lady over as their wife. They are entitled to do that. They have indefinite leave to remain, so they can apply to act as a sponsor.
The situation would be helped and the young men would be deterred from doing that if a further measure were introduced by law specifying that they had to have citizenship before becoming a sponsor. That would take about five years from entering the country. It would deter the young men from putting those young ladies through a terrible experience. Having done all they could to make for a good marriage, the girls are cast to one side in favour of a woman whose marriage to the man had probably already been arranged.
I shall mention two other changes that were made on 1 April. A further measure was
"introducing a 'no switching' into marriage provision after entry to the United Kingdom for those coming for a short period of six months or less".—[0fficial Report, 14 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 54W.]
That means that those who have come to the country on visitors' visas cannot suddenly and conveniently find a wife in order to get indefinite leave to remain.
The other measure prevents someone from acting as a sponsor in a marriage or fiancée application until the prospective spouse is 18. Personally, I would prefer the age 21 to be specified, but 18 is very welcome. The measure will protect girls from being forced into marriage and taken back to Pakistan for that purpose when they are aged 15 or 16. It will ensure that their parents will know in advance that they cannot act as sponsors until the girl is 18, so they will probably not trouble to take her back until they are 18 to go through the procedure of arranging a marriage and acting as sponsors.
That measure will help many girls. I believe that most of the girls who are forced into marriage are very young and are aged 15, 16 or 17. If they can mature that little bit more, until they are 18, they will have a much better chance of taking on their parents in an argument and saying, "I do not mind having an arranged marriage, but I do not want to go back to Pakistan to marry this particular person." I think that the measure will help a great deal.
It would also be a good idea to apply such an age limit to people applying to come to the United Kingdom, so that when someone is acting as a sponsor for a young person from Pakistan, Bangladesh or wherever else, that young person would also have to be 18 to enter the country—although, in my view, 21 might be a better age. Such a measure would make a big difference to many young women such as those whom I have helped. Many of them were brought over as a spouse, sometimes when they were as young as 15—their passports were often changed—after which they were unceremoniously

519
dumped by their husband and their in-laws. In such situations, I am left to pick up the pieces, along with the Home Office. By and large, almost every case involves some measure of domestic violence, so we can use the domestic violence concession. I appreciate that concession, which I think was a brilliant idea. It saves a lot of girls from unnecessary suffering.
All those measures represent tinkering around the edges. I appreciate what the Home Office has done so far, but I believe that the solution to all these problems would be for Asian parents to arrange marriages for their sons and daughters within the settled community. None the less, I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey my gratitude and that of my female Asian constituents to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration.
5.13 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer).
We have heard some tremendous contributions today. In particular, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about the Royal Hospital Haslar by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I served at the Royal Hospital Haslar, and in my opinion, its demise has been the final nail in the coffin of the Defence Medical Services. Ministers should be under no illusion: the Defence Medical Services are a central part of our defensive capability. They are in a truly dreadful state and the situation must be addressed as a matter of urgency. I have to tell the Minister that the new centre for defence medicine at Selly Oak has not been well received by those who serve in the Defence Medical Services. It was a sad day indeed when the Royal Hospital Haslar, with all its potential, finally met its end.
It was also a great pleasure to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. GM is an emerging technology, but the next one will undoubtedly be nanotechnology. Last week, I led a debate on that subject in Westminster Hall, but the response that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), was less than comprehensive. I have written to him in the hope that he might revisit the Hansard record and address the points that I put to him.
In particular, we need to know where we are going with the debate on nanotechnology, because I fear the some of the mistakes that were made in relation to the GM public debate might be repeated in that context. I hope that we will have learned lessons from that—especially in relation to the wisdom, or lack of it, of having the public debate before the full evidence was available to present to the public. That is a topsy-turvy way of proceeding. I hope that we do not repeat that mistake when we deal publicly, as we must, with the next emerging technology—nanotechnology.
During the summer, we will see the last days of community health councils. That worries many hon. Members; some of us argued in Committee that it was folly. I pay tribute to the work of the community health councils that have served my constituents for more than
520
a quarter of a century. I feel strongly that CHCs represented a good foundation on which to build, and I fear that after their demise our constituents will suffer from a lack of representation at that level. They have been valuable to me personally as a constituency MP in advising me of the feelings of people locally on health issues; they will be sorely missed.
We have not covered health greatly in this summer Adjournment debate; that is strange, given that health is probably the No. 1 priority of most of our constituents—certainly, my mailbag suggests that that is the case. I pay tribute to the Government for being able to spend historically large sums of money on health. I equally pay tribute to their predecessor for providing the economy necessary to achieve that spend. We should never fool ourselves that we can get health care on the cheap. Spending is relatively easy: it should not be considered a proxy for achieving the good health care that we all want for our constituents. The tricky bit is achieving the health outcomes that Britons have the right to expect. In that context, it is disingenuous to talk euphemistically of investment when we really mean spending. Words mean what words say, and it is important, in the context of health, to talk of spending, not to assume that spending equals an investment that will produce a return.
Spending on health services increased in real terms by 22 per cent. at the turn of the century, but hospital activity went up by just 1.6 per cent. Indeed, by their own deeply flawed star rating measures, the Government are failing, despite their largesse. Only this week, we heard that the number of zero star rated trusts has increased and that the performance of ambulance services has gone down. Those statistics come with a health warning, because one cannot realistically expect a 22 per cent. rise in spend to produce a straight-line proportionate increase in activity of anything like 22 per cent., let alone a 22 per cent. increase in health outcomes: the marginal utility is manifestly much less. I suggest, however, that it should be significantly greater than 1.6 per cent.
It is our duty to ask what has gone wrong. Part of the answer clearly lies in public sector inflation running at 5.3 per cent. There is a whole raft of reasons for that, including salary costs, national insurance, pensions and the use of expensive agency staff. Health service inflation outstrips just about every other form of inflation. Despite rationing by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has contained costs to some extent, the cost of drugs and medical devices is set to rocket.
Less obvious to outsiders would be the fact that many people are in the wrong jobs—non-productive jobs or jobs where the product is obscure. When I was in the Royal Navy, we reached the tipping point at which the number of admirals exceeded the number of ships afloat. It seems that we have reached that point in the NHS, with the number of bureaucrats exceeding the number of beds. That is nothing to be proud of. Allied with that is an incomprehensible budgetary framework in which health care managers are encouraged to spend in a short-term way—to adopt a "spend now or lose it" mentality. That has spawned a great range of jobs with no obvious purpose, as The Sunday Times rather unkindly highlighted at the weekend when it referred to what it described as rubbish jobs being thrown at a perceived public need, with little thought about what they would achieve in terms of outcomes.

521
So it is that between 1997 and 2002 the number of doctors and nurses went up by 15 per cent., but the number of administrators soared by 46 per cent. Many of those managerial jobs do good things—there is no denying that—but surely that deployment of our 22 per cent. uplift in resources at the turn of the century would have been better spent on health care staff who are directly involved in a hands-on way with patients. My Select Committee found that tens of million of pounds had been lost to the system—we had no idea where tens of millions of pounds had gone under the NHS cancer plan. Nobody appears to have accounted for it let alone had any idea about what positive outcomes it had produced. That is hopeless.
Last week, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the data on which he was relying for his comparison by 2005 of EU spend and UK spend on health care were weighted or unweighted, projected or static, or whether they were based on the Office for National Statistics' newly computed data, which involve heath care spend by a raft of organisations outwith the NHS—charities, churches, nursing homes and so on. He addressed the first point honestly and said that it was weighted. On the other two, he was obscure, so we have to make our own conclusions on that.
Government spending on health care and education centrally seems to sit uneasily with the deficits that we see locally in our schools and hospitals. That is a great concern in my area, where the strategic health authority has a huge deficit—almost insurmountable, I would suggest—which it is being told to get on with sorting out itself, with little assistance, it seems, from the centre. How much worse will that get when local, apparently accountable and democratic governing bodies sit and are responsible for these budgets? I suspect that Ministers will rusticate responsibility even more.
It is glib and dishonest to say that the increase in spending must go hand in hand with reform without a clear vision of what that reform means. Somewhere along the way, the Government have lost the plot, and our constituents' health expectations are the poorer for it.
5.22 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: The principal topic with which I am going to deal this afternoon—I shall speak briefly, in case you have the chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to fit in two other speakers—is a riveting one: multi-agency working. Some Members will be surprised to hear me use such an expression, because even the expression "new Labour" has yet to pass my lips. To speak in the language of it might therefore seem strange.
Multi-agency working, however, is basically quite a good idea. It says that what we must do is get different people—social services, local borough councils, the police service, the probation service and everyone else who might have some share of a problem—to work together rather than carve it up so that each does their different thing and nothing much joins together. My experience, however, is that we have a long way to go. I want the Government to consider seriously whether,
522
when it is clear that multiple agencies need to be involved in a problem, we should try to get somebody to take lead responsibility for it.
Let me give an example from my constituency. I was approached by two very worried parents, both aged over 70 and frail in health, the mother suffering from cancer. They were the parents of someone whom I will call Joe Bloggs. Joe was in prison and about to come out. He had been given a two-and-a-half year sentence but was being let out on licence after a year and a half. He had been a heroin addict and was clean. I discovered that he was going to come out a week before he did so because his parents simply did not know to whom to turn. As Members of Parliament, we can get access to a lot of people whom others cannot normally get hold of, so when his parents came to see me, I was able to speak to the governor of the prison, the chief probation officer, the head of social services, and someone at the housing department. I spent a week doing all that, but at the end of it all, this man was coming out of prison clean, but with no prospect at all of remaining so.
The man's parents were told that there were two possible arrangements for when he came out of prison. The first was that no one would meet him; the second was that they could meet him. However, they were very frail and upset, their grandchildren often stayed with them in their house, and there was no way that someone who needed that level of care and attention could be looked after at home. So, in the end, I agreed to do it. I got up at 5.45 am and went to the prison with the parents. I had made all the arrangements. The prison then told us that he would be released at 9 am. At 10.30 am, he finally emerged, so we had already lost an hour and a half out of the day in which we could have been trying to solve his problem.
I then took him to his home, where his parents helped him in various ways. I wanted the bond between him and his parents to be established before I moved him on, because he would otherwise have thought that they did not care. He also needed to know, however, that it was impossible for his parents to look after him. He understood that, and we left his home and went to the probation office. The probation office is meant to be the lead agency for someone on licence, but the probation officer in charge of the case was a probationer himself, so it went to another probation officer.
Three days before the man came out of prison, I had to tell the probation office that this prisoner had cerebral palsy. "Oops!", they said, "Sorry, we didn't know that he was disabled. That's a different category." I thought that we might now be able to get some help. The ex-prisoner was determined to get the help that people who have been drug addicts need. He was also determined not to come back to Hemel Hempstead, where all his old contacts were. After four hours in the probation office, I had to go off and see another constituent for a couple of hours—someone who was dying—and when I got back on the case, I found that the first thing that they had done when I left was to phone his frail, elderly parents to say, "Come and get him." His parents went to get him from the probation office—luckily they were able to drive there—and they brought him away. Finally, I saw him again that evening established in a house in which it was absolutely clear that he would be dragged back into his drug habit in no time at all.

523
The probation office did not even know the phone number of social services. The local borough council housing department had had a dispute with the man about the rent from the last time that he had lived there, and even though his parents had cancelled his tenancy, it had not been cancelled. The whole business was surrounded by utter incompetence. There was nobody to say, "He's my case. I'll try to see this through." Unless we have a lead agent for this sort of case, the only thing that people like this will be able to do is to go back on the street and start robbing. This guy was a pusher, and very well known in the area, but he wanted to get off the drugs. But in the end, the whole system, with dozens of people being paid very high salaries, could make absolutely nothing happen. I ask the House to consider whether we are ever going to get things right unless we can appoint a lead agent in these cases to take responsibility for people like that.
5.29 pm
John Barrett: I shall try to be brief and concise in the one minute that I have in which to speak.
I should like to concentrate on two issues that will be of concern to many of my constituents over the summer recess. One is the mis-selling of travel insurance. An awful lot of people going on holiday this summer will have been the subject of mis-selling. They will come back from their holidays to find that they do not have proper insurance because a number of the major travel agencies will have hoodwinked them into accepting their own insurance without having established pre-existing conditions; that will invalidate their cover. This problem should be covered when the Government consider extending regulation of the insurance industry.
When we return in September, we will be only a few weeks away from the introduction of the new pension credit system. That subject was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). It will be in the spotlight. A large number of pensioners live below the Government's poverty line: 22 per cent. of pensioners—2 million in total—still live in poverty. Some £2 billion of pension benefits are unclaimed, and 32 per cent. of pensioners who are eligible do not claim the minimum income guarantee; that includes 11,000 pensioners in my constituency and some 87,000 pensioners in Scotland.
I fear that what will happen when the pension credit comes in will be similar to what happened with the workings of the child tax credit system earlier this year. Two million callers were abandoned when they phoned the helpline. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put, but the Government have an opportunity to establish a proper infrastructure to deal with this scheme. We have an ageing population, and we must help people who are going into retirement. Frustration has been felt on both sides of the House, because the Government have been too timid and have not properly addressed some of the problems that pensioners will face in the near future, especially with the introduction of the pension credit.
There are a number of issues that we have to deal with, but there is no time to mention them all. I believe that the Government would be well advised to deal with
524
the problem of the mis-selling of travel insurance and the problems that will arise with the introduction of the pension credit.
5.31 pm
Mr. David Cameron: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate—so wide-ranging that I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests just in case. We have covered the field, on subjects such as Iraq, the pension credit, telecommunications, the House of Lords, Cyprus, Mount Vernon hospital, golf courses, air transport and broadband.
The summer Adjournment debate is important. We can write to Ministers during the recess, but this is the last opportunity to get points on record. It is regrettable that a number of Members have not been able to speak. I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that these Adjournment debates should have a time limit on speeches but let the debate run on, because it would not be too painful if we went on for a further half an hour and all missed our trains to our constituencies. At least everyone would have a chance to speak.
I make a plea to the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on to the relevant Ministers the points raised by hon. Members for an answer. I spoke in one of these debates about a social services issue. I waited patiently in my constituency for an answer, but answer came there none. I had to get in touch with the Department myself.
I will not add to the list of issues that have been raised, but I want to make the point that we have not had a chance to discuss in the House the desperate situation of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Payments to a charity in my constituency have been suspended, and I suspect that the same applies to many charities in other constituencies. I hope that the Government will keep their eye on that issue.
We heard excellent contributions, starting with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). She spoke about road accidents and sleep disorders. Those subjects are not often raised in the House, so it was good to put those points on the record. I respect her proud and consistent record on Iraq. I do not agree with her, but the questions that she asked about the source that the United Kingdom Government used for making the statement about uranium sourced from Niger will not go away. The many contributions on Iraq point to the fact that further debates will be not only welcome, but essential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) made a wise, comprehensive and passionate speech about Tibet, which is also topical, given the Prime Minister's forthcoming tour. As my hon. Friend said, real negotiations between the Chinese and the Tibetan Government in exile are needed. He made the powerful point that we should not reward violent groups: we should reward non-violence. The Dalai Lama has been the apogee of non-violence.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) made a wide-ranging speech. He talked about transport in Cheshire and Cheshire county council. He made a particular point about special schools. He obviously knows what he is talking about, having worked in that field. He made a powerful point. Those of us who have

525
residential special schools in our constituencies value them, but they are often not valued by the county council. I am not sure that that is political; I think it is to do with the trend towards inclusion in education in all circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman succeeds in his campaign. He mentioned Halton hospital, and I agree that in the national health service small is often beautiful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made what I hope he will not mind my describing as a familiar speech. It was no less powerful for that. He has been vigorous in defending the royal hospital Haslar, which, as he said, is the only defence hospital left in the United Kingdom. He spoke of the difficulties of retaining staff, and pointed out that it was not just a question of pay. It was a question of institutions that people care about, and want to work in. He referred to "super-hospitals", as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). We must ask ourselves whether staff value working in those as much as they value working in smaller institutions that they know and love.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport also mentioned the Daedalus site for asylum seekers at Lee-on-the-Solent. Like others today, he demonstrated the power of pinning Ministers down with parliamentary questions. I agree with him that while any asylum and immigration system will have its disadvantages, one advantage of a quota system with more offshore processing is that it would rid us of the problem of where to site asylum centres.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was one of many speakers who had apparently been unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during debates on Iraq. Many of us were in the same position, yet we were deluged with letters, advice and e-mails from constituents. We wanted to show that we had listened before reaching our own judgments. I supported the hon. Lady's judgment: she was sceptical but supportive, deploring war but recognising that it was sometimes essential, praising the United Nations route but recognising that the French veto made the war inevitable. I thought her speech powerful. She lost me when she moved on to the European constitution and not having a referendum, but found me again when she dealt with regional government. Two out of three is not bad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood talked about the cancer and burns unit at Mount Vernon hospital in Northwood. He has been a doughty fighter for that, as well as for Harefield hospital. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, he pointed out that institutions matter as well as bricks and mortar. It is dreadful when "progress" means the closing of much-loved hospitals.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) spoke about Iraq, and about pensioners. I think we all support what he said about Iraq—"They want their country back"—and the sooner we can deliver that, the better it will be for stability in the region. On the pension credit, he asked for no repeat of the debacle over tax credits. I am sure that we all say, "Hear, hear" to that.
526
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in what sounded like a winding up of the early part of the debate, rightly said that all speeches about Iraq were very sincere. He told us his own tale about House of Lords reform, describing the long trail of questions that he had asked the Prime Minister, which had led him to conclude that the Prime Minister does not always answer the question. Even after only two and a half years in this place, I must say that my reaction was "Wow!" The hon. Gentleman is sincere about the House of Lords, however. He said that the larger number had voted for the elected options, which is true if we assume that 332 Members voted for them. I hope that he, and the rest of us, will be persistent, and that the Government will try to find a proper solution.
The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a knowledgeable speech about Cyprus. He reminded us of the events that took place 29 years ago, and of the slow progress that has been made towards a settlement. He took a slightly stronger line against Turkey than some of us would want to—many of us feel that Turkey wants to be a European democracy rather than an Islamic state, and that we should be more welcoming—but I respect what he said about Cyprus and the importance of a settlement there.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) produced a rich menu of issues, including the declaration of interests that parish councillors have had to sign. Many Members will have received representations about that. I hope that the Government will listen to those who say that they should try to lighten parish councillors' load and celebrate what they do.
Like others, my hon. Friend mentioned schools funding. He said that 52 schools in his constituency were in deficit. I do not think we have heard the last of that. It is a pity that the Government are not going to relent, but we hope that things will be better in future years. He also asked about the report on the international year of the mountain, 2002, which we are awaiting. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us a commitment on that.
Appropriately enough on the first day of the Open, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about golf courses and the great planning pressures in the south-east and Essex. I am sure that some of us thought how nice it would be to be at the Open, rather than here, and I gather that Justin Rose is doing very well. Those of us with seats in the south-east absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made a very controversial remark when he said that his is the most beautiful constituency in the country. I was going to disagree, as the Cotswolds and west Oxfordshire are far more beautiful, but then I remembered that I am going on holiday to Jura, which I believe is in his constituency. Perhaps we can meet at the top of a pap and discuss this. He also spoke about transport and regional air services, which are desperately needed. I hope that he will be listened to. All of us with rural constituencies will agree with his point about broadband, and will want some of the non-BT, satellite options to be pursued. I hope that the Government listen to that point as well.

527
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (M r. Amess), who is a doughty fighter for his constituency, raised a range of issues to do with crime. I picked up on the point about his secondary schools having a £400,000 shortfall. That is a huge deficit and I ask the Government to take on this issue.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made a very knowledgeable speech about genetically modified crops and the danger of super-weeds. I listened to her with great interest—indeed, the great debate on GM has even reached "The Archers". When the House returns, we really must address her point about having a debate on this issue in government time.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) made a very knowledgeable speech about Pakistan. He mentioned what a good friend to this country President Musharraf has been and that we must press for Pakistan's re-entry into the Commonwealth. I am sure that that message was received by Government Front Benchers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about bad odours in south Essex—I hope that I heard him right—and the problems with Pitsea tip. He mentioned buck-passing, and as we all know from our constituency experience in dealing with the Environment Agency, one can often be passed from pillar to post. I hope that the Government will listen to that point.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) discussed greyhound racing and made the important point that a welfare fund for dogs should perhaps be established. I am slightly more sceptical about the concept of licensing and registration for all puppies. If we go back to having dog and cat licences, I wonder where it will end. Soon, we will be licensing hamsters. However, his was a well-thought-through speech on an important subject.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) is an expert on immigration rules and, particularly for those of us who do not have large immigrant populations in our constituencies, it is always good to listen and learn from her. She discussed changing the age that one needs to reach before becoming a sponsor, and ensuring that a sponsor has to be a citizen. Those were positive and constructive contributions to this important subject, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass them on to the Home Office, to see whether they can be looked at in detail.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter)—the man who asked the Prime Minister whether he had a philosophy—now seems to have adopted that philosophy. He referred to multi-agency working, and it is only a matter of time before he starts talking about roll-out, joined-up government and pilots. If he is not careful, he will start talking about "imagineering". He clearly needs a holiday to recover his old Labour credentials, but he makes an important point. On leaving prison, people can fall between the gaps. In the worst cases involving heroin addicts, after drying out in prison, their first fix on coming out is often their last. They are not picked up by the probation service or the various agencies. That is a powerful point.
528
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was cut off rather cruelly, but his point about the mis-selling of travel insurance was well made and certainly needs to be looked at.
I end with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who spoke about his time at the Royal Hospital Haslar, and about nanotechnology. He is probably one of few in this House who actually understands what nanotechnology is, rather than believing, as Prince Charles does, that it is grey goo. My hon. Friend paid tribute to community health councils and the work that they have done, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will pay tribute to their own CHCs, regardless of how they voted on that issue; I certainly pay tribute to mine. He posed one of the great questions that we face. An enormous amount of public money is being spent on public services such as the NHS, and the huge test for the Government—in a way, it is a huge experiment—is whether that will lead to more activity. His figures suggest that so far activity has remained relatively flat. The big test for this Government will be whether that giant tax-and-spend experiment will work. We shall have to wait and see.
On that note, I wish the House and its members of staff a happy recess, and I look forward to the reply of the Deputy Leader of the House.
5.44 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I start by echoing the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in saying what an excellent debate this has been. It has been wide ranging, with some 22 contributions from Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The range of subjects has been frankly mind-boggling. We have been to a golf course in the Brain valley that has more than 18 holes. I do not know what they propose to call the bar at that course. Having played 31 holes, I suppose one needs a drink. We have been to hospitals in various parts of the country, and we have been up mountains for the year of the mountain.
We have had foreign trips, surpassing even those that hon. Members will take in the next eight weeks. We have been to Tibet and Pakistan, stopping for a while in Iraq. We have been to Cyprus via Egypt, coming back to the more familiar territory of parish councils in Bedfordshire. I will come back to those later.
We have had bad odours in Essex. Out of context, that would look bad for the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mr. Spink), but we understand what he means. We have had fires at Yarl's Wood, abandoned greyhounds and a wide range of topics that I shall try to answer. In response to the hon. Member for Witney, I undertake to ensure that if I cannot answer any questions, we will write to the relevant Secretaries of State. I can inform the House that thanks to the excellent work of the officials in the Office of the Leader of the House, I have been passed notes in answer to points made in the previous recess debate so that we can tie up some loose ends.
Reference has been made to extending these debates, as we now have the cut-off at 6 o'clock. Perhaps the House would like to consider that. If these debates were open-ended, I suspect that we would be here until 8 September, given the ability of some hon. Members to keep going. This debate is important and obviously we take these matters seriously.

529
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised two diverse issue, sleeping disorders and road safety, and her well-known and passionately held views on Iraq. The Government have every intention of maintaining the momentum of the current publicity campaign to promote awareness of driver sleepiness. The campaign started in August 2000 and we are spending just over £1 million annually on it. We continue to look at ways in which we can get the message across. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that treatment available on the NHS of continuous positive airway pressure is often effective in eliminating the disorder. It is important that that is available. I shall come back to the subject of Iraq because several hon. Members mentioned it.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) raised the issue of Tibet and I am sure that he has support on both sides of the House, particularly with regard to the cases he raised, such as the horrific execution of Lobsang Dhondup in Tibet. The Government continually raise the issue of human rights in Tibet with the Chinese Government, most recently on 25 June. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister will be visiting Japan.[Interruption.] I apologise. The Prime Minister is going to so many places it is difficult to keep up. He is going to China to raise the issue. He is going to Japan as well, but he will not be raising the issue of human rights in Tibet. Maybe he will; he works many wonders, our Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) spoke passionately about constituency concerns. First, he mentioned the proposed reduction of services at Hartford station—an important link to the mainline and London. I understand that the reason for the change is that that bit of the line is a pinch point, which causes congestion. Proposals are being examined to establish whether the higher performance trains now available—with better acceleration and better braking—will make possible an increased number of calls at the station.
Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned Cloughwood school in his constituency. He has close personal knowledge of, and strongly supports, the school, and the school bus services are obviously important. Those are matters for the Cheshire county council, and my hon. Friend is right to raise them in the debate.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend referred to the Halton hospital. I understand that the strategic health authority supports my hon. Friend's views, and I know that he will campaign vigorously on that matter. I will certainly draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
As he does on so many occasions, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the issue of the medical services in the armed forces. I believe that he is a former member of the Royal Air Force and he obviously holds strong views on that matter. He is familiar with the difficulty of reconfiguring the medical defence services. I will certainly chase up the points that he made, particularly in respect of his correspondence with the Minister, and I shall again draw his point of view to the Secretary of State's attention.
530
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Daedalus site, and I understand that an announcement will shortly be made. The responsible Home Office Minister visited the site on 15 May this year, following the announcement in February, and I understand that consideration is currently being given to it. We await an announcement on that important matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about Iraq and referendums. If it was two out of three for the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), it must be one out of three for me on this occasion—no, in the light of her views on Iraq, it is two out of three in reality. That shows that we do not always oppose what the Opposition say, simply because the Opposition say it.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's views on the European Union constitution. The Government's position is well known—that the arguments in favour of a referendum on that matter are bogus. The EU Convention is the bringing together of treaties that have been determined in the past. It is interesting to read the views expressed in the press—particularly the pro-federalist press—on the continent, and discover how strongly the constitution is opposed because it is not seen as a federalist document. It is also notable how much the British Government are praised for the skilful negotiation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I have to part company with my hon. Friend on the issue of a referendum for a north-west regional assembly. The Government consulted on the matter and interests were expressed, but we will campaign for a yes vote in the referendum. I do not accept the argument that the regional assembly is a duplication and another tier of bureaucracy. I regard it as another tier of democracy, which devolves bureaucracy from Whitehall closer to the regions. The helpline advice to a constituent in Argyll and Bute to travel 140 miles to the local tax office is a strong argument for regional devolution. The distances in our regions may not be that great, but government closer to the people is better government. I hope that the referendum will result in a positive outcome. My hon. Friend holds strong views on that and divisions will exist within parties and across party lines.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised some important points about Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals, and I know that Members from neighbouring constituencies have also raised those serious issues. There are real concerns about them, but the difficulty that the health authorities have is balancing any damage that change inevitably causes with the future investment in, and development of, services at the other sites involved. The hon. Gentleman made his points clinically, if I may put it like that, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of those views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) raised several issues. He talked about his views on Iraq, and I am sure that all hon. Members will respect them. His constituents will, I am sure, learn of his contribution today and will also respect him for those strongly held views, which I happen to share. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that Members on all sides of that argument hold their views sincerely.

531
My hon. Friend mentioned the situation of pensioners, and he also referred to the introduction in October of the pension credit. The Government's record on increasing the money paid to pensioners—including the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, when it is introduced—is greatly welcomed by all pensioners. Hon. Members are right to raise concerns about implementation of the system, and whether it will be simple enough for pensioners to understand, but the Government have listened carefully to those points to ensure a smooth implementation of what will prove to be a step change in provision for pensioners.
My hon. Friend raised other issues. He is a former telecoms engineer and has much knowledge of the issues relating to the telecoms industry. I have a follow-up document in front of me from the previous time my hon. Friend raised those issues, and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ensure that my hon. Friend gets an answer. He also mentioned shipbuilding and the importance to his constituents of the aircraft carrier contract, and Ministers from the Ministry of Defence are well aware of his views on that. He also mentioned the Communications Bill, which I have covered.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall was perhaps called a little earlier than he had hoped, but he made a wide-ranging contribution. He is right to say that the House of Commons could not come to a consensus on the issue of the House of Lords. While all hon. Members can say what the House was against, the Leader of the House and the Government have to determine what the House voted for. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the effort to abolish the remaining hereditary peers, which is an improvement that we outlined in our manifesto. We want to introduce more independent appointments in the House of Lords to make it more democratic and representative, and I hope that he will support that as progress. It may not go as far as he would like to go, but it is in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the issue of Cyprus. He is aware of the Government's policy on the matter and I know that he supports it. I thank him for his work on that issue. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised the issue of parish councils and the code of conduct and I will take his points up with the Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have seen strong work from parish councils and we support them. On the point about the year of the mountain, I have a response from the Government and I will ensure that it is transmitted to the hon. Gentleman.
Several other hon. Members raised many other issues and I will ensure that they receive responses to the points that they made and the questions that they asked. It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. The summer Adjournment comes at a time when our economy is stronger than it has ever been, with record low levels of unemployment, inflation and interest. The Government are in strong heart and they are moving forward with their investment and reform agenda. As Members deliberate over the shorter summer break this year, they will realise that this bumpy month was, in fact, a good time for the Government.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put

PETITIONS

  School Funding
  6 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I wish to present a petition on behalf of schools throughout Somerset that are desperately concerned about not only the funding crisis this year, but the chronic under-funding of Somerset schools. I entirely agree with its sentiments.
  The petition has been signed by about 1,300 people and has been collected from 59 different schools in my constituency and across Somerset. It states:
  To the House of Commons, The petition of Anne Stephens, on behalf of the schools of Somerset, Declares that the funds allocated do not meet the needs of schools.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons consider a fairer settlement for Somerset children.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  It is signed by Anne Stephens, the head teacher of Bruton primary school.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Air Quality (South Essex)
  6.1 pm
  Bob Spink: I raised the issue of air quality in south Essex in the 1990s when I was first a Member of Parliament and I raised it again in the first month that I returned to the House in 2001, yet still no proper action has been taken to provide proper monitoring of the problem in south Essex, hence the nightmare of the past five months in my constituency and surrounding areas. People have suffered health and quality-of-life problems because proper action has not been taken. I congratulate the Yellow Advertiser and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on their campaign. I have been pleased to be able to join them in fighting on this issue.
  The Yellow Advertiser raised a petition that states:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the Yellow Advertiser sheweth.
  That there is great anger and fear in South Essex about the pungent smells emanating from Pitsea Tip and blighting our communities, and residents and visitors wish to register their protest against those smells which have also caused serious health concerns and destroyed whole communities' quality of life.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to take action, through the Environment Agency, to curb the smells, to set up proper monitoring, to establish contingency plans to deal with any further smells and therefore to protect our communities.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Community Pharmacies
6.2 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: In common with many other right hon. Members and hon. Members, I have been petitioned by pharmacists and the customers of community pharmacies with a generic petition entitled "Save our pharmacy services".
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Reading
Declares that the proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would undermine the excellent service currently provided by community pharmacists.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
I welcome the Government's statement today that they do not believe that this is the time to move to a fully deregulated system. They therefore intend to move cautiously in the direction recommended by the Office of Fair Trending. I believe that my petitioners would recommend that the Government reject the OFT recommendations entirely.
To lie upon the Table.

Rheumatoid Arthritis
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
6.4 pm
Mr. David Amess: I am very grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise the important question of the treatment and care of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is fairly new to his post and I certainly do not expect him to be an expert on this subject. This debate is not an opportunity for me and my colleagues to attack the Government's health policy. Given that all Governments must have priorities, I ask him to find out whether he can nudge rheumatoid arthritis up the list because it is a dreadful disease from which many people suffer.
Rheumatoid arthritis is a common auto-immune disease that is painful, disabling and progressive. It affects people of all ages including young children and teenagers—I do not think that that is widely understood. It has a mortality rate similar to that of coronary heart disease, diabetes, Hodgkin's disease and stroke, yet unfortunately, by comparison, its treatment is comparatively poorly resourced. The lack of appropriate funding and resources leads to a lack of adequate disease management, which in turn impacts adversely on patients' quality of life. The loss of earnings suffered when people have to stop work because of rheumatoid arthritis has a detrimental financial impact on patients, their families and the wider community.
Some 42 per cent. of rheumatoid arthritis patients are registered disabled within three years while 80 per cent. become moderately to severely disabled within 20 years of their diagnosis. There were 1.9 million consultations with general practitioners for inflammatory arthritis in 2000, and in 1999–2000, 9.4 million working days were lost in the United Kingdom because of rheumatoid arthritis, which represents £833 million of lost production.
I pay tribute to Mrs. Ailsa Bosworth, who is the president and founder of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society—NRAS. There is no doubt that without her determination, rheumatoid arthritis would not have achieved such prominence among the general public. I hope that the Government will respond to that accordingly.
My fellow officers of the all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis and I had the opportunity to visit Guy's hospital and meet Dr. Kirkham and Professor Panayi, who have given great service to people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. We saw the hospital's excellent facilities from which rheumatoid arthritis sufferers could benefit. We also had the opportunity to visit Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, where we met Dr. Banerjee. He is a wonderful doctor who has given great care to his patients, but unfortunately for them, the hospital's facilities are in no way comparable to those at Guy's.
The newly formed all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis, of which I am chairman, has worked closely with the NRAS since last October, with the specific aim

535
of bringing the needs of rheumatoid arthritis patients and the resources required for rheumatology, as a specialist health area, to the Government's attention. Addressing the issues that relate directly to rheumatoid arthritis would benefit the wider patient community who suffer from osteoarthritis and other forms of arthritis, as well as people with musculo-skeletal conditions who are also treated by consultant rheumatologists and multidisciplinary teams that operate in the rheumatology field. I am pleased to say that a summary of the issues will be the subject of a NRAS consensus report that will be published at the end of the month. It will include contributions from patients, leading rheumatologists, primary care physicians and specialist rheumatology nurses from the Royal College of Nursing rheumatology nursing forum.
I ask the Government to do whatever they can to give access to quality treatment. Early diagnosis and treatment is essential to minimise disease progression, joint damage and pain. The NRAS patient survey that was conducted earlier this year showed that it is unfortunately not uncommon for a patient to wait longer than a year to be referred into secondary care to see a specialist—of course, that is not acceptable. Early referral to a multidisciplinary team involving specialist nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and podiatrists is recommended for best care. There are simply not enough of those teams. The recommended provision for consultant rheumatologists is one per 85,000 people. Sadly, that is not met anywhere in the United Kingdom. The latest figures suggest that the speciality is more than 40 per cent. under strength, with an average of one consultant rheumatologist for every 150,000 people.
I am also concerned about professional training and standards of care generally. Training in musculo-skeletal disease does not have sufficient priority in primary and secondary care. Current training is inadequate. There are also barriers to adequate rheumatoid arthritis services. The NHS has not paid enough attention to that over the decades. That is not in any sense a jibe at the Government. No Government have given it sufficient priority. The distortion of care in national priorities has to be addressed. It is no longer acceptable that guidelines have been produced for optimal care in Scotland and that a strategy for arthritis in Wales is being developed by the Welsh Assembly, but nothing has been developed in England. No doubt the Minister will tell me that that is on the agenda.
There is no national service framework for rheumatoid arthritis, other forms of arthritis and musculo-skeletal conditions. There is only a brief mention of the disease in the new GP contract. There is no drive that I am aware of—again, the Minister may tell me otherwise—to improve the quality of services in general. Too few primary care organisations or health authorities have the background to commission relevant services.
In March 2002, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved use of anti-TNF therapy for people with severe rheumatoid arthritis on whom existing treatments had failed. Since the debate was publicised, any number of organisations and interested parties have advised me on what I should raise, but I cannot cover all the issues in 15 minutes. More than 12
536
months on from NICE approving its use, the key finding is that postcode prescribing of anti-TNF therapy remains a significant problem in the UK.
More than a third of the rheumatologists in the survey reported that they are still unable to prescribe anti-TNF therapy to every patient they identify in accordance with NICE guidance. In at least one area, the local primary care trust has decided not to commission any anti-TNF therapy on the ground of a major shortfall in cash. In the majority of cases in which rheumatologists could not prescribe anti-TNF therapy to all the patients they identified, insufficient funding was reported as the main barrier. That is obviously worrying. The survey took place between February and May 2003. Of 184 UK consultant rheumatologists surveyed, 152 participated, which is a pretty good response, representing 82.6 per cent. of respondents, the majority of whom were from England and Wales.
I have three questions for the Minister. If he does not have time to reply, perhaps he could write to me. Does he agree that the loss of quality of life to rheumatoid arthritis patients, the burden of care put on families, which leads to a high level of separation and divorce, the loss of £833 million-worth of production to employers, the loss of revenue to the Government and the cost of benefits paid to disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients, is a serious issue and must be addressed?
The main point is that I would like to know from the Government what importance and what priority they attach to treating inflammatory arthritis.
The second point is whether the Minister agrees that general practitioners, primary care trusts and special health authorities will put their resources foremost into meeting Government targets and priorities, and that unless rheumatoid arthritis and arthritis generally are made higher priorities by the Government, rheumatoid arthritis patients will miss out.
Finally, will the Minister welcome the work that is being done by patient groups and health professionals under the standards of care project that is currently under way, which is being co-ordinated and sponsored by the Arthritis and Musculo-skeletal Alliance? Perhaps the Minister might agree to an all-party meeting where we might have more time to go into greater depth on this important issue.
6.16 pm
Andy King: I shall be extremely brief. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on achieving such a quick success in securing this debate. The all-party group feels strongly about the devastating impact that rheumatoid arthritis has on the individuals concerned and their families, young and old alike.
At the heart of the debate, what surely is at issue is the way in which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines are being interpreted and implemented by primary care trusts. I heard that one PCT had decided not to allow TNF therapy; my heart sank. I quickly checked to make sure that it was not the PCT in my area. I was greatly relieved to speak to Dr. Patricia Youett, of Rugby PCT, who informed me that it adheres extremely carefully to the guidelines that NICE has issued. It believes that that is the only way forward in ensuring fairness and equity to all patients wishing to receive health services.

537
It is wrong that arthritis does not feature in the priorities of certain PCTs. That must be put right. It is timely for the Minister to take action to ensure that clear direction is given to PCTs throughout the country to ensure that they give due consideration to the guidelines issued by NICE and, more importantly, act upon them. We must put postcode prescribing into the dustbin of history once and for all.
6.18 pm
Bob Spink: We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the seriousness of rheumatoid arthritis. He spoke with passion and power about an important subject that needs its profile raising.
I pay tribute to rheumatologists throughout the country, and particularly at Guy's, which has a centre of excellence. I know that all rheumatologists are pretty good guys, but some of them do not have the facilities that are available at Guy's. We would like to see those facilities made available nationwide so that everyone can benefit from them. I speak as vice-chairman of the all-party group.
The serious problem that is the focus of the debate is postcode prescribing for rheumatoid arthritis. It was covered by the "You and Yours" programme on Radio 4 on 14 July. It highlighted that two thirds of severe sufferers do not get the treatment that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines say should be made available to them. That means that 18,000 to 30,000 people with a severely crippling disease that can lead to high levels of mortality are being denied the treatment that they so desperately need. I ask the Minister, who I know is a good man and is listening carefully, to raise the profile of this disease. It does not have the appeal of strokes, heart attacks and cancer, but it is important. Secondly, will the Minister ensure that everyone who would benefit from anti-TNF treatments, which NICE says it should be mandatory to provide, can take advantage of them?
6.20 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on winning this Adjournment debate and on taking up the chairmanship of the all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis. I very much welcome the creation of that group, and look forward to an early opportunity to meet its members. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on being prepared to stay here today and participate in this debate. If their constituents are not familiar with the workings of the House, they may not realise that many of our colleagues started their summer holiday yesterday, and that we have given up a day of our recess to take part in this important debate.
This debate gives me an opportunity to state the Government's position on both rheumatoid arthritis and the work and guidance of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. I emphasise that when NICE has issued guidance, we expect that guidance to be implemented everywhere. It is not optional—it is
538
compulsory. We will be doing what is necessary to ensure that it is implemented everywhere. We established NICE for specific reasons, and we intend to make sure that its judgments are followed.
I appreciate the efforts of the various voluntary agencies, including the excellent NRAS, which the hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned, many other voluntary organisations and the umbrella organisation, the Arthritis and Musculo-skeletal Alliance or ARMA. I welcome recent work highlighting disparities in treatment. I have seen the survey on the implementation of NICE guidance and the use of anti-TNF therapies. Frankly, it is disappointing that a number of primary care trusts still not have made those important drugs fully available, and we shall certainly follow that up.
Members in the Chamber, but perhaps not other people who do not follow this issue closely, will know that tumour necrosis factor alpha has been found to be a key molecule in the cause of rheumatoid arthritis. Over-production of that molecule is one of the causes of the inflammatory processes that damage cartilage and bone. Anti-TNF therapies and other drugs inhibit that process. Arthritis can and does, as the hon. Member for Southend, West said, affect people of all ages, from young children to older people, but prevalence generally increases with age. It is estimated that about 70 per cent. of 70-year-olds suffer from some form of arthritis, mostly osteoarthritis. Arthritis means "inflammation of the joints", and it is the chief cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. It encompasses more than 200 diseases affecting joints, the surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. Those diseases and conditions include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia.
We are aware that arthritis has a significant impact on health and community services. It affects the people who experience its painful symptoms and disability, their family members and care givers. It is extremely painful and involves serious loss of mobility in many cases. The severity and extent of the condition varies from individual to individual, but we are well aware of the costs to communities and society generally, which hon. Members have pointed out.
NICE was set up as a special health authority for England and Wales on 1 April 1999. It is part of the national health service, and its role is to provide guidance on best practice. That guidance covers individual health technologies, including medicines, medical devices, diagnostic techniques, procedures and clinical management. NICE was asked to appraise the use of infliximab, also known as Remicade, and etanercept, also known as Enbrel, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
NICE issued its guidance in March 2002. It recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis—JIA—and etanercept and infliximab for adult rheumatoid arthritis. Consultant rheurnatologists, or consultant paediatric rheumatologists in the case of JIA, should prescribe these drugs, in accordance with the guidelines set out by the British Society for Rheumatology or the British Paediatric Rheumatology Group.

539
Two registries have been set up by the BSR and the BPRG to monitor the dosage, effects and any side effects of these drugs. The NICE guidance recommends that doctors should send information to the appropriate registry regularly to help researchers to find out about the long-term effectiveness and side effects of treatment with both drugs.
The NHS is receiving the largest sustained increase in funding in its history. We expect that increase in funding to be used to implement NICE guidance. Given that increase in funding, there is no excuse for primary care trusts not to follow the guidance. There is a statutory obligation on PCTs to make the treatments that NICE recommends available to patients.
In December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their commitment to ensuring that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE if that was deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions were issued obliging primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. There should not be any administrative or financial blocks preventing that. From 1 January 2002, the NHS has three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE-recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.
When treating patients, clinicians have to make an independent clinical judgement that takes due account of NICE's advice and the strength of evidence that lies behind it. They may depart from the advice if, in their view, the circumstances of the individual patient justify doing so. But they will be held accountable through clinical governance arrangements for their clinical decisions. To assist them in this task, all technology appraisal guidance for treatments and drugs initiated after October 2000 includes specific audit advice and measurable criteria to be used in local reviews. A similar approach is being adopted for clinical guidelines.
The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—CHAI—will be the main inspector of NHS services in future. It will carry out inspection against clear national standards to be specified by the Secretary of State, and we expect NICE guidance to be included in those standards. It is worth reminding the House that NICE is proving to be effective, and at a national level there is evidence of increased prescribing of NICE-approved drugs. Indeed, the ARMA evidence appears to support that, as almost two thirds of the rheumatologists surveyed reported no problems. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth indicate that, in his area, NICE recommendations are being followed.
Under the previous Government, postcode prescribing of expensive drugs like anti-TNF therapy for arthritis was widespread. Postcode prescribing is now rare and we need to make it even rarer. The manufacturers of the arthritis drugs that we are discussing estimate that around 9,000 patients already benefit from this therapy.
Although we do not get involved in the day-to-day management of the NHS at local level, we will respond if we become aware of a specific instance where NICE guidance is not being implemented in the prescribing of infliximab. We have had reports from Nottingham, for
540
example and we are investigating the concerns that have been raised. Responsibility for commissioning decisions across Nottingham lies with Nottingham commissioning forum, which co-ordinates decisions between PCTs and is advised by the major NHS trusts in the area. The forum has discussed implementation of NICE guidance, including the use of anti-TNF drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis on a number of occasions. The local strategic health authority and PCTs have undertaken to find out why problems have arisen.
The AR MA report mentioned that, in some areas, a lack of nursing support was a barrier to patients' receiving anti-TNF therapy. There is an ongoing comprehensive programme of national and local action to recruit and retain nurses, midwives and health visitors. The commitment to 20,000 extra nurses in the NHS by 2004 contained in the NHS plan was met ahead of target in 2001. There were almost 50,000 more qualified nurses working in the NHS in England in April 2003 than in September 1997. The latest forecast is that 80,000 more nurses. midwives and health visitors will be working in the national health service as a whole by 2008, which highlights the importance of continuing efforts both to recruit and retain staff. That should help to overcome the nursing problems identified by ARMA in its report.
Research will also be very important, but it is worth saying that the research effort is not confined to the United Kingdom Government. We sometimes receive requests for increases in research that seem to imply that that is the case or to forget that other countries are involved in research efforts. Furthermore, research is not always done by the Government; it is also done by voluntary organisations, charities and so on. The Arthritis Research Campaign, for example, aims to advance the understanding, prevention and treatment of arthritis and related conditions. It is the fourth largest medical research charity in the United Kingdom, with an annual income of £26 million. I should perhaps admit at this point that it employed me for six years.
The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which also employed me for six years. The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the NHS. The MRC spent approximately £4.2 million on arthritis research in 2001–02. That figure includes work on the causes and treatment of arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammation. It also includes work on musculoskeletal function, such as ankylosing spondylitis, on connective tissue disorders, such as Sjogrens syndrome and lupus, and on pain. Work being carried out at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research may contribute to the development of new drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.
The Department of Health has funded several research projects on rheumatoid arthritis via its national health service research and development programmes. They include a randomised controlled trial of different knee prostheses at the university of Dundee that is due for completion in 2010 and "Are topical or oral Ibuprofen equally effective for the treatment of chronic

541
knee pain in older people?", a study that is due to end in December 2005. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. Details of Department of Health-funded research and other projects that are completed and under way in the NHS can be found on the national research register.
Priorities for health and social care are set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006. Although arthritis is not identified specifically, people with the condition stand to benefit from the improvement in access to specialist care for patients suffering from any form of orthopaedic condition. I have heard what hon. Members have said about the possible need for arthritis to be specifically recognised and I certainly undertake to reflect on that advice.
Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will fall to six months. That is important for patients requiring
542
anti-TNF therapy as the drugs have to be prescribed by a consultant. Also, the older people's national service framework set standards that will improve treatment and care for a range of older people, including those with arthritis.
It is important for me to say that primary care trusts have responsibility for ensuring that local issues are carefully considered in their plans, but I stress once again that NICE guidance has to be followed. I shall certainly ensure that they are aware of their obligation in that regard.
On any issues that I have not had time to deal with, I shall write to the hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. I give the House this assurance: the Government take arthritis and rheumatism extremely seriously and we will be doing everything that we can to ensure that there is no postcode prescribing, that treatments are available everywhere and that care is to the highest possible standard—
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST [n the Chair]
Domestic Violence
  Oral Answers to Questions
  The Government were asked—
  Oral Answers to Questions

    Refuge Accommodation
    2.30 pm
    Mr. David Kidney: What public funding is available to support the provision of refuge accommodation for those fleeing domestic violence. [125464]
    Mrs. Helen Clark: What support the Government give to women's refuges. [125472]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing £8.9 million capital funding and the Housing Corporation is providing a further £9.9 million capital funding from within its budget for refuge accommodation. In addition, support for women in refuges and other accommodation in respect of circumstances of domestic violence is also supported through the supporting people programme. This year, that stands at £34 million.
    Mr. Kidney: Does the Minister agree that the providers of refuges, such as Women's Aid, do sterling work in providing places of safety for those escaping from violence? Does she accept that they do more than just provide a roof over people's heads, but give help in identifying legal advice, careers advice and child care? In developing the Government's policy for vulnerable children, does she agree with me and the Women's Aid branch in Stafford about the need for more specialist services for children, especially black and ethnic minority children who witness or suffer domestic violence themselves?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Support for children must be a priority. Women's refuges throughout the country do an immense amount of excellent work, usually in conjunction with local authorities and specialist services. Considerable help is already provided. The supporting people programme can be used in some circumstances to provide for child care support, too. My hon. Friend is right to identify specialist support, especially for the black and ethnic minority community. We have identified that in the consultation paper as an area where we want feedback because we need to know especially about the level of unmet need throughout the country and what further needs to be done. Investment in refuge places has increased substantially over the past few years, but we must know what further provision is necessary.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I invite the Minister to look at the provision of refuge
    142WH
    accommodation within the wider context of social housing. Does she agree that there is a danger that, if there is no adequate availability of social housing for people to move to and begin their lives over again, creating additional refuge places will not begin to solve the problem? Given that the number of households that live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has tripled since 1997 and the average number of social housing units completed has fallen by a third over the same period, how do the Government—looking at a joined-up approach throughout all areas of housing provision—intend to ensure not only that there is an adequate number of refuge places, but that there is adequate availability of housing for people to move to from refuges and to rebuild their lives?
    Yvette Cooper: For many families suffering from domestic violence, refuge accommodation is not the appropriate response. Some can stay in their own home with appropriate support; others need different accommodation. We have substantially increased investment in refuge accommodation—capital investment for this financial year is £18.8 million compared with £2.8 million in 1997—and the number of refuge places has increased. It is right that we should ensure that there is appropriate accommodation, which is why for the first time each local authority must set out a homelessness strategy and examine the unmet need in its area and all the different types of housing need that must be met. That is also why we have set bed-and breakfast accommodation targets, on which we are making significant progress. We need to reduce the number of families in such accommodation.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although the Minister did not say so, I understood that she was replying also to Question 9, in which case, I call Mrs. Helen Clark.
    Mrs. Clark: I welcome the answers that the Minister has given to date. I speak as the MP for Peterborough and our refuge needs more money because we have the highest level of domestic violence in Cambridgeshire—29.1 per cent. of all crimes of domestic violence that are logged. Workers at the Peterborough women's centre believe that refuges are not the only solution. Many women do not want to flee their homes. Why should they? An integrated approach is best—one that involves police, social services and women's aid agencies, as well as women's centres such as the excellent one that we have in Peterborough. Do the Government have plans to progress with such an approach?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that the most effective programmes to support women and families in such situations involve different agencies and examine a wide range of options for families. Interestingly, in Harrow work has been done to help families stay in their own homes by improving security and support for them in their homes, where that is an option. Many people would prefer that option to feeling that they have been turfed out of their homes by domestic violence. My hon. Friend is right to say that a

    143WH
    wide range of options needs to be explored in every case, and I commend the work to that effect that is being done in Peterborough.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister referred to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and said that sometimes it is unsuitable for people in this predicament. The Government recognise that about 15 per cent. of all homelessness is caused by domestic violence. Against that benchmark, can the Minister tell the House what percentage of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are there as a result of domestic violence?
    Yvette Cooper: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): It may help if I add to the spirit of this cross-ministerial response. Of those households that have been accepted as homeless and in priority need, only 15 per cent. were placed in refuges; 30 per cent. were placed in council or housing association properties; and 25 per cent. decided to stay with friends or relatives. Refuges are important, but there can be more suitable accommodation for some individuals and their families.

    Rape Crisis Centres
    Bob Russell: What (a) financial and (b) other assistance is given to national umbrella organisations representing rape crisis helpline groups which deal with victims of domestic violence. [125466]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): Since April 2001, the Home Office has been providing core funding to the Rape Crisis Federation. The grant to the RCF in 2002–03 was £432,000 and we plan to offer a similar level of funding during 2003–04. Home Office officials regularly meet RCF representatives to discuss that organisation's work.
    Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for that positive response and I hope that we can build on it. I am sure that he is aware that the Rape Crisis Federation Wales and England is struggling with funding for setting up a national database for local rape crisis centres to collate figures of sexual violence—which, sadly, is committed in the family environment as well as by strangers.
    I understand that an application for funding was recently made to the Home Office because a number of centres around the country are closing as a result of a lack of funding. We need to realise that these centres have not only a voluntary aspect, but paid professional staff, too. I should like to place on the record the excellent work of the Colchester rape crisis line. We need the centres around the country to assist the increasing numbers of households where domestic violence is taking place. In the last 24 hours it has been announced that, in the past year, the number of recorded rapes has gone up by 27 per cent.
    Paul Goggins: It is true that the grant made to the Rape Crisis Federation is intended to help it to provide
    144WH
    core national services; they may or may not include the kind of database referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Finding funding for the 43 local rape crisis centres is something that the Government view as a local responsibility. Two or three of the centres have difficulties at the moment. We are working with the Department of Health to ensure that, wherever possible, local rape crisis centres can discuss with the local primary care trusts how funding might be gained from the primary care trusts. The work of local rape crisis centres and helplines is absolutely essential in providing a local access point and local support. It is critical that those centres should be able to continue their important work.

    Funding
    5. Ms Debra Shipley: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that (a) the basic standards for under-eights' day care services are met for the children who live in women's refuges and (b) statutory funding is provided to enable these services to be provided. [125467]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): The sure start unit has worked closely with colleagues in Ofsted to recognise the unique position of women's refuges in providing child care. The national standards for under-eights' day care, introduced in 2001, represent a minimum quality baseline and those standards, through an agreed protocol with refuge organisations. are being interpreted flexibly by Ofsted when it inspects women's refuges. Local authorities are funded to promote new child care places generally, and they will work in partnership with refuges where appropriate.
    Ms Shipley: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. However, the latest research shows that, when asked. children say that what they most value in refuges is safety and someone to talk to. Given the Government measures to ensure that those support services and safety measures will not be reduced, will she give an assurance that there will be adequate statutory funding to meet national standards?
    Margaret Hodge: I can assure my hon. Friend that in the new environment of a children, young persons and families department, the integrated support necessary to meet the needs of children, particularly those in vulnerable and distressed circumstances, can be better addressed where local authorities have statutory obligations in relation to children and their families. We clearly have to ensure that those statutory obligations are met, particularly in relation to women with children in women's refuges.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am sure that the Minister will recognise and be well aware that women's refuges are not only a refuge for women but for children, who suffer terribly when there is domestic violence. I am sure that we agree on that. However, the Minister might not be aware that at the Peckham women's refuge, for example, there is provision for only 20 hours of social service work for up to 32 children, which, as I am sure she will quickly calculate, is less than one hour per week per child. The children involved are at their most vulnerable and they need the most help.

    145WH
    I was very concerned about the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills this morning about funding. We are all aware that social services funding is already squeezed. My concern is that, under the new arrangements announced this morning, there will be even less funding for such matters. Will the Minister give me an assurance that there will be proper funding?
    Margaret Hodge: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the fact that there are more children than adults in women's refuges, which clearly need to provide services that reflect the needs of the individuals occupying them. I cannot comment on the issue that the hon. Lady has brought up, but if she writes to me, I will certainly investigate it. I repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills both this morning and last night that children's social services budgets will be protected if not increased in the transfer of money and responsibilities to our Department.

    Children
    Linda Gilroy: What action the Government are taking to protect children and young people who are affected by domestic violence. [125468]
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What steps the Government are taking to provide further support to the victims of domestic violence, with particular reference to children. [125476]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): Local authority social services departments make a child and family assessment, undertaken according to the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families, and provide services in the light of the outcome of that assessment. Those services should be tailored to the individual needs, including protection needs, of the child, just as they should be for any child in need.
    The Government are determined to prevent domestic violence happening or recurring, and to protect and support all victims of domestic violence. Their strategy for tackling domestic violence and for dealing with children who are victims is set out in the consultation paper, "Safety and Justice: The Government's Proposals on Domestic Violence", which was published in June.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. Perhaps she accepts that child contact is one of the most challenging issues that needs to be dealt with. Will she work with colleagues to ensure that, in the work of children's committees, children's safety is put first when domestic violence cases come before courts? Does she agree that what we most need to hear about in response to that consultation document, "Safety and Justice", is people's concerns and ideas on how we can improve our policies on that subject?
    Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend makes some useful points about the focus in policy, which reflects the focus in the "Safety and Justice" paper. Guidelines have been produced for the courts and professionals on how to deal with child contact and domestic violence issues.
    146WH
    Also, funding has been provided for child contact centres. We recognise the need to go on working with victims to make sure that they are put at the front of the issue, and to increase the legal protection available to them and their families.
    Dr. Starkey: My question is directed primarily at the Minister for Children. What advice is given to local education authorities on children who have to move because their families are victims of domestic violence? What is the advice to local education authorities on maintaining educational continuity and, if necessary, providing transport, so that children can continue to go to the school that they attend, even if they have been forced to move in order to remove themselves from domestic violence?
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that continuity for children in their schooling is crucial, particularly when they have experienced emotional upheaval as a result of domestic violence, separation and moving away from home. One of the advantages of the new department for children, young people and families will be that we can provide a more coherent and integrated response to children's needs, both through the education service and teachers and through the coming together of those people with others.
    We announced the first 35 children's trusts last week. They will pool the previously separate budgets for education, social services and health at a local level, and I hope that they will also include services, such as Connexions and the youth offending teams. Bringing all those together will allow a more coherent response to the child's needs.
    Tim Loughton: First, I declare an interest as the patron of Brighton's women refuge. Proceedings today are slightly confusing, because a lot of questions seem to have dropped out and others are not based on those printed on the Order of Business.
    I remind the Minister that three out of five children suffering from abuse have mothers who are experiencing domestic violence; that in nine out of 10 cases, children are present in the same or next room while violence is going on; and that children who have witnessed violence are more likely to be either abusers or victims themselves.
    In the light of such statistics, schools are often best placed to detect incidences of abuse or violence in domestic scenarios. Indeed, the failure of schools to detect such abuse has been the basis of some of the worst cases of child death. What guidance is in place for a joined-up approach between teachers, school nurses and social workers to spot children who may be the victims of abuse, and to spot the mothers—in some cases, fathers—of those children, who may be subject to domestic violence but who have not presented themselves to the authorities? Women who are subject to domestic violence approach 11 different agencies, on average, before receiving the help that they need.
    Margaret Hodge: The Education Act 2002 places a duty on education authorities to protect children at risk,

    147WH
    including those at risk of witnessing or experiencing domestic violence. The hon. Gentleman will know that information sharing, which is central to minimising the risk of abuse or harm to young children, is the subject of a number of experiments being conducted by local government and funded by us. Information sharing will be critical. He will also accept that the proposals that arose from the inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié will strengthen some relationships at local level. I draw his attention to the development of children's funds, which will provide a more coherent, cross-professional response to children's needs, bringing in the education services and others.
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's made some useful points about the number of people with whom women have contact before they receive help. 30 per cent. of domestic violence starts during pregnancy. If abuse has started, it often intensifies during pregnancy. The recommendations of the latest confidential inquiry into maternal deaths, published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2001, underline the importance of initiating work with pregnant women. In response, the Department of Health is funding a pilot of antenatal screening for domestic violence at the North Bristol NHS Trust, in which 80 community-based midwives were recruited in the hope of detecting abuse of women earlier in the domestic violence cycle and of providing more support and intervention at that stage.
    Mr. Loughton: I am grateful that the new Minister for Children responded to my question. Will she confirm that she will be taking such matters under her wing in her new Ministry? Will she give more detail about how they will be approached in the Green Paper because, despite having a debate yesterday, we still have no answers. We received more answers to the questions that we asked yesterday by reading the leaked Government documents in The Times today.
    The point about sharing information, which is crucial and about which I asked the Minister several questions yesterday, has not been answered. As the law stands, information sharing still cannot take place. Will she give a firm commitment to the House that that matter will be dealt with properly and in detail, when the Green Paper is eventually published, hopefully on the first day back in September?
    Margaret Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows from last night's debate, we continue to implement all possible action that is necessary to improve information sharing. It is central to supporting better child protection practices throughout the country, particularly in local authority areas. In May we issued guidance to all relevant bodies to improve understanding of what information can be shared under human rights legislation. That guidance has already gone out and we shall be taking further steps. Pilots are being conducted on how information and computer technology can facilitate information sharing and flag up circumstances where children have come to the attention of different people or authorities in different circumstances. We need to see how those pilots work before deciding how best to implement them at national level.
    148WH
    The hon. Gentleman started by talking about the role of teachers. The Department for Education and Skills has introduced a number of initiatives in that regard. Under the healthy schools standard, we look for evidence that issues of child protection and domestic violence are covered. Under citizenship education, which we introduced, we look for information to be given. Before taking on our new responsibilities, we published an information pack for those who work with young people and in particular for teachers, so that they are more aware of what to consider and who to tell when they find evidence of abuse.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise for being late, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Domestic violence is a major cause of homelessness, which is an acute problem in London and the rest of the south-east because of the shortage of affordable accommodation. A series of support services is available for those who are placed in temporary accommodation and refuges, but only 15 per cent. of homeless families are placed in refuges. The others go into other forms of temporary accommodation, which are often far away from the communities from which they originate. How can we ensure that the support services available to families in other forms of temporary accommodation are as good as those in refuges?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I can answer that question. My hon. Friend is right to say that people go into a variety of types of accommodation. To follow up the question asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I can clarify that of those who were accepted as homeless and in priority need because of domestic violence, 15 per cent. went into refuges, 25 per cent. were staying with friends or relatives, 13 per cent. were in temporary council or housing association properties, 13 per cent. were in hostels and 6 per cent. were in bed-and-breakfast hotels.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the quality of the provision of additional support in women's refuges can be considerable. Obviously, the support available will be different in different types of accommodation, but the supporting people programme provides councils with £1.4 billion overall to pay for additional support for those with particular needs who are in supported accommodation. Of that, £34 million is spent in relation to domestic violence, which can include all sorts of support or the specialist additional support that is needed in other types of temporary accommodation. Local authorities can also provide different types of specialist support in different ways for those in various forms of accommodation.
    I referred to the work being done in Harrow in London, which involves an innovative approach that includes providing help for people to stay in their own homes and other expert support for people in different types of accommodation. My hon. Friend is right—we must respond to the particular concerns or needs of an individual family and not expect one size or approach to suit all.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister will know that the best-laid plans often fail because of a

    149WH
    shortage of social workers and other professional staff, and the money to make necessary interventions to stop violence. What plans does she have to increase the number of social workers and the resources to pay for them? Will she tell us whether she intends specifically to target money for children who are victims of violence and live in refuges?
    Margaret Hodge: We have already increased our investment in the social work force, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that there is a shortage of social workers. One of the key challenges faced by our new Department is how to encourage more people into social work, train them effectively and retain them. One of my ambitions As to raise the status of and value given to social workers in society and ensure that the esteem in which they are held marries with the difficult job that we ask of them.
    We ran a national campaign to recruit more social workers. We invested more money and I am pleased to say that the number of people training to be social workers has gone up by 6.5 per cent. We are moving in the right direction, but that does not take away from the challenges that the hon. Lady knows that we face in our communities and throughout the work force. That is one of the central issues that I must tackle. Children who have witnessed or experienced domestic violence must be a priority group on whom we focus resources.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Rising Sun women's refuge in my constituency, which I was privileged to visit last month. We must get to the roots underlying domestic violence. The role of substance abuse, in particular of alcohol and drugs, in domestic violence is large. Whatever the difficulties in reporting the issues of the huge recorded increase in violence against women, including domestic violence, in this morning's press, the figures for substance abuse—for example the double digit increase in several categories of drug abuse—are absolutely undeniable. I suggest to Ministers that one way to tackle the scourge of domestic violence and child abuse early in the process is to identify drug addicts and alcoholics at a young age, and make many more places available for treatment.
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. They resonate with the current situation and the Government's work on drugs, including investment in, and a strategy of, identifying drug misuse early and ensuring that it is effectively dealt with, both through the courts and through providing support and treatment to help addicts get off drugs.
    I also alert the hon. Gentleman to the alcohol harm reduction strategy. Work is being carried out by the Prime Minister's strategy unit and will soon be published. It will provide a strategy on alcohol harm in society, a question that is at least as serious as that of drugs.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the edges to be blurred slightly as we had time available. As we move on, I ask hon. Members to respect the content of the question as far as possible. Otherwise, I may be obliged to call them out of order.

    Children (Parental Contacts)
    Ms Meg Munn: If the Government will make a statement on measures in place to ensure incidents of domestic violence are considered when decisions are taken on arrangements for children having contact with parents. [125470]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Children Act 1989 ensures that the welfare of the child is paramount in all decisions on contact. Guidelines were issued in 2001 to ensure that incidents of domestic violence are considered when decisions on contact are taken. In addition, we will amend the contact and residency application forms to allow for details of domestic violence to be raised early on in the application process.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, like me, he will know that far too many children are killed during contact visits and mothers killed when an ex-partner comes to pick up a child for such a visit. Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the guidelines and ensure that proper reviews take place into the deaths of children in such situations so that lessons can be learned and more robust procedures can be put in place? The deaths of young children and women in such situations must stop.
    Mr. Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend has tremendous experience in this area. We are surveying the guidelines—the last survey was conducted at the end of 2002—and we hope to come forward with initial results shortly. The survey on the practical effect of the guidelines comes to an end in 2004, but we know that they have already had an effect on case law and a Court of Appeal decision. Furthermore, we want to see a multi-agency approach to the guidelines to ensure that the situations that my hon. Friend outlined in her question are avoided as far as possible.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden): I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing our attention to not blurring the edges of these important questions. I had hoped to put this point on Question 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), because the issue of guidance to judges on child contact is important but fairly specific. The hon. Member for Rochdale may be able to catch your eye, as the issue has crept into other questions, which has the effect of blunting the impact of the focus that we must give it.
    The Green Paper on domestic violence states that the guidelines issued to courts on parental contact are being reviewed, and we have just heard the Minister say that they are being surveyed and that amendments may follow at the end of the monitoring period. However, that is against the context of a 50 per cent. increase in the number of contact orders since 1999—a startling increase from 41,862 to 61,356 last year. The surveying process is taking place against a background of a huge number of extra contact orders being granted.
    As a constituency case revealed to me only this week, appeals by the non-violent parent for supervision to be in place before the contact goes ahead still seem to go

    151WH
    unheeded. It is an incredible anomaly that a person convicted of a schedule 1 offence is not allowed to drive a school bus but can be granted unsupervised contact with the child that he or she has abused. This is a real issue of child protection: can we really afford to wait another year? What immediate action are the Government taking to protect children currently in such contact arrangements?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady makes her points with some passion, because she is right—this is important. However, we issued guidelines, which are having an effect, and it is right for the Government and the agencies involved to draw empirical evidence on that effect. The hon. Lady will also know that it is for the courts to determine the contact arrangements for children, which they will want to ensure take place in a safe environment. The circumstances will depend on the particular case.
    We issued the guidelines relatively recently and we must now see that they have an effect. Although I understand the urgency with which the hon. Lady makes the point, it is right that the Government should act sensibly and properly on the basis—
    Mrs. Spelman: Slowly.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Slowly.
    Mr. Lammy: This is an important issue, on which we do not want to make partisan points. [Interruption.]
    Ms Debra Shipley: It is not a partisan point.
    Mr. Lammy: I say to Opposition Members that it is this Government who have acted.[Interruption.]
    Ms Shipley: I agree with the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Spelman: Thank you for allowing me to respond, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The constituency case is urgent; it means that in 48 hours' time the mother will have to take the child to a centre with no supervision, to which circumstances the Government apparently have no answer. Since 1998, 15 children have been killed as a result of contact arrangements. That is quantifiable; it is a fact. A survey in 1999 found that 76 per cent. of children ordered by the courts to have contact with abusive or violent parents suffered in a variety of ways, ranging from physical and sexual abuse to neglect. Research undertaken by Christine Harrison of Warwick university shows that too often the views of the child who does not want to have contact with the violent or abusive parent are simply overridden. What assurance can the Minister for Children give that the wishes of the child in these contact arrangements will be given greater priority?
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): My hon. Friend tried to give some assurance. The hon. Lady
    152WH
    was correct to say that we need to increase the number of supervised contact centres. That is an urgent issue that we hope to address in the context of how we look at, and take forward, the work that has been done by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services. We are already investing additional moneys: £2.5 million has gone in from the children's fund specifically to increase the number of supervised contact centres.
    One of the advantages of the new organisation for which I now have responsibility is that we can start considering whether we can develop contact centres, for instance in some of the sure start centres and in other facilities that we provide for children, young people and families. [Interruption.] Indeed, if the hon. Lady will listen, I can tell her that I was at a meeting this morning at which we discussed what opportunity there would be in the new environment to get a coherence of services.
    The hon. Lady raises an issue of huge importance and I draw her attention to the amendment in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. When consideration was taken of care and supervision orders, after the definition of "harm" in subsection (9) we inserted additional wording to include, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another. We now need to put in place the regulations to support that amendment to ensure that we act appropriately in circumstances of domestic violence.
    Existing legislation should ensure that those taking decisions on behalf of children listen to the children's voice. I take very seriously the concern expressed by the hon. Lady that that is not sufficiently taken into account and I will take it on board in the work that I do in future.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you for missing a previous opportunity to speak by a smidgeon as I made the mistake of going in to the Public Gallery rather than the Members' Entrance. I am grateful to you for giving me a second opportunity to speak.
    Following the vexed issue of contact orders in the review, is the Department prepared to countenance that the presumption should be changed? Currently, the presumption is that it is in the children's best interests to have contact. However, I contend that it is not and the deaths of children and mothers also suggest that it is not. First, are the Government prepared to change that presumption in law? Secondly, while the review is being carried out, could the guidance ensure that if it cannot be guaranteed that there will be supervised, safe contact, the presumption should be that there is no contact?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will know that debate on this issue is taking place not just in the United Kingdom, but in other parts of the world. In New Zealand, for example, the authorities make the presumption that my hon. Friend desires. However, the Children Act 1989 is the law in the UK and is based on the best interests of the child. The groups operating in this area take different sides in the debate, some wanting the presumption to be that there is no contact, and others wanting to ensure that there is contact. We will continue to listen to those points of view, but the evidence suggests that, wherever possible, contact with both parents is important and necessary, and supports

    153WH
    the emotional development of the child. I accept that it is a difficult area, but that is the Government's current position on the matter.
    Sandra Gidley: I have to take issue with the Minister about his earlier reply. He claimed that the Government guidelines that were introduced in April 2001 were having an effect, but they are not. In 2001 only 713 contact orders were refused, and that number had decreased to 518 in 2002. I am therefore not sure where and in what way the guidelines are having an effect, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. In a wider context, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation estimated that domestic violence is involved in 16,000 cases annually in which a court welfare report is ordered. Do the Government therefore believe it to be right that contact is refused in only 518 of those cases?
    Mr. Lammy: As I said, it is right that we act on the basis of the evidence put forward. The hon. Lady makes a relevant point. We will examine the matter and consider the analysis to see how we are progressing. It is also right that we invest extra funds in contact centres and work with the national association to ensure that standards and provision are improved, and that we can look forward to a better future.
    The hon. Lady will also know that the development of contact centres occurred in the 1980s. We only reached a significant point in 1988, when the association was set up. She is right to say that the issue is urgent. The Government take it seriously I hope that those extra funds are beginning to have an effect, and I accept the hon. Lady's point about considering the guidance quickly.
    Margaret Hodge: I simply wish to add that all hon. Members recognise how difficult those judgments are for those who have to make them. On the one hand there are all the negative aspects arising from children having witnessed abuse or having been victims of abuse by the parent seeking contact, but on the other hand we know that maintaining contact with both parents is an important way of providing the best opportunity for a child to grow up healthy and well. Those two aspects must he balanced, and the answer must be in constant updating of the training of those who have to take those difficult decisions and, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, in emphasising the voice of the child in informing the decisions. I hope that no one goes away from this afternoon's discussions believing that these issues are simple and easy to resolve.

    Police Powers
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What steps the Government are taking to give the police new powers to tackle domestic violence and bring more offenders to justice; and if the Government will make a statement. [125474]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The "Safety and Justice" consultation paper includes proposals to
    154WH
    make common assault an arrestable offence, to criminalise the breach of civil orders and to extend the availability of restraining orders.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the extension of police powers. Tough measures are essential in this area and I believe that we will all welcome that extension.
    Will the Minister and the Minister for Children recognise that using tough measures alone is like using a one-pronged fork—not highly effective? We need to add other forms of attack, one of which should be raising awareness among children, schoolteachers and parents. Will the Minister and her ministerial colleagues ensure that, in the same way that police powers have been extended, we also make available effective resources for groups such as the Bridgend domestic abuse forum and others throughout the country that do such good work in this area?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Clearly, the issue is not simply one of addressing and providing justice when domestic violence arises. It must also be a case of preventing domestic violence in the first place. That is why the consultation paper is divided into proposals, first, on improving prevention and, as my hon. Friend suggested, education; secondly, on greater protection and justice for victims of domestic violence; and thirdly, on support so that people can rebuild their lives.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the proposals need to be balanced. That balance is why the proposals in the consultation paper have been so widely welcomed by those working in domestic violence throughout the country. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in that regard.

    Murder (Domestic Disputes)
    Mr. David Rendel: What proportion of the victims of murder were killed as a result of domestic disputes involving their spouse or partner in each of the last five years. [125475]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): Homicide figures for all victims where the principal suspect was a partner or an ex-partner were: in 1997–98, 21 per cent.; 1998–99, 16 per cent.; 1999–2000, 16 per cent.; 2000–01, 16 per cent.; and, 2001–02, 18 per cent.
    Mr. Rendel: In view of the number of murders that are committed by one partner against another, does the Minister agree that it is tremendously important to maintain secrecy about the new details and, in particular, the new address of any family fleeing from violence? Will he make representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department following the case of one of my constituents who was involved in domestic violence? She wrote to me about the court case and said that the medical report compiled by the consultant paediatrician contained all their new details and secret address and was forwarded to her former husband. Does the

    155WH
    Minister agree that that is outrageous and that it would be a good idea to make representations to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that it does not happen again?
    Mr. Lammy: I certainly undertake, through the Lord Chancellor, to look into that case. General lessons may well be drawn from what happened.
    Mr. John Randall: Has any assessment been made of the percentage of cases of murder as a result of domestic violence that involve asylum seekers? Many asylum seekers suffer stress because of their situation and the trauma that they may have gone through. Has any assessment been made of the effect that that might have?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer, but I will find out and ensure that he is informed. I can tell the House that another proposal in "Safety and Justice" is for multi-agency reviews whenever there is a homicide resulting from domestic violence so that all agencies operating at local level—the police, local authorities and so on—can learn lessons from that horrendous event to ensure that as far as possible action is taken to prevent such events happening again.
    Mr. Lammy: In the last five years for which figures are available, 499 suspects were indicted for killing their partner or ex-partner, of which 443–89 per cent.—were
    convicted of homicide.
    Linda Gilroy: Will one of the ministerial team comment on the role of male perpetrator programmes in getting to the root of the problem?
    Paul Goggins: I do not know whether I am the most qualified to answer that question. We are analysing a number of programmes operating in, for example, north America. If we find that they are successful, we will implement them. We think that it is possible to run some of those programmes and for them to have a positive impact. Where possible, we will of course try to implement that approach.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: We do not have to look so far afield for help with those perpetrator programmes. I commend to the Minister a project by Probation West Midlands, which recognises the fundamental injustice in domestic violence. So often, it is the victim who must move out of the family home, with the loss of the security and assets that go with it, while the perpetrator can remain there. Recognising that fundamental injustice, Probation West Midlands has made provision in its probation hostels to remove the perpetrator and to start on the probation
    156WH
    programme. Is that not something that, without having to cross the Atlantic, we might investigate in a little more depth and roll out with more effect?
    Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her advice and I will certainly find out more about that scheme and other programmes. The point that she makes about the victim being forced to move out is important. It is one area, which again concerns safety and justice, on which we are consulting. Wherever possible the victim should remain at home within familiar surroundings and the perpetrator should be removed.
    With reference to a previous answer, we want to ensure that, where people are identified as perpetrators, we have a pro-arrest approach. We are ensuring that common assault is an arrestable offence, so that perpetrators are arrested and removed and victims can remain in safety in their homes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are still at an experimental stage with cross-cutting questions and not everyone has settled down and got it right, whether they are Back Benchers putting questions or officials advising Ministers on answers. It is a matter of finding the subjects that lend themselves most to these debates and then all Members will understand the type of question intended to cut across from one Department to another.
    As I have said before, I hope that hon. Members will write to me with their comments on the debates. We have had five altogether, on different subjects, and we must consider what are the best subjects and put them on a regular rotational basis so that the debates work more smoothly. I have tried to bring in more informality, with follow-up questions from both sides, but within the scope of an hour that is often difficult to do. We were assisted today by pure chance, as some of the questions were withdrawn at the last minute. I thank everyone for entering in the spirit of the debate. It has been a useful innovation and we can hone it and make it an effective procedure.
    Mr. John Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have just answered most of the questions that I intended to ask, but bearing in mind that the recess is coming up I am keen to learn about cross-cutting questions. Can you point out where I can find the information in writing, so that I can mug up on them during the recess and we can finally hone the debates? Or do we have a situation rather like those adverts on TV, where cross-cutting questions build week by week into exciting new parliamentary procedure?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Modesty forbids, but I made a lengthy statement at the beginning of the first debate, so the hon. Gentleman may find it useful to consult Hansard to see what I said.
    3.28 pm
    Sitting suspended.

Financing Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger]
3.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn): The latest human development report was published last week. It states
"The Millennium Development Goals present the world with daunting challenges. Unless there is radical improvement, too many countries will miss the targets—with disastrous consequences for the poorest and the most vulnerable of their citizens. Yet today the world has an unprecedented opportunity to deliver on the commitment to eradicating poverty. For the first time there is genuine consensus among rich and poor countries that poverty is the world's problem. And it is together that the world must fight it."
Poverty is indeed the world's problem.
Today's debate takes place on the last parliamentary day before the recess. Only a small number of hon. Members are present, but they have the ability to contribute to this important discussion. I want to take the opportunity to reflect on where developed and developing countries have come from in trying to do something about the problem and what we have yet to do if we are to achieve the millennium development goals. The response of the rich world to the task of development—in essence the answer to the question, "What can we do to help poor people in poor countries?"—has evolved substantially in the past 30 years as we have come better to understand what works and what does not.
For example, we have realised that the 1970s ethos of funding big capital infrastructure projects is not enough to kick-start developing countries' economies to reduce poverty. The focus on technical assistance projects, which were a feature of the 1980s and 1990s, to build capacity in developing countries is also not the sole answer, because the limitations of the project approach to development have become clear. In the cases of health and education—this is true of other public services—long-term, recurrent funding is needed for teachers, books, doctors, nurses and drugs. By their very nature, projects are not always designed to address such long-term needs.
We have learned that conflict kills development as well as killing people. Conflict is the ultimate failure of governance. We appreciate the importance of sound policies and the right environment for development prospects. We have come better to understand—we have debated the issue in both this Chamber and the House—that if the world trading system is unfair, it is more difficult for countries to share in global prosperity and therefore to fund development. We have developed, particularly in the past five years, a broad consensus that development agencies must work more closely to support poverty reduction strategies, which should be led by developing countries themselves. In other words, we must back the judgment of the Governments of developing countries as they take their countries forward.
We have seen the emergence of global initiatives supported through funds, which can help to bring effort, enthusiasm and money. However, such initiatives must support country-led development efforts rather than
158WH
making them more difficult. For the first time, we have a clear international consensus on what we want to achieve in the form of the millennium development goals, which were agreed at the millennium summit in 2000. Those goals will measure our progress towards eliminating poverty and improving the well-being and life chances of the world's poorest people.
The human development report, which was published the week before last, makes it clear that without rapid progress the MDGs will not be met, which means that developed nations must provide a higher volume of government assistance and that the assistance we provide must be more effective. We need to do more on debt relief. We must do more to integrate developing countries into the world trading system.
We have made some progress. It is important that we acknowledge that, not least because it shows that progress is possible, and that is needed to encourage us to do more. As a result of last year's spending review, the UK's official development assistance will increase by £1.5 billion to reach 0.4 per cent. of national income by 2005–06. That is the biggest ever rise in UK aid: a 93 per cent. real-terms increase since 1997 after a generation in which UK aid fell as a proportion of national wealth.
Mr. Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Several countries have also taken the step of setting a date when they would reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product devoted to aid. Is that something that the Government are considering?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The Government remain committed to achieving the 0.7 per cent. target. The process by which we reach it is determined by successive spending reviews and we have a commitment to reach the 0.4 per cent. figure to which I referred a moment ago. That compares with the 0.26 per cent. figure that we inherited when we came into government in 1997. The important thing is that we move in the right direction and we need to make further progress. I acknowledge that point and I look forward to having the opportunity to make that progress. As a result of that increase in UK aid expenditure, we will be able by 2006 to talk about a ?1 billion bilateral programme for Africa, which is the continent in which we need to make the biggest progress if we are to have any prospect of meeting millennium development goals.
The second change that we have made to improve the effectiveness of our aid spending has been to untie 100 per cent. of our aid. By 2006, 90 per cent. of the bilateral spending of the Department for International Development will be focused on low-income countries where it can be most effective. We are pressing other donors, including the multilateral institutions, to direct their aid in line with best practice.
There has also been progress internationally. Last year in Monterrey, and then in Johannesburg, the international community announced the first increase in official development aid for 20 years, with $12 billion a year of extra funding pledged by 2006. Members of the European Union are set to increase the average proportion of gross national income given to 0.39 per cent. by 2006. However, in respect of EU development

159WH
spending, we are all working hard to increase the proportion of European Community overseas development assistance that goes to low-income countries. That figure stood at only 38 per cent. in 2000 and it rose to 44 per cent. in 2001. We are waiting for the figures for 2002—the early indications are that it will increase again, but we still have a long way to go.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: While we are on the subject of EU aid, will the Minister tell us whether any progress has been made in the targeting of EU aid towards the poorest countries ? Does he think that that process has become more efficient, so that the money is processed more quickly allowing projects to go ahead?
Hilary Benn: On the first point, the figure of 38 per cent., which was the low point of focus on low-income countries, has increased to 44 per cent. We hope that there will be a further increase when the figures for 2002 are published, but that is a long way from the objective that we have set, which is a target of 70 per cent. We need to continue to have that argument with our European colleagues because it is right and proper that we should channel European resources to the countries where we can make the biggest difference in relieving poverty.
On the hon. Lady's second question, the honest answer is that some progress has been made but there is still some way to go. The process of "deconcentration", as it is described in European parlance, is devolution of responsibility for programmes from Brussels to in-country, which reflects very much the process that DFID has been going through. One would hope that decisions taken on the ground would lead to better outcomes than decisions taken from afar. However, we must maintain our interest in the process because a significant proportion of our aid budget is channelled through the European Union.
The heavily indebted poor countries initiative has been a success, both in delivering relief and in ensuring that relief is channelled to poverty reduction. To date, it has resulted in $60 billion worth of debt relief, although we need to provide additional relief for countries as they exit HIPC if their debt continues to be unsustainable due to external factors beyond their control. We must make progress on trade, which is crucial to achieving the millennium development goals, particularly in agriculture, as three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas.
At Doha, the international community said that it intended to put development at the heart of world trade negotiations. We are putting a great deal of effort into trying to get that right, but progress has been too slow. When we meet in Cancun in September, the responsibility for progress will clearly lie on the developed countries, which are the main perpetrators of an unfair trading system. The EU's package of common agricultural policy reforms is a first step towards making global agricultural trade fairer. We now look to others to make similar moves as we approach the Cancun negotiations.
Having said all that, the report of the high-level panel on financing for development, which is chaired by Ernesto Zedillo, estimated that at least $50 billion more
160WH
in aid would be required every year to achieve the millennium goals. As a matter of urgency, we must look at ways in which the benefits of existing and future aid pledges can be maximised.
All the things that I have described are important in supporting and encouraging development. Aid makes an important contribution. For example, it has contributed to a doubling of school enrolments and a halving of infant mortality since 1970. That goes back to the point that I made earlier about progress. Recent successes in Africa show that high aid levels can provide major returns: Uganda received more than 20 per cent. of its GDP in aid in the early 1990s and has achieved decade-long growth rates of more than 7 per cent. and reduced the proportion of people living below the poverty line by more than 20 per cent.
Of course, it is equally true that there have been cases where aid has been badly used, on occasion supporting corrupt regimes or wasted on misconceived projects, but countries with fair and transparent policies have a greater ability to use aid funds effectively and make good use of additional aid.
There are several ideas in the international system about ways in which we might increase the amount of aid, which we must do if we are to make progress towards the millennium development goals by 2015. One example is the Tobin tax, which is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, without universal support it would not work. Another idea is the resumption of general special drawing rights allocations, with developed countries giving their share to developing countries, but there are difficulties with that proposal as well.
Earlier, I mentioned the 0.7 per cent. target. Although most donor countries are committed to reaching 0.7 per cent. in the long term, the global level at present is only 0.2 per cent. If we are to make progress towards the targets, we cannot wait for all countries to achieve 0.7 per cent. We must increase the amount of aid now.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister swiftly moved off the subject of the Tobin tax. We are always told that it will not work unless it is applied universally. Can he tell us whether international bankers and the International Monetary Fund—or whoever must be involved—are actually talking about it? Is there any possibility that it will ever happen?
Hilary Benn: I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Lady's last question about whether the Tobin tax will ever happen. My assessment is the one that I have just given: it is an interesting idea that dates back quite a long time, as the hon. Lady knows. It has been dusted down in the context of the debate about the need for additional aid, but in theory it relies for its success on everyone signing up to its operation, and an assessment of the debate thus far would show that we are not in that position. That is why I pointed out that it is unlikely to offer a solution to the problem that we are debating this afternoon, as it would not work unless everybody signed up.
Mr. Love: On a recent visit to the United Nations, about a month and a half ago, the delegation from Parliament met the director of the economic and

161WH
development section. I put the question whether the 'Tobin tax was a realistic proposal and he definitely rejected that as the way forward.
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It reinforces my point; we need to focus our efforts and attention on the things that are on the table that might enable us to increase the amount of aid available. That brings me to the idea, launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the international finance facility. The facility is designed to try to achieve the millennium development goals by doubling aid for the world's poorest countries from $50 billion a year today to $100 billion a year in the years up to 2015, or in other words to meet the gap identified by Zedillo. It would do that by delivering resources up front over the next few years when they will have most impact on achieving the targets. On the basis of long-term, binding donor commitments from the richest countries, some of which have already been made, the facility would be able to lever in additional money from the international capital markets to double, in effect, the development aid. In other words, the international finance facility is intended to bridge the gap in development financing between the resources that have already been pledged and the additional funds that are now recognised as urgently needed to meet the MDGs.
Of course, we have a responsibility to ensure that development money will be used effectively, and under the proposal the developed world would make a commitment to provide long-term, untied and effective aid as investment to the countries that need it most. We see the facility as an integral part of a new agreement between developed and developing countries, with each country tackling corruption, promoting stability and agreeing the necessary transparency in economic and corporate policies to achieve that goal; we see it, too, as part of the country-owned poverty reduction strategies, involving agreement of clear and costed plans for education, health and economic capacity, so that development aid can be seen not as compensation for past failures but as investment in future prosperity and success.
For our part, we must continue our efforts with other donor partners to ensure that aid is used for poverty reduction, that it is not tied to contracts using suppliers from the donor country and that it is provided in predictable amounts so that Governments can make plans on the basis of receiving that aid. In the case of the international finance facility, it would need to be disbursed to a range of recipient countries so that no more than 5 per cent. of the total amount of finance raised through the international finance facility would go to any one country. Of course, aid would be targeted at low-income countries.
The concept of the international finance facility offers a number of advantages. It focuses on the finance necessary to help achieve the MDGs. It is founded on developed countries' long-term commitments to the countries that are striving to achieve those goals. It would bridge the gap by leveraging the long-term commitments, enabling us to move more quickly towards the target, which each donor country could achieve by contributing 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in development aid. One would not have to wait for the 0.7 per cent. because we could increase the value
162WH
of aid that people are prepared to give, and of course the international finance facility could deploy a large amount of aid over the next few years, when it would have most impact.
At the Evian summit last month, Heads of State called for a report on the international finance facility for September. We are now working with French colleagues on that, looking closely at the question of commitments against needs, finalising an in-depth analysis on the case for bringing aid forward and some of the technical and financial aspects of the proposal that still need to be worked through. One of the most encouraging points to emerge from all the discussions on the idea of the international finance facility in past months is that there is a general acceptance—this takes us back to the point about interest in ideas that can make a difference—of the need to examine the proposal. Everybody recognises the need to make progress, not least in the poorest countries, which have expressed their support, because it provides an opportunity to take a significant step towards meeting the millennium development goals. We must not miss that opportunity for the simple reason that the human development report reminds us that time is extremely short, and that a great many people depend on us.
3.50 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: This is a very intimate little debate—almost a private audience with the Minister. We thank him for spending time with us this afternoon when he has other things to do. It is a useful opportunity to have this private audience with the Minister, because I need to get a few things out of my head before the recess and to ask some questions. It will not be a long speech, but it will be reflective and hopefully the Minister will respond at the end. I am not clear how we are going to do this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. With permission, the Minister may wind up the debate.
Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister mentioned the millennium development goals and suggested that progress had been made on them. I was extremely depressed by the departmental report, as I am sure was the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). On page 72 in particular, there are graphs showing the total lack of progress towards millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa. It is, indeed, a depressing picture. When we talk about progress, we must always allow for middle-income countries such as Indonesia and India that may be making some progress, but in Africa we have a serious problem, which is worsening. That needs to be emphasised over and over again.
I will start with the international finance facility because I am an old cynic. I appreciate that developed countries all over the world should give 0.7 per cent. of their gross national product and I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that we should set a date by which we are to achieve that. We should all tighten up that target. We talk about millennium goals, so let us get on with it and have a goal for when we will achieve that 0.7 per cent. worldwide.
Something like the international finance facility is introduced, everyone agrees that it is a great idea. I do not totally understand the high finance of it, but I

163WH
understand that donor Governments will give money to the finance facility, which will then issue bonds to developing countries, which in some magical way will be worth more than just giving them the money. I am prepared to accept that on trust. What worries me is not the mechanics of the facility, but whether developed donor countries will actually give the money in the first place. We do have that problem. The global health fund was a similar initiative in which donor countries contributed to the fund, but there is a shortfall. The second payment, which is due soon, is not yet fully funded.
The financial wizardry to get the money to developing countries may he ingenious, but that is no help if we do not get it in the first place. That is my great concern. Another such example is the pledges that were made at Tokyo to reconstruct Afghanistan and how slow that money was to come in. Afghanistan is still struggling to come out of the terrible conflict and poverty that it was in. It is all very well having such schemes, but they all boil down to the fact that donor Governments have to cough up the money in the first place. I am extremely sceptical about that.
Mr. Love: I suspect that everyone in the Chamber has some sympathy for the hon. Lady's argument, but surely the other side of that argument is that any additional pressures that can be brought to bear on the needs of Africa and other less well-developed countries through an international finance facility would increase the overall amount of aid given by the first world, which has been reluctant to increase its overall aid to the 0.7 per cent. target, as she said.
Dr. Tonge: Of course I agree that any initiative is worth while. I have been my party's international development spokesman for six years and was the first to congratulate the Government on what they have done about debt relief and progressing towards development goals. There is no question about that; I simply question the ability of donor Governments to provide the finance that is needed.
There is also some sleight of hand in what is happening. We hear that we have made progress on debt relief and that a global health fund has been set up. We are to have an international finance facility. Such news is always sold to us as if it is a new initiative, but everything is within the 0.4 per cent. of gross national product—I think that that is the figure that the Government are aiming at—that we donate as international aid. Nevertheless, it is of course welcome.
I want to talk about the lack of progress in trade reforms—the fiddling around at the edges, with talk about new issues and attendance at the Cancun talks. For goodness'sake, when will we do something about American agricultural subsidies and the common agricultural policy? Nothing would make more difference to poverty, particularly in some African countries, than doing something about the west's subsidies and protectionist regimes. Attention is always diverted. We talk about other issues and other things that need to be done. We must return to the basic problem that subsidies given to very rich countries for their produce, and the west's barriers against developing
164WH
countries' exports, are one of the chief problems for developing countries. Wherever I have been in the world in the past couple of years, people have said, "Trade, not aid." Yes, they like the aid, but they need trade—a way of making their own living. I urge the Minister to put that issue at the top of his agenda.
What I am now going to say, briefly, is almost heresy. I shall talk about foreign investment in developing countries. We are all constantly bombarded—by the anti-globalisation movements and people who think that multinational companies are the wickedest things ever to have walked the face of the earth—with the idea that we must constantly campaign against private investment and privatisation of anything in developing countries. We need to rethink. People who campaign against multinational companies also need to rethink what they are saying.
I am not an economist or a historian, and the comparison that I want to make is probably not a good one, but back in the 19th century in Britain people were very poor; they suffered from poor health and there was little education. Where did health care and education come from? It came from big business, which made money for this country—by whatever means and I accept that that is an issue. Eventually, philanthropists emerged from many big businesses and decided that they had to do something about the state of the work force: they had to improve health care and education. That is how we became healthy, rich and powerful.
Yet we expect developing countries to concentrate on health and education before they have been through the stages that we went through in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. We are somehow making them do it the wrong way round and rightly so, because we feel guilty when people say that this country became rich on the backs of developing countries and therefore we should be making their progress much faster. We must bear in mind that it was big business and big businessmen who helped this country to reach the position that it is in now.
I want the Government to take a hard look at multinationals and how they operate in developing countries. When I first took over this portfolio, there were campaigns about Shell, Rio Tinto, Nestlé and the big drug companies and how wicked they were. All those companies are now getting a social conscience. At the very least, they are producing nice, glossy brochures that tell us all about their education schemes, health schemes and what they are doing for their workers in countries where they extract minerals or whatever they do. At least they are producing brochures. They did not do that 10 years ago.
The hon. Member for Meriden and I heard about the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships, or ACHAP, scheme in Botswana—I sent the Minister details about it and I do hope that he received them—where big business in the shape of Merck, Sharp and Dohme, a charity and a non-governmental organisation in the shape of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, if one can call Bill Gates such a thing, and the Botswana Government are getting together to deal with the AIDS crisis in Botswana. How many more of those schemes can we cook up? There must be many schemes on many fronts through which we can harness the power of multinational companies and enable them to see that they will benefit, become richer and have a better work

165WH
force by improving the health and the education of the countries in which they operate. The scheme was developed in Botswana because it is losing so many skilled people, who are dying as a result of the AIDS epidemic and it cannot afford to keep training new staff. Big business has seen that it is worth while investing in health care and in the prevention of AIDS. I hope that the Minister can deal with that question, however difficult it is.
Before we leave the subject, I must point out that all sorts of initiatives are needed to encourage transparency in big business. As we heard, there is a movement towards that, so that concessions given to developing countries by multinationals working in them will be made transparent. We also know that those multinational companies have huge management expertise, so if they are in some sort of partnership with the Government of the country in which they work, they can help with management expertise and capacity building.
I also make another plea for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, about which we hear so much, to be made more legally binding and for them not simply to be a voluntary code. I would also occasionally like to see a few investigations into and prosecutions of companies that have broken those guidelines. There is a mechanism for that to happen. I have inquired about it, but no cases are ever brought. It is time that they were.
Please let us embrace globalisation and multinational companies, if it is possible to do so. Let us also try to bring their huge profits and resources into the development of the poorest countries, instead of casting them mentally out into the wilderness as wicked things about which we do not want to know.
I have "AIDS" written on my notes, but I do not believe that we need to have a debate about AIDS on this occasion. We all know that it is one of the greatest problems faced in development, particularly in Africa. I add to that the problem of malaria, which is a poor sister but is still probably the biggest killer. I recently met people from a non-governmental organisation called Medicines for Malaria Venture, which sounds very much like the international AIDS vaccine initiative about which we have all heard so much. Again, the idea is to try to harness the drug companies and the research facilities to do something about malaria in the same way that the AIDS vaccine initiative is doing something about the AIDS epidemic. The problem is not a priority for the developed world: nobody dies of malaria here unless they have been abroad and not taken the right precautions. However, malaria is a huge killer in the third world, and it is another issue that needs to be addressed.
There has been progress on debt relief, although there needs to be much more and I ask the Minister in passing whether there have been any more thoughts on Iraq's situation. Iraq's development and progress will be stopped if it has to start paying back all the huge debts that it owes. That debt can be classified as odious debt—I hope that most people would say that Saddam Hussein was an odious person.
Before I sit down I shall make two other points. I would love to know how much progress is being made on micro-credit—I have saved up the annual report for
166WH
the summer recess, because I have not read it properly and in detail yet. I am interested in micro-credit, which is a form of financing for development that helps the very poorest people at the grass roots, as does what I call alternative technology. When we go abroad we all see wonderful schemes involving treadle pumps—water pumps operated by children running round roundabouts—and other examples of small technology, as opposed to huge hydroelectric schemes.
The Grameen bank harnessed micro-credit and made it much more widespread, so is there any way that such simple technology, which is the obvious answer in many places throughout the third world, can be similarly harnessed and taken over by a multinational company or organisation? That way, when the hon. Member for Meriden and I go abroad, instead of seeing one or two dinky little pumps working in a remote village somewhere in Africa, we could say, "Yes, there are millions of these all over Africa, providing the clean water that people need."
Finally, every time I speak in a debate on financing development I make the same plea. I am still in total and utter confusion about the various lines of development funding and I came across another one the other day called the African and Asian development performance funds, under which it seems that money is made available for good performance—like foundation third-world countries. If such countries do well and get three stars, they become foundation developing countries and, apparently, get extra money from those funds. I would love the Department for International Development to say how many lines of funding there are and how they interlink.
4.8 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am sorry in a way, because this is an unprecedented occasion for me—I do not think that I have ever been in Westminster Hall for a debate in which there are only three speeches from Front Benchers. Perhaps it is just as well that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has gone. All that I would say to the Government is that timetabling a debate on such an important subject on the very last afternoon of term will create difficulties for hon. Members who perhaps feel the call of the recess very strongly. However, what we lack in quantity, we shall endeavour to make up for in quality this afternoon.
Hilary Benn: In my defence, when the debate was scheduled, we were all confident that we would still be here contemplating messages from the other place.
Mrs. Spelman: In the end, I suppose that the allocation of time usually rests in the hands of what are euphemistically known as the usual channels. However, given the importance of the subject, I am sorry that it has been left right until the end of term.
I cannot disguise the fact that I come to our debate about financing development with a heavy heart. I spent the morning dealing with the tragic issue of the execution of street children in Latin America. When one analyses the underlying causes, one finds all too often that, as with so many shocking humanitarian problems, it is abject poverty that gives rise to such misery. We therefore supported the Government in giving the

167WH
Department's work a poverty reduction focus in the International Development Act 2002. None the less, the fact that the UN estimates that there are approximately 1 million street children in the world demonstrates that the Government should attach greater priority to the issue.
The Department spent £2.4 million on producing a report about street children, but that has so far made no appreciable difference to the security of such children. I hope that the Government's budgetary support to affected countries will eventually trickle down, as the Government hope that it will, so that children can be safer on the streets. So far, however, there is little evidence that that approach to the problem is working.
No one who has spoken in the debate—there are only three of us—is under any illusion about the fact that the lack of finance for development is one of the main reasons why countries are held back. I hope, therefore, that our debate, on this sultry July afternoon, on the last day of the parliamentary term, is not simply intended to give the Government a platform from which to re-announce the benefits of the international financing facility. I have some reservations about that measure, which have been articulated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and I shall return to them.
The fact is that the developing world is a long way off obtaining the finance that it needs. The announcement of the international finance facility was welcomed by the Conservative party, but it will remain only an idea unless other countries contribute. It is gratifying to hear that France is co-operating with us again and considering the proposal, which would allow the poorest countries of the world to attract private investment. However, when the Prime Minister introduced it to other world leaders at the G8 summit in Evian, it was greeted with scepticism by, among others, the United States and Germany.
The Government might say that simply getting the issue on the agenda was an achievement, and that much is perhaps true, given the amount of bad blood between those countries following the war in Iraq. However, to echo the words of the director of the Save the Children Fund:
"Everything depends on securing real commitment from G7 countries that is translated into a concrete plan of action."
We wish the Government success in getting other countries to co-operate and, most importantly, to contribute. That must happen if the idea is to fly.
Development assistance suffers particularly from the political pitfall of unfulfilled pledges. Yesterday, I had a visit from Nirj Deva, the Conservative spokesman on international development in the European Parliament. He showed me what was, I suppose, a league table of donors' performance on the pledges that they made in Tokyo to help with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is significant that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I should both alight on how the world's richest nations have delivered on their pledges to help one of the world's poorest nations. To take one of the most startling examples of underperformance, only $35 million of the $500 million pledged by the Arab Development Bank has been forthcoming. Another example of rich donors' failure to deliver on their
168WH
promises is the fact that only a fraction of the more than $900 million that was pledged at the last donor roundtable for Burundi has been delivered. That is indicative of an underlying problem, and we cannot skate away from it if we are to talk about financing development.
Progress towards achieving the millennium development goals is being held back by a lack of finance. The World Bank estimated that an additional $40 billion to $60 billion is needed to fulfil the millennium development goals. That is over and above the current contribution of $57 billion, so it is effectively calling for a doubling in funding for the goals to be achieved. That probably led to the Government hitting on the idea of the international finance facility, but without the political will, there will be no guarantees.
There are steps that the Government can take to amend and improve existing financial measures, even while we live in hope that the international finance facility comes to something. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned debt relief, and there is no room for complacency. Compared with the high expectation in the millennium year of how many countries would be relieved of their debts, the fact is that—unless the total has gone up—only eight countries have successfully completed the process.
There are problems with the process. It is too slow, complicated and secretive, which does not help the relationship between poor and rich nations. As I have said before, the sustainability index on which the debt relief process is based needs to be reworked. It does not cope with exogenous shocks to economies, which so many countries have faced recently. When we look to relieve a country of its debts, we try to put it on a sustainable footing, but the sustainability calculation is heavily dependent on the country's export earnings, and nothing in the formula takes into account, for example, the recent collapse in commodity prices.
I also remain sceptical about how well relieved even those eight countries are. We can take a snapshot and say that we have relieved the developing countries of their debts, based on a sustainability index and their export earnings two or three years ago, but the question is whether they are sustainable today. I remain worried about the rigidity of the sustainability calculation.
AIDS has an enormous impact on the capacity of the poorest countries to achieve sustainability. I have said that before, but I am not aware that anything has been done. With AIDS infection rates as high as 40 per cent. in Botswana and at an average of 25 per cent. of the population in sub-Saharan Africa, how sustainable will those economies be in future? We know that the disease is taking out the most economically active members of society—those who will contribute the most to their country's economic growth—but nothing in the debt relief formula takes into account the impact of HIV/ AIDS. That weakness in the calculation worries me, as does the morality of recovering debts from nations with such high rates of HIV/AIDS infection. The primary call on much of their resources must be on treating the sick and dying, trying to sustain life and achieving sustainability. I have deep concerns about the situation.
The hon. Lady spoke about the serious implications of the current world trade negotiations, and when we talk about financing for development, we cannot scuttle away from that issue. Progress on the Doha round has

169WH
been deeply disappointing. We had a separate debate specifically on it, and I remain deeply concerned that the much-trumpeted CAP reform deal has failed to deliver what would most help the developing world and particularly sub-Saharan Africa: the removal of agricultural subsidies that make it impossible for the poorest countries to compete on a level playing field with the developed world.
It has been said, rightly, that Europe and America are equal offenders, but it is not satisfactory for us to blame each other as being equally guilty and then do nothing about it. I found it quite encouraging that President Chirac initially led the way by saying that he would support the cancellation of export subsidies in relation to sub-Saharan Africa, but he has withdrawn from that lead on the CAP reform deal, so it has not happened. I urge the Minister to use our recovering relations with France to revisit that proposal, because our two nations, with their long history of involvement in sub-Saharan Africa, may understand better than many others what a difference it would make to that whole continent if we reformed our agricultural subsidies.
Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Lady think that if Britain had vigorously supported the offer made by the French to drop EU subsidies in relation to African countries, it might have made more progress?
Mrs. Spelman: We all know how the voting system works in the European context, but if two of the largest voting nations put their weight behind such a proposal, they would at least form a blocking minority. That would have significant weight, and it would have had a real impact on the outcome of those CAP reform negotiations.
The matter that I cannot fathom from the Government's explanation of what happened during those negotiations relates to the fact that the industry—our farmers—is willing to move on that issue. The CAP was intended to provide our farmers with a reasonable income, but it no longer serves them as it was intended to do. We all know that, these days, farmers do not have reasonable levels of income; otherwise, they would not be leaving the industry. Because the CAP no longer serves our farmers, they are willing to move on the issue, so who are we trying to help by retaining the export subsidy system?
The truth is that, so often, export subsidies help the middle man. They help those who make the money on agricultural produce before it reaches the supermarket shelf. Those interests seem to be regarded above those of our farmers or, indeed, farmers in the developing world, so I emphasise again the central importance of the export subsidy issue.
Before I leave the subject of financing development and its interrelationship with world trade, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the proposal made by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on the advocacy fund. The sole purpose of that fund was to give developing nations a resource to enable them to be represented at trade negotiations by experts of equal calibre to our own. In practice, however, they are not. The figures are startling. At the most recent trade round, the EU had 582
170WH
representatives, whereas very small countries, such as Haiti, had none. The purpose of the advocacy fund is to ensure that developing countries are properly represented.
A counter-proposal from the Government is to give the Governments of developing countries budgetary support, so that they have the funds to provide representatives, but given all the competing priorities that those countries have to deal with, when the budgetary support comes through, it is not used for that purpose. Given the urgency of the negotiations in Cancun in September, where no time can be wasted, surely my party's proposal on the advocacy fund could be revisited.
The situation is all the more urgent because, as I was disturbed to learn from the Foreign Ministers of Tanzania, Malawi and Ghana at a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Africa, there is huge pressure on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to be fragmented and not to speak with one voice at the trade negotiations. Yielding to that pressure would immensely weaken their position.
The advocacy fund could be used to provide experts of equal calibre to those who represent the rich nations to ensure that the ACP countries hold together as a cohesive group. There is no question that the European Union and the United States, as trading blocs, wield enormous influence in trade negotiations, against which fragmented developing countries find it very difficult to hold their own. I want to impress on the Minister that he should look again at our proposal.
I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Richmond Park speak about private investments. I do not think it was a heresy; the hon. Lady would expect someone from the Conservative party to understand the benefit of what she described—the importance of private financial investment in developing countries. The reality is that the scale of investment enormously overshadows our overseas development assistance; it is of huge significance. The Minister attended the same all-party parliamentary group as I did, and it was refreshing to speak directly to the representatives of developing countries and to hear from them what they want. They very much want private sector investment; it is important to put that on the record. It is not something that is being unwillingly inflicted on them, which is the impression that the anti-capitalist lobby sometimes tries to create.
Genuine private sector investment, responsibly done, can have a huge transforming power on development for good. I emphasise that it must be responsibly done, because we all understand the historical pitfalls and mistakes, and we do not want them to be repeated. However, the Minister might take one thing on board and actively promote it: he might recall that at the Rio plus 10 summit in Johannesburg, the London principles for corporate social responsibility were announced. They were completely lost in the media coverage of the negative aspects of that summit and its failure to make any real progress, but there were constructive, homegrown, City of London-based proposals for actively encouraging corporate social responsibility in relation to developing countries.
That was a significant development, because in the world stock markets there is much more interest by analysts in how the private sector conducts itself in

171WH
developing countries; that is healthy. For example, every company quoted on the Dow Jones index is analysed according to an index of socially responsible investment—the Dow Jones SRI. Companies cannot opt out or in; if they want to be quoted on that stock market index they have to undergo a process of analysis. There is something similar in the City of London—the FTSE 4 Good index—although it is a voluntary process of analysis. However, companies that want to be seen to be playing a socially responsible part in development seek to be assessed according to whether they operate in a socially responsible way in developing countries.
Increasingly around the world, analysts consider matters that go beyond whether there is an entry in the company's glossy annual report. The process of analysis is detailed and in depth, and the really good thing is that because there is a variety of indices on the stock markets for assessing socially responsible investment, and a degree of competition between stock markets to find out how companies are operating, the different processes of analysis get to the bottom of what is going on. I am in favour of there being more than one index, because it is much more likely that bad practice will be picked up if experts analyse the different ways in which companies conduct themselves.
Dr. Tonge: This is fascinating stuff and I congratulate the hon. Lady. I am enjoying her contribution. Could those stock market indices be combined with the OECD guidelines that we have heard so much about? There is no compulsion on companies at present to obey the guidelines; they are merely advisory. Could they be combined with listing on the stock market? I do not understand how these things work.
Mrs. Spelman: I am not a technical expert in this area. However, my instinctive feeling is that they are completely different tools, but they may have a similar effect. I support the view that the OECD guidelines must be given more teeth. It is fine to sign up to these things, but if guidelines do not have any impact on the conduct of companies, how valuable are they?
The indices of corporate social responsibility are powerful because they affect the amount of investment that companies attract on the stock market. Companies are quoted on the stock market in order to attract investment so that they can expand and grow. If they have a black mark on the index of socially responsible investment, they do not attract investors. Originally, the concept was built up because many people—I count myself among them—want to have confidence when
they invest in a company that it conducts itself in an ethical manner, especially in very poor countries.
This is one of the fastest growth markets for investment. It is no longer only the specialists who want to make ethical investments. A failure in terms of socially responsible investment has a wider impact on the market of potential investors in the companies concerned. The index is therefore a powerful tool, but it is different from the guidelines. However, those tools have a similar aim.
Another important subject is financing for development in the context of aid effectiveness. We all accept that developing countries are held back by lack of
172WH
finance. All three of us—a select band—are politicians and we know that one of the problems in this area is that Governments of whatever persuasion have to make difficult choices about how to disburse public money—taxpayers' money and money levied in other ways over which the Government of the day have jurisdiction.
Overseas development assistance has to compete with a lot of other priorities, all of which are screaming for the Government's attention, and it has been difficult to meet the United Nations 0.7 per cent. target for ODA spending. All three of us are committed to achieving that target. It is depressing that we spend more as a nation on ice cream than on overseas development assistance.
As politicians, we are the people who, if in power, have to persuade our colleagues—especially the Chancellor of the day—to increase ODA spending. Every time the Chancellor has increased spending on that, it has been welcomed by the shadow Chancellor. However, we have also to demonstrate to the wider public that this is a good use of their money and that our aid is effective.
I encourage the Minister to look more closely at aid effectiveness. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the effectiveness of micro-credit, and I commend that to the Minister. It has been an incredible success with regard to finance in the developing world, flying in the face of the myth that if one lends money to poor people in developing countries one never gets it back. The default rate for micro-finance is minimal compared to default rates for credit given in rich nations such as ours. That has been a successful initiative that needs more encouragement.
I would like the Minister to comment on aid effectiveness and good governance. In terms of financing development, at the moment we have a tendency to make matters worse for some developing countries that do not achieve the sort of three-star rating that the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to. We hold back development assistance—at one level, perhaps, understandably—from countries that are in conflict or corrupt, but there must be other ways to provide aid more effectively to countries that do not qualify for budgetary support by other means. We have rather a crude mechanism at the moment, in which financing for development seems to reward good performance, although we have not found a way of reaching poor performers more effectively. We need to find a more creative solution to that.
On development assistance, politicians of all parties who are interested in the issue of how to improve finance for development have to pass what I call the cab driver test: if we went out of the Chamber this afternoon and hired a cab, and asked the driver, "Do you think that we should spend more of taxpayers' money on overseas aid?", what reaction would we get? That is the test that politicians have to undergo at every general election when making choices about how to disburse money.
The problem is that there is quite a lot of public scepticism about whether the money really gets through. A stock phrase—it is very unfair to the Swiss—comes to mind: "Doesn't it all end up in Swiss bank accounts, Mrs. Spelman?" That is what people often say to me. "Can I give with any confidence? Can I be sure that the

173WH
money will get through? How can 1 be confident that my taxes will trickle down to those that really need the money?"
The focus on aid effectiveness is inextricably linked to financing development. That is not as simple as upping the percentage of aid, or selecting countries that are performing quite well; it is a complex matrix. However, the test, and our purpose in trying to raise the finance needed in the developing world, is to ensure that money is demonstrably getting through to those who need it. I urge the Minister to focus on the suggestions that both Front-Bench spokesmen have made today on how to make the work of the Department even more effective.
4.36 pm
Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond to this small but not imperfectly formed debate, which has once again proved Westminster Hall's unique capacity for allowing Members to come together and debate issues in a way that allows all who contribute to add something to our understanding of the problem.
I thank the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for their thoughtful and stimulating contributions. The debate is part of a continuing dialogue, not only between Members of Parliament, but with the people whom we represent and across the globe, as it must be if we are to make progress and make a difference. In the end, people will judge us on whether what we have done makes a difference.
Cynicism is not a trait that I associate with the hon. Member for Richmond Park, so I took heed when she said that she was slightly cynical about the international finance facility. I hasten to point out that in describing it this afternoon I was not re-announcing it. It is out there; I was simply describing what I genuinely believe to be a creative response to the identified problem of the shortage of the money that we need if we are to make progress in achieving the millennium development goals.
Of course, the IFF will work only if a sufficient number of people sign up to it, but the beauty of the idea is that it uses what people have already committed themselves to giving. People will have to provide the committed amount in the years ahead, but the scheme uses that commitment to borrow money for expenditure up front. The facility is a kind of mortgage, because it builds on the future repayment of bonds to produce a sum that can be spent earlier. That will allow faster progress to be made towards the millennium development goals. It is the best idea around that could enable us to do that.
When we read the Zedillo report and see that there is a $50 billion shortfall, it would be easiest to throw up our hands in horror and say, "Well, isn't it all terribly difficult, and isn't it sad that we can't make any progress?" Those involved in the political process are saying about the IFF, "Well, here's an idea; how about it?" We, and others who have expressed support for the process, are trying to persuade people that the IFF is a good idea that can be made to work and will address the problem that all of us are concerned about. It is no more and no less than that. If it were to succeed and if we were to persuade people of the benefits of the facility, it would be a practical contribution to solving the problem. I want to make that clear.
174WH
We have debated trade reform at some length both here and in the main Chamber. We are at one about CAP reform, which the hon. Member for Meriden spoke about with some passion. As a country, we have been trying for a long time to reform the CAP. I think back to the famous renegotiations carried out by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1974–75, before the referendum. That process proved extremely difficult, but I regard what was achieved three weeks ago as a significant step forward. It has begun to break the link between payment and production, while recognising the fact that member states have different interests. It is right that the Government should come under pressure from Opposition parties to do something about it, but we know that a solution can be reached only if there is agreement among member states about the need to make progress.
Mrs. Spelman: What troubles me about the outcome of the reform talks is that, although the intention is to break the link, a significant number of domestic subsidies have a long transition period before they are phased out. We have seen that happen before. There is an added problem in that, because there is no peace clause for the domestic subsidies after 31 December, the long transition period could result in an all-out trade war unless the subsidies are phased out more rapidly or a peace clause between the trade partners is concluded.
Hilary Benn: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. No one wants an all-out trade war. The onus is on everyone at the meeting at Cancun, in particular, to build on what has already been achieved by the agreement that has been reached and to recognise that it is only a step along the way. We must all acknowledge that more must be done, especially about subsidies.
The hon. Lady talked about support for advocacy. We both attended the all-party group meeting, and what was so striking about the contribution from the three Trade, Industry and Commerce Ministers was that they were absolutely clear about what they wanted for their own country. They did not say that they had not been able to think matters through; they knew exactly what they wanted.
We hear those voices far too rarely in such debates because, too often, the debate about what is good for developing countries is conducted between people from developed countries. I wish that we could hear the voices that we heard at that meeting more often. That would lead to a more informed debate in the media and throughout the country. I was struck by the fact that those Ministers knew what they wanted.
Ours is not a counter-proposal to the advocacy fund. We are already undertaking such work. From memory, we are in the process of spending about £38 million from the £45 million. We want to build capacity within the countries concerned. I say to the hon. Lady that the right place for that capacity to be built is in Finance and Trade Ministries because that is where policy is formulated, as it is in this country. In those circumstances, if we build such capacity for the long term using budget support and other technical assistance that we provide to Governments, we will enhance the capacity of representatives at such meetings to be clear about what they want.

175WH
The hon. Lady referred to pressures to fragment the developing country bloc. It is important that developing countries stick together in negotiations and use the power that they have, recognising that in the end there will have to be an agreement in Cancun to stick up for what they think is important. They will say to us, as they said very clearly at the meeting, that if any progress is to be made we will have to deliver on agriculture, on TRIPS and access to medicine and on special and differential treatment, which we have not touched on this afternoon but which is extremely important.
Dr. Tonge: Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he tell us why we did not support the French proposals on subsidies?
Hilary Benn: We did support the French proposals, but they did not get anywhere at the summit. We will have to return to that issue when we get to Cancun.
On foreign investment, we are, I think, at one. The hon. Lady made an important point in reminding us of our own history as a country. How did we develop economically? To draw a parallel, during the development of the mills in Leeds, people came to the city because of what had happened in the countryside. The mills were established and people invested in them. At the time, the working conditions were very bad and there was a lot of poverty. The response to the disadvantages and to the problems created by industrialisation was not to say to the mill owners, "Please take your mill and get out of town." People decided to get organised and to do something to improve the working conditions, because they recognised that they needed a way of earning a living. The issue is how to enable countries to earn their living and to pay their way, and how to give people the chance of a job and the chance to bring up a family.
The point that the hon. Lady made about the role that foreign investment plays in the process is extremely important. Again, if we reflect on our own experience, in the north-east, as traditional industries declined, the first thing that we did was to cast around for other people, including foreign people, to come to invest in the area. The same is true for developing countries. When I went to Indonesia, I asked how the rates paid by foreign-owned companies there compared with those paid by domestic industries. I was struck by the answer: it turned out that the foreign-owned companies paid—from memory—12 to 20 per cent. more.
Of course, the rates are low compared with what is paid in the United States or the United Kingdom, but in comparison to what else is on offer for people and their families, they are actually better. We need to acknowledge that, while recognising that the circumstances of foreign investment, its confidence and its willingness to stay, will depend a lot on the framework of governance, on the rules and regulations, on the recourse to the courts and on all the things that we now understand much more about. Those all contribute to the prospects for economic development. Such development is what the countries want; they only want for themselves what we want for ourselves and what we have been able to experience because of our history.
176WH
The hon. Member for Meriden was absolutely right—and I agree completely with her—about the increasing interest in companies' corporate practices and ethical reputation. Undoubtedly, one of the really powerful forces in society, which will encourage companies to do things better and to do them right, is the risk of damage to their reputation if they do things badly or do them wrong. Developments such as the ethical training initiative, the Dow Jones index to which the hon. Lady referred and the extractive industries transparency initiative that we launched, which gets companies and countries in those industries to be honest and open about who pays what to whom, are all steps to make the process more transparent.
We can use the pressure to which the hon. Lady referred to improve performance, because companies are concerned about their reputation. I understood that most forcefully when I was previously at the Department and I attended a meeting of an association that brought together all the British toy manufacturers. Very few of them manufacture in the UK; most do so abroad. The person making the presentation started with a slide that showed dead bodies in a toy factory in China which caught fire. He said to the assembled ranks of the industry that the reason why they were sitting there, talking about signing up to a code of practice for sourcing toys that they import into the UK, was that they did not want that—he pointed to the slide—ever to happen again. He made the point extremely forcefully, and that is one example of how one industry is trying to improve what it does.
I would be happy to write to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on micro-credit because some developments have taken place. She referred to the Grameen bank initiative that started the process. We support micro-credit schemes in a variety of ways, and I would be happy to let her have further information on that.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Africa and Asia development performance funds. We put some money aside at the start of the year to be called upon, during the year, by country programmes where we think that it can be used to good effect. We could allocate all the money irrevocably at the start of the year, but we need to bear in mind that progress is made at different speeds, some things may not work and there may be delay. We have simply used that device to ensure that we use the money that we have most effectively during the course of the year. That is how it works, and it is not a matter of anything else.
I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Meriden made about the importance of aid effectiveness, including the importance of delivering if we have pledged money. In general, the UK has a pretty good record. I know that the hon. Lady was not criticising us, but she is right to draw attention to the gap that can exist between pledges and the actual commitment of money.
On debt relief, only eight countries have reached completion point, but 26 countries have reached decision point, and the debt relief kicks in at the decision point. The international community increasingly accepts the need to review and top up at completion point because of the problems of continued debt

177WH
unsustainability and the question of the impact of falls in commodity prices. We have pressed for that and we continue to do so.
The hon. Lady is right about the need for overseas development assistance. The last point that I want to make links that issue and the cab driver challenge that she gave us. She is right about the need to persuade the public, our parties and the Chancellor. The truth is that some Governments are more successful than others in having that debate. Some Chancellors listen more readily than others, as the current holder of that office has demonstrated. We can see what has happened to our overseas aid budget, in absolute terms and as a share of GNP, in the six years since the current Government were elected.
The debate demonstrates the power of the political process to make a difference, and the key phrase that arises from it is political will. This is a matter of the extent to which there is the political will to have an argument with the cab driver, to persuade the Chancellor, to argue with our constituents or to persuade the parties that we represent that the matter is a priority.
There are many different ways that we can have that conversation and apply our political will to make a difference, but increasingly the world understands how much we depend on, and are affected by, events that occur in other countries compared with the situation 20, 50 or 100 years ago. That is partly because we see more of those events on our television screens. That is a great
178WH
motivator for political action because people see them, are appalled and ask why we are not doing something about them. That was the case with the famine in Ethiopia.
We are now getting coverage of what has been happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo—a terrible conflict in which millions of people have lost their lives. That was largely hidden from the world's view. How did we make the modest but not unimportant step of getting an international force into Bunia? It happened because people saw the conflict. Increasingly, we experience the consequences of conflict and the failure of states when people come to this country. Certainly when, as constituency MPs, we meet asylum seekers who come to us for help, we are brought face to face with the consequences of failing to do something about the problem.
Finally, there is the moral argument, which one can never escape. It simply is not right that 130 million kids do not go to school every day or that kids die because their countries, families and medical and health systems do not have the means to deal with completely preventable diseases. The debate really does matter, because it is about the future of the world.
We may be small in number this afternoon, but we have had a very good debate, and I am grateful to my two hon. Friends, and I call them that advisedly, for their contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 921W, on Cabinet Committees, when he will publish the full membership and terms of reference of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet. [127305]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today published the full membership and terms of reference of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the question of 24 February from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire on IT contracts in his Department above £50 million. [126903]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the hon. Member tabled this question to a number of Departments. However, he did not table it to me.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his written answer of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 63W, on the EU White Paper, what discussions he expects to occur prior to the next meeting of the European Council; who is expected to preside over its proceedings; and whether Her Majesty's Government will present a provisionally agreed European Constitution for ratification by Parliament. [126546]

  The Prime Minister
  The Convention on the Future of Europe presented parts I and II of its draft Constitutional Treaty to the European Council at Thessaloniki (19–20 June). The European Council agreed that the draft Treaty represents a good basis for starting negotiations at the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which will be convened in October 2003. It will be conducted by representatives of the member states and the 10 acceding states. They will take final decisions on a Constitutional Treaty for the European Union by common accord. As with previous EU Treaties, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate it and pass the legislation required to give effect to it before it is ratified.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Kirchner of Argentina at the progressive governance conference concerning sovereignty of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [126272]
  444W
  The Prime Minister
  I did have discussions with President Kirchner on the Falkland Islands. However, the issue of sovereignty was not raised.

  Guantanamo Bay Prisoners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will request from President George Bush the return of all British prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay to the United Kingdom for the due attention of prosecution and other criminal justice authorities. [126462]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government is making active representations to the US Government about the future of the UK detainees at Guantanamo Bay. These representations cover a range of options including the possible return of the detainees to the UK and the need for any trials of UK detainees to be fair and in accordance with international law.

  The Government has consistently urged the US Government to resolve the position of the detainees.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the first report of the House of Lords Appointments Commission for 2000 to 2003 before Parliament. [126762]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today received the first report of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The report covers the commission's first term from May 2001 to May 2003. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I am grateful to the commission for finding, in fulfilment of their remit, people of distinction whom it has recommended on merit.

  I shall be inviting the commission to recommend a small number of non-party-political peers, as well as reporting on the propriety of any party working peers who are recommended, while discussion on the reform of the House of Lords continues.

  Accordingly, after following the standard procedures set by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, I have reappointed the chairman and independent members of the commission for further terms of three years, subject to continued discussion on the reform of the House of Lords, not least following our initial response to the Joint Committee report. I am also placing in the Libraries of both Houses my letter to the chairman.

  Pursuant to my answers on 19 May 2003, Official Report, columns 536–37W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I would like to clarify that the House of Lords Appointments Commission does come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and appointments to the commission are made in accordance with her code of practice

  Iraq Dossier
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the inclusion of(a) the information and (b) the illustration

  445W
  of UNSCOM's visits to the Iraqi presidential palaces in the September Dossier was at the instigation of the Security Services. [126468]

  The Prime Minister
  As we have made clear, the Chairman of the JIC was responsible for the production of the September 2002 dossier.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answers of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 616W, on intelligence, what progress has been made since 7 July in identifying the sources in the security services responsible for leaks to the media in respect of the Iraq dossier. [126897]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer to the hon. Member on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 616W.

  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Governments of(a) New Zealand, (b) Antigua and Barbuda, (c) Bahamas, (d) Barbados, (e) Belize, (f) Dominica, (g) Grenada, (h) Jamaica, (i) St. Christopher and Nevis, (j) Saint Lucia, (k) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, (l) Trinidad and Tobago, (m) Kiribati, (n) Tuvalu, (o) Mauritius, (p) Anguilla, (q) Bermuda, (r) the British Virgin Islands, (s) Cayman Islands, (t) Falkland Islands, (u) Gibraltar, (v) Montserrat, (w) St. Helena, (x) the Turks and Caicos Islands, (y) the Isle of Man, (z) Jersey and (aa) Guernsey on his plans to change the legal responsibilities of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a court of appeal. [126771]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Leslie) gave to her today

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list visits within the United Kingdom he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; whom he met; and what gifts were received [126988]

  The Prime Minister
  On visits, the information is not readily available in the format requested. I shall write to the hon. Member once this information is available, and will place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  On gifts, the Government are committed to publishing an annual list of gifts received by Ministers in an official capacity valued at more than £140. The first ever list was published on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W. Details of gifts received during 2003–04 valued at more than £140 will be published at the end of the current financial year.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on payment for Pay Review Body chairs and members. [127304]
  446W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government have decided to pay the chairmen and members of the Pay Review Bodies for the work they carry out. Payment will be made on a per diem basis at a rate of £350 for the chairmen and £300 for other members.

  Payment will begin in September.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received and what meetings he has held this year on the future management of plutonium; and if he will make a statement. [126921]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have received no representations on this issue.

  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 exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisors travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126659]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not readily available in the format requested. I shall write to the hon. Member once this information is available, and will place copies of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Trade Justice
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations calling for trade justice have been received by the Government this year; and how many of these were from the Orkney and Shetland constituency. [125431]

  The Prime Minister
  So far this year I have received over 40,000 representations about Trade Justice and Fair Trade.

  Between 1 January and 30 June this year, this Government has received over 150,000 representations from MPs, the general public, various charities and NGOs covering a wide range of world trade policy issues.

  The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what evidence he has received of attempts being made by the Iraqi military to deploy chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons during the war; [126858]

  (2) what evidence of the products of weapons of mass destruction programmes have been found in Iraq. [126859]
  447W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) at Prime Minister's Questions on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 279.

WALES

  Health and Social Care
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the need for primary legislation in order to implement the recommendations of the Review of Health and Social Care in Wales advised by Derek Wanless; and whether his Department has had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about implementing the four options proposed by the Review to solve the problem of bed-blocking. [126460]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Health, Jane Hutt AM, during which she updates me on health policy initiatives launched by her Administration.

  I am aware that the Assembly will be publishing a detailed response and action plan in the autumn and it is therefore premature to comment on implementing the recommendations of the Report before then. I welcome Jane Hutt's announcement of an additional £4 million to tackle the immediate problems in the review, namely delayed discharges and alternatives to hospital admission. This money will be channelled through the Local Health Boards where all health and social care interests are represented.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wale when he last used the London Underground in connection with his official duties. [124604]

  Mr. Hain
  On 25 March 2003.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Supasweet Onion
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will suppor the production and promotion of the Supasweet onion in Chicksands, Bedfordshire. [126294]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has contributed to the development of the Supasweet onion by funding half the cost of a three-year collaborative research project worth £650,000. The production and promotion of the product is now being taken forward by industry partners and we wish them every success.

  Note:

  F. B. Parrish and Son of Chicksands is one of five growers or growers' organisations which helped fund the research project. The company is primarily known for its onion production and was the overall winner in the 2003 Grower of the Year Awards.

  New Covent Garden Markets Authority
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to secure a viable future for the New Covent Garden Markets Authority. [126295]

  Mr. Morley
  The Saphir Report identifies a future for New Covent Garden Market as a composite market providing a particular service to the central London catering trade. The Department is working closely with the Covent Garden Market Authority to identify ways of developing the Nine Elms site and the market business to provide for future needs. It remains the Government's objective to dispose of the market as a going concern—when this is achieved there will be no further need for the Authority and it will be wound up.

  Biofuel Crops
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage the use of crops for biofuels. [126298]

  Mr. Morley
  We have made available £29 million to support the planting of energy crops and the setting up of growers' producer groups. £3.5 million is being made available to develop supply chains for biomass, including energy crops, from harvest to energy end-user; £66 million is being allocated to develop markets for biomass, including energy crops, in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation. Officials are working closely with project developers and others to promote the potential of energy crops.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how she proposes to implement the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [126299]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intend to implement the WEEE Directive in a way that will maximise the environmental benefits for the UK but keep the costs to a minimum.

  The Directive was agreed in February 2003, and the Government now have until August 2004 to transpose the Directive into UK law. The first stage of consultation on the WEEE Directive has now concluded and the Government are in the process of analysing the responses. These will be fed into a further consultation paper, due to be issued later this year. A final consultation on the draft Regulations will be issued early next year.

  Thames Fisheries
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the effects of the Shell Haven oil refinery on fisheries in the Thames. [126300]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None, but I am aware that concerns have been expressed by fishermen at a public inquiry examining proposals for the redevelopment of the site as the London Gateway port.

  Fallen Stock Scheme
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the number of farmers who have signed up to the Fallen Stock Scheme. [126301]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No decision has yet been made about whether such a scheme will proceed. However, around 30 per cent, of livestock farmers in England expressed an interest in joining a national scheme if one were to go ahead

  Beef
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements she is making to pay interest on overdue payments of(a) beef special premium and (b) slaughter premium. [126265]

  £

  Scheme

  2001 payments issued

  2001 payments outstanding

  2002 payments issued

  2002 payments outstanding

  Beef special premium scheme

  111,084,363.74

  1,160,740.93

  102,502,560.57

  10,312,419.37

  Slaughter premium scheme

  41,933,323

  163,792

  41,268,488

  30,530,948

  2001 Payments

  The majority of outstanding payments for 2001 relate to claims with unresolved queries and discrepancies. Staff at the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) are working hard to resolve these queries and in many cases this has involved contacting claimants to obtain additional information.

  2002 Payments

  Claimants under the Beef Special Premium Scheme (BSPS) and Slaughter Premium Scheme (SPS) began receiving their advance payments shortly after the bovine payment window opened on 16 October 2002.

  Every effort is being made to make as many payments as possible by 31 July 2003.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [126292]

  Margaret Beckett
  In the last month I, my ministerial colleagues and officials from my Department have attended a number of meetings and events at which CAP reform has been discussed with representatives from fanning, environmental, consumer and landowner organisations, as well as Ministers from other countries. We have also received correspondence and telephone calls from hon. Members and members of the public about CAP reform.

  Farming Practices
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to encourage farmers to adopt more environmentally sustainable farming practices. [126296]
  450W
  Alun Michael
  The RPA very much regrets the delays in making bovine payments for 2002. The main reason was the introduction by the European Commission of revised rules for calculating aggregated penalties across the bovine schemes. This change has caused difficulties for member states and the Commission recognised this by accepting that payments could be made this year up to 31 July rather than 30 June.

  The RPA is making every effort to make as many payments as possibly by 31 July. The RPA will consider whether compensation payments for the delay may be appropriate for payments made after that date.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money is due in outstanding payments for(a) beef special premium and (b) slaughter premium for (i) 2001
  and (ii) 2002; and when she expects such payments to be made. [126266]

  Alun Michael
  The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to encouraging more environmentally sustainable farming. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, made on 26 June 2003, regarding the progress made in this area in the reform of the CAP. Our existing agri-environment schemes (ESA and CSS) have made a significant impact since first introduced, but we want to do more. In addition to reviewing the current schemes, we are currently piloting an 'Entry Level' Scheme that will be available to all farmers across the country from 2005.

  Farming Fraud
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further measures have been taken by the Rural Payments Agency to prevent fraud by farmers, following the Government reply to the recommendations made by the Committee of Public Accounts in its 51st Report of Session 2001–02. [126297]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency is introducing up to date, integrated computer systems to improve the control of CAP scheme administration. Key elements are a single business identifier and a Rural Land Register to ensure subsidy is only paid on eligible land and to registered customers entitled to receive it.

  Flood Risk
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people live in areas with a high risk of flooding. [125577]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no estimate for the number of people at high risk of flooding throughout the UK.
  451W
  The UK wide estimate, based on information currently available, is that there are about 2.1 million properties within flood plains. Of these approximately 1.8 million are in England and Wales and the majority of these are protected by flood defence structures.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of contamination by GM crops on surrounding plant life; what estimate she has made of the radius from sites that could be contaminated by GM crops; and if she will make a statement. [125957]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: Each application for consent for the release a GM crop into the environment must have a full and thorough risk assessment made of its potential impacts. This assessment is scrutinised by the Government's statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and is made on a case-by-case basis according to the characteristics of the particular crop. It includes a consideration of the likelihood and consequences if a GM crop were to spread through cross-pollination (with other crop plants or wild relatives) or through seed movement.

  ACRE have considered all the GM crops that have been grown in the UK and consent has only been granted where appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on the surrounding environment. In the case of the crops in the farm-scale evaluations, the GM crops were kept separate from commercial crops. The separation distances were based on advice from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany published in August 2000 and are not intended to eliminate any cross pollination with equivalent crops at greater distance, but rather to limit it severely. ACRE advised that the actual occurrence of cross-pollination with other crop plants, or wild relatives in the case of oil seed rape, would present no undue risk to human health or the environment. The potential of such cross-pollination is one of the factors being examined in the Farm Scale Evaluation.

  Illegal Logging
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and where the EU action plan on illegal logging will be discussed by the Council of Ministers. [126010]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a decision for the Presidency of the EU. At Environment Council on 13 June, the UK urged the Presidency to facilitate a full and early discussion of the Action Plan. Since that time, preliminary discussions by officials have been held in Brussels at the EU Working Group on Forestry on 9 July and at the EU Development Co-operation Working Group on 11 July.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the UK Government will press for new legislation to ban the import of illegally sourced timber as part of the EU action plan to tackle the illegal timber trade; and if she will make a statement. [126009]
  452W
  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government wishes to see an end to the import of illegally logged timber into the EU and does not rule out support for such legislation. Equally, the Government recognises the need to ensure that any new legislation is proportionate, enforceable and compatible with WTO regulations. Consequently, in addition to offering broad support to the Commission's recently published Action Plan to tackle illegal logging and its associated trade, the UK will press for the Commission to undertake an immediate assessment of the feasibility and impacts of additional legislative options, including a ban on illegally sourced timber.

  Private Sewers (Wales)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the consultation on private sewers on owners in Wales. [126027]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from(a) the Welsh Assembly, (b) Welsh local authorities and (c) other Welsh organisations on the consultation on private sewers. [126028]

  Mr. Morley
  The public consultation paper seeking views on private sewers was published on 1 July this year jointly by the Department and the Welsh Assembly Government. The consultation period extends until 26 September. We ha ve not received any representations on the consultation on private sewers from Welsh local authorities or other Welsh organisations.

  Radioactive Water
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of radioactive water(a) have been removed and (b) remain to be moved from Sellafield building B30 as part of the post-operational clean-out (POCO) process; to where this water has been discharged; and whether the POCO activities at B30 have been reported as part of the UK submissions to the OSPAR Ministerial in Bremen in June. [124826]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: About 2,000 cubic metres of water a day are currently flushed through the B30 ponds. The water is treated at the SIXEP plant in Sellafield to remove particulate and principally radioactive caesium and strontium. The resulting low-level radioactive liquid waste is discharged to sea. These discharges were included in the Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–2020, published in July 2002, which was the UK's national report to OSPAR.

  Rights of Way Mapping Process
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by how much the Rights of Way mapping process is over budget; and which other budgets are being used to fund it. [124896]
  453W
  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency expects to spend £14.23 million in the current financial year on implementing Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, mainly on mapping open country and registered common land. This compares with an estimate of £11.93 million when the Corporate Plan was prepared. Estimates cannot be exact because the work is largely demand-driven, generated by comments and appeals on the maps.

  Over the past two years the Agency has been fully aware of the need to manage these pressures within its increasing budget which is over £98 million this year and I discuss these issues regularly with the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief Executive and members of the Agency's Board.

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of water companies reported financial deficits in 2002. [125574]

  Mr. Morley
  The Director General of Water Services' published report, "Financial performance and expenditure of the water companies in England and Wales 2001–2002" (Table 4), shows that all companies reported operating profits for the year ended March 2002.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126606]

  Alun Michael
  As at 16 July, 77 written ministerial statements have been made by the Department.

TREASURY

  Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the occurrence rale of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was in each of the last five years. [127018]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. John Baron, dated 17 July 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the occurrence rate of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was in each of the last five years. I am replying in his absence. (127018)
  The rates for newly diagnosed cases of acute lymphoblastic leukeamia1 for the most recent five years for which data are available for children aged under fifteen in England arc given in the table below.
  454W

  Rates of newly diagnosed cases of acute lymphoblastic leukeamia1 per 100,000 children aged under 15, England, 1995–99

  Under 15

  1995

  3.5

  1996

  3.4

  1997

  3.1

  1998

  3.6

  1999

  3.3

  1 For the years 1995 to 1999, International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C91.0.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, "Cancer statistics-registrations. England 1999". Series MBI no. 30. London: The Stationary Office, 2002.

  Available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Mbl_30/MBl_30pdf.

  Office for National Statistics, "Cancer statistics-registrations.

  England 1998". Series MBI no. 30. London: The Stationary Office, 2002

  Available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Mbl_30/MBl_29pdf.

  Office for National Statistics, "Cancer statistics-registrations. England 1995–97". Series MBI no. 30. London: The Stationary Office, 2002.

  Available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Mbl_30/MBl_ 28pdf.

  Tax Credit Helpline
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed to man advisory hotlines for working families tax credit; how many are civil servants; and how many have received training in this area. [117641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I said in my comments during the debate on the floor of the House on 10 April 2003,Official Report, column 503, that a further 700 staff would be added by 15 April 2003 to the 1,900 staff already deployed on the helpline. These were full-time equivalent figures for the Great Britain helpline. Since then the number has fluctuated, but the average between 14 April and the end of June 2003 was about 2,900. Some of the work was outsourced for a period, and all staff have received appropriate training.

  During the same period there was an average of about 3,900 telephone lines servicing the helpline.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the script used by advisers at the tax credit helpline for responding to callers who have asked for their tax credits to be paid into a Post Office card account. [115676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The script used by tax credit staff when dealing with people who have asked for their tax credits to be paid into a Post Office card account follows that placed in the Library by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given by the then Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions, Malcolm Wicks, on 26 March and 11 April 2003 Official Report, columns 289W and 472W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) telephone lines and (b) telephonists there are for the tax credit helpline; and if he will make a statement. [115910]
  455W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what telephone hotlines and advice lines have been operated by his Department for people seeking advice about children's tax credits; what charges apply to each; and how many calls they have each taken. [123896]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many calls have been made to the tax credit helpline in each month since it was first established; and how many of these calls have been answered; [125413]

  (2) how many calls have been made to the MPs' tax credit hotline in each month since it was first established; and how many of these calls have been answered. [125414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Telephone help lines have been in operation since August 2002 for claimants for child and working tax credits living in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. The advisers can answer both general inquiries and inquiries about specific claims. Calls to these lines are charged at local rates.

  The number of calls received and handled each month by the Great Britain helpline, rounded to the nearest thousand, appear in the following table:

  Calls to the GB child and working tax credit helpline received and handled August 2002 to June2003

  Thousand

  Received1

  Handled2

  August 2002

  28

  28

  September 2002

  179

  177

  October 2002

  324

  320

  November 2002

  394

  375

  December 2002

  268

  265

  January 2003

  852

  771

  February 2003

  1,168

  957

  March 2003

  2,487

  1,701

  April 2003

  2,509

  1,768

  May 2003

  2,000

  1,680

  June 2003

  957

  913

  Total to June 2003

  1,168

  8,956

  1 Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser.

  2 Where the caller spoke to an adviser.

  3 Totals may not equal the sum of individual months because of rounding

  The Northern Ireland helpline handled 328,000 calls up to June 2003.

  A response line is in operation giving general advice, but not answering inquiries about specific claims, Its had answered 2.7 million calls by the end of June 2003, including both those answered live by an operator and those answered by recorded voice. Calls to this line are free of charge. There are telephone hotlines for tax credits for Members of Parliament in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Calls to these lines are charged at national rate. For the weekly number of calls answered by these hotlines to the week starting 30 April, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 11 June 2003, Official Report, columns 859–60W. These hotlines answered 4,4000 calls in the four weeks starting 5 May 2003 and 5,000 during the five weeks starting 2 June 2003. In total, they answered 11,500 calls
  456W
  between 30 December 2002 and the week starting 30 June 2003. It is not known how many calls to these hotlines were not answered.

  In addition, the Inland Revenue website contains information on tax credits, and a facility for potential claimants to enter family circumstances to check for eligibility and the size of the award. There were over 7.2 million such checks made to the end of June 2003.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 871W, what the April outturn is against the Department for Work and Pensions' target that 85 per cent, of customers should have their benefit paid into their bank accounts by 2005. [125988]

  Mr. Boateng
  At the end of April 2003 around 43 per cent, of United Kingdom benefit customers were having their benefits paid directly into their bank accounts. From early May 2003 there has been a planned increase in activity to bolster the Direct Payment take up rate. A conversion exercise is under way where customers are being contacted and invited to concert to Direct Payment. This is being backed up with a national advertising campaign. Details of the number of invitations issued and responses issued are published in the House of Commons Library.

  Business Rates
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what extra amount Redcar and Cleveland would have received in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 under the Treasury's preferred model for local authority retention of business rates. [125927]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government published a consultation document on the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive scheme on the 4 July. This invites responses by the 31 October. At this stage we are consulting on the principles and concepts that will guide the design of the scheme. During 2004 we will consult again on a specific proposal.

  The benefits to individual local authorities from the scheme will depend on the final design of the scheme and how well individual local authorities respond to the incentives from the scheme.

  Census 2001 (Sheffield)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of Sheffield's 2001 Census information was lost; if he will make a statement on how this information was lost; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the methods used to estimate Sheffield's 2001 Census returns. [126125]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Betts dated 17 July 2003:

  457W
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply lo your recent question regarding your concerns about how the 2001 Census was conducted in Sheffield. (126125)
  I can assure you that there were no Census forms lost in Sheffield. It seems likely that your reference to 'lost' information refers to problems with the Census Coverage Survey for Sheffield. This resulted in us not having information for 36 of the sampled postcodes and meant that we could not ise the Census Coverage Survey for Sheffield as we had originally intended.
  The Census Coverage Survey (CCS) was a key element in the One Number Census process. It was an independent survey conducted shortly after the Census to establish the coverage of the 2001 Census. The information obtained from the Census Coverage Survey was used to enable census population counts to be adjusted for under enumeration at the national, local and small area level. It was therefore important that the Census Coverage Survey was successful in capturing those persons missed in the Census.
  A quality assurance panel was set up to look at the results of the Census from around the country and also to provide advice as problems arose during the processing. After some consideration, the quality assurance panel felt that the sample for Sheffield from the Census Coverage Survey was not sufficient to make reliable estimates of underenumeration.
  However, the methodology for the Census included a contingency strategy that could be used for occasions when it was felt that the Census Coverage Survey had failed to find the people missed from the Census. This contingency strategy involved a method known as "borrowing strength". This strategy involves using the adjustments made for similar Local Authorities when compared with aggregate administrative data and applying these to the Authority for which the strategy is invoked. The method for selecting Local Authorities from which to borrow strength involved using the ONS classification of Local Authorities to identify the five most similar areas in terms of socio-economic and demographic characteristics. By applying the borrowing strength method, the population of Sheffield was increased by 6,100 over and above what would have been achieved had the borrowing strength method not been used. This accounts for approximately 1 per cent, of the total population estimate.
  A consultation exercise was undertaken with all Local Authorities in the winter of 2000/1 inviting each Authority to comment on the acceptability of the list of closest Authorities to their own for borrowing strength purposes. Sheffield was given the opportunity to comment at this stage, before the list was finalised and published.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the percentage of total central government expenditure was represented by PFI and PPP annual payments in the financial years(a) 1992–93, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 2002–03; [125498]

  (2) what the total central government expenditure was on PFI and PPP annual payments in the financial years, (a) 1992–93, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 2002–03. [125499]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimated figures for PFI/PPP annual payments total £0.37 billion for 1997–98. These figures can be seen in the 1997–98 Financial Statement and Budget Report: Table 5.6—Estimated forward commitments from signed contracts.

  Estimated figures for 1997/98 represent 0.1 per cent, of Total Managed Expenditure (£323.6 billion).

  Estimated figures for PFI/PPP annual payments total £4.545 billion for 2002–03. These figures can be seen in the 2002–03 Financial Statement and Budget Report: Table C19—Estimated payments under PFI contracts.
  458W
  Estimated figures for 2002–03 represent 1.1 per cent, of Total Managed Expenditure (£421 billion—estimated outturn).

  Figures for 1992/93 were not compiled at that time.

  Chief Economic Adviser
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury's Chief Economic Adviser plays an executive role in the Inland Revenue's dealings with(a) individuals and (b) businesses. [126471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury has no executive role in the Inland Revenue's dealings with either group.

  Child Benefit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual cost would be of changing the child benefit system to pay the higher rate of child benefit in respect of all children of a multiple birth when those children are the oldest in a family. [125858]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Child benefit is a universal system of support paid to all families who are responsible for a child, irrespective of their means. It is paid until a child reaches the age of 16, or 19 if they remain in full-time non-advanced education.

  The higher rate of child benefit is paid in respect of the eldest child family, by date or time of birth, until that child reaches 16, or 19 if appropriate.

  To provide an additional "higher rate" for each child of a multiple birth under the current tax and benefit system, where there are no other older children in a family, would cost an additional £15 million a year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter dated 29 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on insurance premium tax. [126776]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Customs and Excise
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many times in the past two years the Customs and Excise National Strike Force has undertaken operational duties in west Wales; [118546]

  (2) what seizures have been made by the Customs and Excise National Strike Force in west Wales in the last two years. [118532]

  John Healey
  Pursuant to his answers of 12 June 2003,Official Report, columns 980–81W, the National Strike Force was in fact deployed to Wales 10 times in the last two years, rather than the total of 16 times since it was established in January 2000, and these deployments included west Wales on four occasions.

  Deployments of the National Strike Force are rarely to any single location, and it is not possible to identify from older operational records the specific locations where seizures were made by the National Strike Force. Figures for seizures in west Wales alone are therefore

  459W
  not available; however, in the last two years in south Wales (including west Wales but excluding Cardiff airport) the National Strike Force seized 180,000 cigarettes but no criminal cash.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the(a) Home Office, (b) Secretary of State for Wales and (c) Welsh Assembly regarding removal of permanent front-line anti-smuggling customs officers from (i) Chester, (ii) Swansea and (iii) Pembroke ports; and if he will make a statement. [126320]

  John Healey
  Following the announcement of Customs and Excise's modernisation plans in March, I informed the Home Secretary and wrote to the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales; Customs wrote to Dyfed-Powys police force and to South Wales police force. Customs officials have also discussed their plans with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the UK's gross receipts from the EU Budget were in 2002. [126496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of the United Kingdom's public sector receipts from the EC Budget in 2002 can be found in Table 3 (page 40) of the annual White Paper "European Community Finances" (Cm 5800, ISBN 0–10–158002–9) which was published on 30 April.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to make his assessment of the effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; who will conduct that review; and when the review is expected to be completed. [126655]

  Mr. Boateng
  No decisions have yet been taken in this matter.

  Gift Aid
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue which would be lost if the Gift Aid declaration was replaced by allowing all personal donations to charities to be free of tax; and if he will make a statement. [124909]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Gift Aid scheme allows charities to reclaim basic rate tax paid on donations made to them. The donor must give a declaration that they have paid income or capital gains tax at least equal to the amount which the charity will reclaim. If the requirement for the donor to give a declaration and to have paid sufficient tax on the donation were removed and charities simply claimed the equivalent of basic rate tax on all personal donations, the additional cost to the Exchequer is estimated at about £1 billion.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the transparency 460W
  of (a) World Bank and (b) IMF decisions about countries coming olf track with the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [125815]

  John Healey
  The UK continues to be at the forefront of promoting transparency at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. We strongly support country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and have continually supported the publication of country programme documents and HIPC documents. We have also supported the publication of specific information on the status of all HIPC country cases and PRSPs which is now regularly provided in the context of meetings of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) and Development Committee.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prenitice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Inland Revenue obtains accurate declarations from employees of that part of their taxable income derived from the sale of gifts from their employer given to them as an employment benefit. [126743]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employees are taxable on the value of benefits or gifts they receive from their employer, regardless of whether they subsequently retain or sell them. Employers are obliged in law to report to the Inland Revenue the value of gifts and benefits they provide to employees, in order that these may be properly taxed.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what positions have been held since January 2000 by(a) Mr. Graham Dean, former Inland Revenue Officer in the International Division and (b) Mr. Robert Fudge, former Inland Revenue Officer in the Special Compliance Office. [124954]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be inappropriate to disclose information relating to members of the staff of the Inland Revenue. Exemption 8 (Public employment, public appointments and honours) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies. I have, however, written in the last few days to the hon. Member about the matter which is of concern to him.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [126200]

  John Healey
  The Treasury has not outsourced any IT contracts since 1997.

  The Inland Revenue (IR) has one outsourced contract which has been awarded since 1997. The NIRS2 contract was signed by the DSS in 1997 but subsequently transfered to the IR in 1999, following the transfer of the Contributions Agency. Over the lifetime

  461W
  of the contract its value has been £200 million. The contract is with Accenture. The contract has been renegotiated during the period, and is still in place.

  HM Customs and Excise has let two outsourced IT contracts since 1997. One contract was awarded to Fujitsu C and E Services Ltd., under the Private Finance Initiative in 1999 for 10 years. The contract is for the provision of an outsourced IT and telephony infrastructure. The advertised value of this contract was £500; million. This contract is currently being reviewed under the existing contract change provision, with Fujitsu C and E Services Ltd. The other outsourced IT contract let by Customs in 2000 is with Syntegra. This contract is for the provision of processing import and export freight, which facilitates the collection of duty revenues. The value of this contract is estimated as £53 millionover five years. This contract has not been renegotiated.

  IT Licences
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he spent on IT licences in the last financial year. [125776]

  John Healey
  The following table gives the amount spent by the Chancellor's Departments and their agencies on IT licences during the 2002–03 financial year, with the exception of OGC Buying Solutions, for which the information requested is not available.

  Chancellor's Departments/Agencies

  £

  Debt Management Office

  500,000

  Government Actuary's Department

  88,595

  HM Customs & Excise

  4,037,419

  HM Treasury

  377,708

  Inland Revenue

  15,840,000

  National Savings

  93,000

  Office of Government Commerce

  145,485

  Office of National Statistics

  4,661,000

  Royal Mint

  178,560

  Valuation Office

  1,237,556

  IT Projects
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 he authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125720]

  John Healey
  The information is today being placed in the Library.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in the manufacturing sector in(a) 1979, (b) 1997 and (c) 2003; and what percentage of the workforce this represents in each case. [126862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 17 July 2003:
  462W
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about how many people were employed in the manufacturing sector in (a) 1979, (b) 1997 and (c) 2003; and what percentage of the workforce this represents in each case. (126862)
  The table below shows the number of workforce jobs in the manufacturing sector in March for the specified years.

  UK workforce jobs by industry

  Thousand (seasonally adjusted)

  Manufacturing (Section D)

  Percentage of workforce

  1979

  7,104

  26.4

  1997

  4,456

  16.0

  2003

  3,781

  12.8

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs, Data on self-employment are obtained from the Labour Force Survey.

  Redundancy Pay
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to review the tax threshold for redundancy pay; and if he will make a statement. [126274]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the £30,000 tax exemption limit for redundancy payments under review along with all other aspects of the tax system.

  Special Shares
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 867W, in which companies the Government holds special shares; what the value is of those special shares; and which departments are responsible for them. [125849]

  Mr. Boateng
  Responsibility for individual special shares lies with the relevant Secretary of State, as set out in the table. It is not possible to estimate the value of these shareholdings, which are not tradable.

  Company

  Secretary of State

  Rosyth Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  Defence

  Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  Defence

  QinetiQ Holdings Ltd.

  Defence

  BAES (Marine) Ltd.

  Defence

  AWE plc

  Defence

  BAE Systems plc

  Trade and Industry

  Rolls Royce plc

  Trade and Industry

  British Energy plc

  Trade and Industry/Scotland

  UK Nirex Ltd.

  Trade and Industry

  Consignia Holdings plc

  Trade and Industry

  National Grid Transco plc

  Trade and Industry

  Scottish Power plc

  Scotland

  Scottish & Southern Energy plc

  Scotland

  Viridian Group plc

  Northern Ireland

  Phoenix Natural Gas Ltd.

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast International Airport Ltd.

  Northern Ireland

  British Airport Authority plc

  Transport

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.

  Transport

  London and Continental Railways Ltd.

  Transport

  Eurostar Ltd.

  Transport

  Intercapita & Regional Rail Ltd.

  Transport

  Stena Line plc

  Transport

  CDC Group plc

  DfiD

  Partnerships UK Ltd.

  Treasury

  Troika Ltd.

  Treasury

  463W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for disposing of the Government's golden shares. [125832]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government hold special shares in 25 companies. Of these companies, HM Treasury is responsible for special shares in Troika Ltd. and Partnerships UK Ltd. Each Department responsible for individual special shares is examining the ECJ's judgments carefully, to ensure that its special shares comply with EC law and continue to be in the public interest. The outcome will depend on the detail of each individual special share.

  Strokes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died from(a) strokes and (b) stroke-related diseases in each year since 1997, broken down by age group. [126506]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow dated July 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people died from (a) strokes and (b) stroke-related diseases each year since 1997, broken down by age group. (126506)
  I refer you to the answer given in Hansard on 18th July 2001, column 213 to Linda Perham MP indicating that figures are to be found in the annual reference volumes 'Mortality Statistics: Cause DH2.' The latest publication in this series contains figures for stroke for 2001 and is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_28/DH2No28.pdf
  Causes of death in England and Wales were coded to the Ninth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) from 1979 to 2000. Cerebrovascular diseases, which includes stroke and related conditions, were coded to 430–438. In the Tenth Revision (ICD-10), introduced in 2001, the same conditions are coded to 160–169. However, the way in which the underlying cause of death is selected from the conditions written on the certificate changed in ICD-10. This led to an increase of approximately 13% in the number of deaths attributed to cerebrovascular diseases in men and 9% in women. Time trends should therefore be interpreted with caution. The effects of the change in classification has been described in detail in ONS publications.1,2
  1 Office for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge-coding study, England and Wales,1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14 (2002), 75–83.
  2 Rooney C, Griffiths C, Cook L. The implementation of ICD-10 for cause of death coding—some preliminary results from the bridge coding study. Health Statistics Quarterly 13 (2002), 31–41.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many requests for(a) compensation, (b) back costs and (c) compensation for worry and distress due to mishandling of child and working tax credit applications have been received in each of the last six months; of that number how many have been paid; and how much the average award was. [126389]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to what I said during the debate in the House on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 860.
  464W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 746W, on child/working tax credit, whether the statistics on awards in August will be broken down by (a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [119731]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following earlier statements on this subject, I can update: the House to say that statistics on child and working tax credit awards will be published on 10 September. This will include estimates for each local authority and parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the average claim for(a) the child tax credit and (b) the working tax credit is expected to be worth in the current financial year. [119920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on average awards will be published after the end of the tax year, when awards have been finalised.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance has been given to officers on settlement of arrears in payment of working tax credits. [115804]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As soon as a claim has been processed and a decision made, any arrears payable are generally paid immediately in one lump sum. Where for any reason this does not happen automatically, claimants should contact the Inland Revenue.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the numbers of outstanding claims for(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit; and how many of these were submitted before 4 April 2003. [116826]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a single application form for the two tax credits. As I said in the adjournment debate on 7 July, the Inland Revenue has now put in payment claims from more than 4.25 million families. There were also a further 186,000 claims where the further information was required or were being verified (sixty per cent, of which have arrived since 1 June 2003).

  I also stated before the Treasury Select Committee on 2 July 2003 that 130,000 claims had been rejected because the claimants were ineligible or because the necessary information had not been supplied despite requests to do so.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what penalties are enforceable against the provider of computer equipment to implement the change in the system of tax credits. [118315]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have asked the Inland Revenue to open discussion with the IT contractor on the question of redress. The contract provides that the Inland Revenue can seek redress to recover additional business costs which are attributable to the failings of the IT services.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many claims for emergency interim payments relating to child tax credit applications have been made; and of that number how many have been paid; and what the(a) average and (b) total value of those payments is; [122696]
  465W
  (2) how many claims for emergency interim payments relating to tax credits have been made in each of the last 12 months; how many have been paid; and what the (a) average and (b) total value is of those payments. [123021]

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many claims for emergency interim payments relating to tax credits have been made in each of the last 12 months; how many have been paid; and what the(a) average and (b) total value is of those payments, broken down by region; [124527]

  (2) how many claims for emergency interim payments relating to child tax credit applications have been made; of that number how many have been paid; and what the (a) average and (b) total value of those payments is, broken down by region. [124528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of individual same day interim payments made through local offices to claimants of child tax credit (CTC) and working tax credit (WTC) in each month is shown in the following table. Also shown is the number of automatic direct payments made centrally to these claimants in each month.

  2003

  Number of same day interim payments made through local offices

  Number of automatic direct payments made centrally (million)

  April

  25,000

  8.5

  May

  175,000

  9

  June

  75,000

  9.5

  Total to June

  275,000

  27

  The interim payments cover both CTC and WTC, where appropriate, so no separate figures are available for CTC.

  Very few similar payments were made for working families' and disabled person's tax credits from July 2002.

  No figures are available for the average or total value of these payments, or for the number of claims for such payments that have been refused.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue will pay compensation for(a) bank charges and (b) mortgage penalty payments incurred as a result of the late or nonpayment of tax credits. [125195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to what I said during the debate in the House on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 860.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where a person is owed tax credit back-payments, what mechanism there is for paying it in one lump sum rather than in weekly instalments; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that all eligible claims are paid arrears in a lump sum. [125478]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer over what period of time and at what intervals backdated child tax credit awards will be paid; and if he will make a statement. [126386]
  466W
  Dawn Primarolo
  As soon as a claim has been processed and a decision made, any arrears payable are generally paid immediately in one lump sum. Where for any reason this does not happen automatically, claimants should contact the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons in the Wansbeck constituency are in receipt of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit; and how many claims are waiting to be processed. [126724]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published. For progress in processing claims, I refer my hon. Friend to my remarks during the debate on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 859. Breakdowns by constituency of the figures that I gave are not available.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters to the Inland Revenue from right hon. and hon. Members about working families tax credit applications are awaiting a reply. [123368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 30 June 2003 there were 35 letters from right hon. and hon. Members to the Inland Revenue about working families tax credit applications that were awaiting a reply.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide extra resources to help the Inland Revenue in responding to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members about working families tax credit applications. [123369]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Extra resources are not required to help the Inland Revenue to respond to letters from right hon. and hon. Members about working families tax credit applications.

  Tax Revenues
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the extra revenue generated through taxation on those people who will work until the age of 70 in the next 10 years. [125145]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Total income tax paid by people aged 65–69 with employment and self-employment income is estimated to be £1.8 billion in 2003–04. The Government will monitor the changing working patterns of older people as part of its on-going work on pensions.

  VAT Rebates (Places of Worship)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost was in 2002–03 of administering grants provided under the scheme providing rebates on VAT paid in respect of repairs to places of worship listed as being of architectural significance; and what the value of grants awarded in 2002–03 was; [126186]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on listed buildings which are not places of worship but which are in need of repair of his policy of providing grants equal to VAT paid only in respect of places of worship. [126187]
  467W
  John Healey
  It is the Government's long-term objective to reduce the rate of VAT charged on repairs to listed places of worship from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. However, as this change is not permitted under current EU rules, the Commission has agreed to look at UK proposals to amend the VAT rules when the reduced rate provisions are reviewed this year. The listed places of worship grant scheme has been introduced in the interim to award grants equivalent to the savings that would result from a reduced VAT rate.

  The total costs of the scheme are published on a routine basis in the annual report of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That Department monitors the administration of the scheme to ensure value for money is given at all times, and monitors the impact of the scheme to ensure it is working effectively. There is no evidence that the scheme has had any impact on other listed properties.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126607]

  John Healey
  Seventy-nine.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Lay Magistrates (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he plans to proceed with the appointment of lay magistrates in Northern Ireland. [125549]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is intended to establish the new office of lay magistrate by September 2004. This will necessitate an extensive recruitment campaign with the post of lay magistrate being advertised later this year.

  Private Bailiffs
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what regulations govern the capacity of a private bailiff forcibly to enter a domicile; and when they were last amended; [126949]

  (2) what legislation applies to the governance of bailiffs and private law enforcement agents; and what rights and privileges are afforded to bailiffs in the execution of their duties. [126951]

  Mr. Lammy
  In March of this year the Government published the White Paper "Effective Enforcement" (Cm 5744) in which it set out its conclusions on the law governing bailiffs, including rights of forcible entry.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Government have to introduce legislation on bailiffs. [126952]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government will introduce legislation when Parliamentary time allows.
  468W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding privately contracted bailiffs. [126953]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since April 2002, my Department has received 15 items of correspondence on the subject of bailiffs in the context of the Civil Enforcement Review. There has also been one Parliamentary Question on this issue in that time.

  In addition, the Department received 84 responses to the Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement", which was issued in July 2001. The Department published these responses to consultation in April 2002.

  The Department has also received 15 responses to the White Paper "Effective Enforcement", published in March 2003, on bailiff related issues. These responses are being analysed.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps are taken by his Department to(a) monitor and (b) enforce standards within the bailiff industry. [126954]

  Mr. Lammy
  Enforcement arrangements are fragmented, with some firms and individuals working outside of any recognised structures. This is not satisfactory and we are working with the industry to gather evidence of the number and nature of complaints to help guide the future regulation of enforcement agents.

  In May 2002 we published "National Standards for Enforcement Agents". The objective was to raise the standards of the enforcement profession nationally by building on and improving existing guidance and best practice. The standards are intended for the use of all enforcement agents, both public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them and the major creditors who use their services. This is a step towards future legislation and regulation.

  A White Paper "Effective Enforcement" was issued in March 2003. It proposes a regulatory system, a single piece of law and fairer fee structure for all enforcement agents.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what licensing procedures there are for(a) bailiffs and (b) private law enforcement agents. [126955]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are currently no licensing procedures for bailiffs and private law enforcement agents. We set out the current structures in our Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement" issued in July 2001. This included:

  County court bailiffs

  Certificated bailiffs

  Private bailiffs

  Distrainors

  Sheriffs

  Civilian Enforcement Officers; and

  Approved Enforcement Agencies.

  469W
  The White Paper "Effective Enforcement" published in March 2003 proposes a regulation of all public and private sector enforcement services across all areas of warrant enforcement which will include a licensing procedure.

  Catherine Meyer
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to make representations to the Chief Justice of Germany concerning the case of Catherine Meyer. [125527]

  Mr. Lammy
  None.

  Constitutional Affairs Department
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list his Department's responsibilities for Scotland. [122515]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 391W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) where the Department of Constitutional Affairs will be housed; who will have responsibility within his Department for(a) constitutional matters, (b) Scottish matters, (c) Welsh matters and (d) matters relating to human rights; and when he intends to publish the list of ministerial responsibilities; [122702]

  (2) whether the (a) Scotland and (b) Wales Offices will be housed in the same building as the Department of Constitutional Affairs. [122747]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 391W; and to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 1 July 2003, Official Report, column 255W, regarding housing of the Department.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the relationship between(a) Constitutional Affairs, (b) Scotland Office and (c) Wales Office will be with regard to staffing and personnel matters. [122748]

  Mr. Leslie
  Staffing matters are the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). There are 49 civil servants currently in post in the Wales Office and a total of 115 in the Scotland Office, of which 33 are staff of the Advocate-General for Scotland. They are all on loan or secondment principally from the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive respectively. Staff will be offered the options of transferring to DCA, remaining on secondment or loan or returning to their parent department or organisation in due course. Line management arrangements for these staff will not be affected by the new arrangements and, whilst we would generally expect DCA personnel policies to apply to staff transferring to my Department, this will depend on individual terms of employment. I also hope that all staff working within the DCA may find it beneficial to work within a wider corporate headquarters environment.
  470W
  I expect that the Wales and Scotland Offices will continue to include a significant number of staff on secondment from the devolved administrations.

  Darmesh and Rashik Jamiet
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the case of Darmesh (date of birth 27 February 1973) and Rashik (8 December 1977) Jamiet under Ref MP2777 was received in the Lord Chancellor's Department from the Appeal Processing Centre. [125526]

  Mr. Lammy
  This case has not yet been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). However, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Appeals Processing Centre has advised us, that it was sent to the IAA on 11 July 2003.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department in each of the past five years. [120833]

  Mr. Lammy
  Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the Member States, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable.

  The number of regulations originating from the EU, in which the former Lord Chancellor's Department had the lead, which have come into force in the last five years is as follows:

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  0

  2001

  2

  2002

  2

  Additionally, Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001, which came partially into force on 1 July 2001, will come fully into force on 1 January 2004.

  Joint Guarantors
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will take measures to ensure that no guarantor of a joint and several personal guarantee is able to default; and if he will make a statement. [124494]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no plans to introduce such measures. There is existing case law regulating the relationship between creditors, debtors and their guarantors. The House of Lords has ruled that banks (or a creditor in the same position) should inquire into the status and competence of an individual as guarantor. This is particularly so when the individual is guaranteeing the debts of their spouse or partner. This case applied to a single guarantee, but the principle would extend to joint guarantees.

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what limits will be placed on the members of the Judicial Appointments Commission in discussing individual cases with ministers. [126747]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 14 July 2003, the Government published a consultation paper entitled Constitutional Reform: A New Way of Appointing Judges. The paper seeks views on proposals for the establishment of the new Judicial Appointments Commission. Under the Government's preferred model, the Commission would take responsibility for the entire appointments process prior to the appointment itself. Ministers would not take any part in that process. Under this model, the Commission would generally put forward only one name to the Secretary of State for each appointment. The Secretary of State would either accept that recommendation and make the appointment (or pass the recommendation to the Prime Minister or The Queen as appropriate) or formally reject that recommendation and require another to be put forward. The preferred model is described in more detail in paragraphs 42–48 and 52 of the consultation paper (available in the Members' Library and on the internet at www.dca.gov.uk/consult/iacommission).

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the decisions of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Secretary of State in respect of judicial appointments will be subject to judicial review. [126749]

  Mr. Leslie
  The decisions of public authorities are generally susceptible to judicial review, applying the ordinary principles of public administrative law. It is for the courts to decide whether to admit an application in any particular case.

  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he had with the governing authorities of(a) Anguilla, (b) Bermuda, (c) the British Virgin Islands, (d) Cayman Islands, (e) Falkland Islands, (f) Gibraltar, (g) Montserrat, (h) St. Helena, (i) the Turks and Caicos Islands, (j) the Isle of Man, (k) Jersey (l) Guernsey,(m) New Zealand, (n) Antigua and Barbuda, (o) Bahamas, (p) Barbados, (q) Belize, (r) Dominica, (s) Grenada, (t) Jamaica, (u) St. Christopher and Nevis, (v) Saint Lucia, (w) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, (x) Trinidad and Tobago, (y) Kiribati, (z) Tuvalu and (aa) Mauritius on plans to change the legal responsibilities of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a court of appeal. [126772]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. The Government are proposing no changes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to its status as a court of appeal for the jurisdictions listed in the question. In that capacity, it is acting as a court of appeal for independent jurisdictions. It does not belong to the UK alone. Instead of the Law Lords being appointed to the Judicial Committee, the members of the Supreme Court 472W
  would be so appointed. The right of other senior judges who are Privy Counsellors to sit on the Judicial Committee would remain untouched.

  Law Society
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the intervention of the Law Society in its role as regulator of(a) sole practitioner solicitors and (b) legal firms. [126241]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Law Society is responsible for the regulation of solicitors. Its Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has an Investigation and Enforcement Department, which deals with alleged fraud and serious misconduct which may lead to intervention in the firms concerned. The Government have made no assessment of the Society's interventions into sole practitioners or other solicitors' firms.

  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders his Department(a) enforced overseas and (b) received notification of from overseas and enforced in the UK, in each of the last five years, broken down by state. [125667]

  Mr. Lammy
  England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland work under devolved powers to establish jurisdiction in the UK and deal with applications from abroad. The numbers for each are listed in the tables.

  Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Incoming Applications from non-UK Jurisdictions to England and Wales

  Australia

  45

  8

  69

  42

  6

  22

  Austria

  5

  1

  1

  Barbados

  1

  Belgium

  4

  2

  5

  Brazil

  1

  Canada

  43

  15

  43

  45

  37

  20

  Cyprus

  1

  2

  2

  Czech Republic

  1

  2

  Denmark

  1

  1

  Estonia

  1

  Finland

  5

  7

  6

  5

  4

  France

  13

  1

  8

  5

  2

  Germany

  29

  1

  20

  18

  12

  12

  Gibraltar

  1

  1

  Guatemala

  1

  Guernsey

  1

  1

  Hong Kong

  2

  Hungary

  1

  India

  1

  1

  Ireland

  84

  6

  100

  47

  67

  44

  Isle of Man

  9

  14

  13

  14

  8

  Israel

  1

  Italy

  1

  1

  1

  Jamaica

  1

  5

  3

  1

  1

  Jersey

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Macedonia

  1

  Mexico

  1

  1

  Netherlands

  4

  1

  14

  11

  7

  8

  New Zealand

  3

  2

  4

  Norway

  37

  19

  42

  33

  22

  2

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  Poland

  14

  16

  18

  29

  37

  22

  Portugal

  5

  1

  5

  2

  Romania

  1

  Singapore

  1

  1

  1

  Slovakia

  1

  473W

  Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Slovenia

  1

  South Africa

  36

  24

  68

  29

  43

  16

  Spain

  1

  Sweden

  15

  69

  58

  71

  63

  32

  Switzerland

  3

  4

  5

  1

  Turkey

  1

  1

  Uganda

  1

  United States

  73

  31

  118

  106

  113

  51

  Yugoslavia

  1

  3

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Outgoing Applications from England and Wales to non-UK Jurisdictions

  Australia

  11

  5

  18

  14

  16

  7

  Barbados

  1

  Belgium

  1

  Bermuda

  1

  Botswana

  1

  Brazil

  1

  1

  Canada

  5

  12

  4

  3

  4

  7

  Cayman Islands

  1

  Cyprus

  4

  1

  Denmark

  1

  France

  6

  1

  4

  4

  4

  7

  Germany

  10

  3

  11

  7

  5

  5

  Gibraltar

  1

  Greece

  1

  2

  1

  Guernsey

  1

  1

  3

  1

  Hong Kong

  4

  2

  Ireland

  5

  1

  9

  11

  14

  8

  Isle of Man

  2

  4

  3

  2

  Israel

  2

  Italy

  4

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Jersey

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Kenya

  1

  1

  Luxembourg

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  Malta

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Mauritius

  1

  Netherlands

  5

  9

  4

  New Zealand

  9

  2

  6

  4

  5

  6

  Nigeria

  1

  Philippines

  1

  1

  Poland

  1

  Portugal

  3

  1

  2

  1

  Seychelles

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  Singapore

  2

  2

  1

  South Africa

  4

  4

  6

  5

  2

  1

  Spain

  5

  7

  5

  5

  10

  Sweden

  6

  1

  Switzerland

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  1

  Turkey

  1

  United States

  23

  33

  32

  36

  30

  20

  Incoming Applications from non-UK Jurisdictions to Scotland

  Australia

  4

  8

  1

  2

  3

  5

  Austria

  1

  Barbados

  Bermuda

  1

  Brazil

  Canada

  4

  5

  5

  6

  4

  5

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  1

  1

  Finland

  1

  France

  Germany

  1

  7

  Gibraltar

  Hong Kong

  1

  India

  1

  Ireland

  2

  8

  7

  3

  2

  Isle of Man

  1

  1

  Italy

  Kenya

  Netherlands

  1

  1

  3

  3

  New Zealand

  1

  Norway

  5

  8

  6

  4

  4

  Philippines

  Poland

  3

  1

  Portugal

  1

  Singapore

  474W

  Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  South Africa

  4

  5

  2

  3

  2

  Spain

  Sweden

  3

  3

  4

  5

  2

  Switzerland

  1

  United States

  1

  3

  9

  3

  9

  3

  Outgoing Applications from Scotland to non-UK Jurisdictions

  Australia

  2

  6

  3

  0

  1

  1

  Austria

  Barbados

  1

  Bermuda

  Brazil

  1

  Canada

  3

  2

  1

  Cyprus

  1

  Denmark

  1

  1

  Finland

  France

  3

  1

  Germany

  3

  2

  1

  Gibraltar

  1

  Hong Kong

  1

  India

  Ireland

  2

  1

  1

  Isle of Man

  Italy

  1

  2

  Kenya

  1

  Netherlands

  2

  New Zealand

  2

  1

  Norway

  Philippines

  1

  Poland

  Portugal

  Singapore

  3

  South Africa

  1

  1

  Spain

  3

  Sweden

  1

  Switzerland

  2

  United States

  5

  4

  6

  4

  6

  7

  Incoming Applications from non-UK Jurisdictions to Northern Ireland

  Australia

  1

  1

  Canada

  1

  1

  2

  Cyprus

  1

  Finland

  1

  Germany

  1

  1

  1

  Ireland

  1

  6

  7

  3

  5

  3

  Isle of Man

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Netherlands

  1

  Norway

  1

  South Africa

  1

  Sweden

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  United States

  2

  1

  3

  2

  5

  Outgoing Applications from Northern Ireland to non-UK Jurisdictions

  Ireland

  1

  3

  Isle of Man

  1

  Netherlands

  1

  Sweden

  1

  1 2003 figures to June 30 only.

  Marianna Hildyard
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, when Marianna Hildyard was invited to become a QC. [152181]

  Mr. Leslie
  Marianna Hildyard applied for appointment as a QC in the 2002 Silk round and was appointed on 9 April 2002.

  National Land Information System
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 653 W, on the National Land Information System (NLIS), what steps the Government have taken to resolve vires and

  475W
  governance issues; when the review of governance and CGSG is expected to be completed; what sources outside government deliver relevant third party land and property information via NLIS; and what steps the Government have taken in the past four years to facilitate negotiations with sources outside Government for the delivery of relevant third party information. [126637]

  Mr. Lammy
  As stated in the answer of 19 May, the governance of NLIS is not a matter for government. National Land Information Service (NLIS) is a non-statutory service operated by private companies, the Government is not aware of any vires issues affecting NLIS. The review of the CGSG is expected to be completed by October 2003. In relation to the delivery of relevant third party land and property information, it is for the relevant NLIS companies (Local Government Information House and the NLIS hub provider) to enter into agreements with data providers on such terms and conditions as they consider appropriate. Central government is not directly involved. However, the NLIS website (www.nlis.org.uk) states that NLIS obtains land and property data from Land Registry, Coal Authority, Environment Agency, local authorities, Ordnance Survey and the National Land and Property Gazetteer. Further information can also be found on the websites of the individual channel providers.

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how a UK citizen who lives abroad may register to vote as an overseas elector. [126767]

  Mr. Leslie
  A UK citizen living abroad should apply to the electoral registration officer (ERO) for the area in the UK in which (s)he was most recently registered if (s)he wishes to be included on the overseas electors' list. An application must include certain prescribed information and initially be witnessed by another UK citizen, and thereafter be renewed annually with the ERO. Once on the overseas electors' list, the elector is entitled to vote in any general or European parliamentary election that takes place in the UK for a period of 15 years from the time the elector was last included on a UK electoral register.

  Pension Data Protection
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to remove the data protection controls which restrict pension information being released to company administrators. [125209]

  Mr. Lammy
  Disclosures of personal information may be made consistently with the Data Protection Act 1998, provided that they comply with the Act's eight general principles of good information handling, or meet the terms of a "non-disclosure" exemption. The Act gives effect in UK law to the 1995 EC Data Protection Directive, which is binding on all member states of the European Union. I understand that my hon. Friend has recently written to the Department about this matter and that my noble Friend Lord Filkin, who has responsibility for this policy area, has written to him to clarify the nature of the particular problem to which he refers.

  Public Participation in Politics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Government has taken to encourage public participation in politics. [125179]

  Mr. Leslie
  This Government introduced legislation to set up the independent Electoral Commission, which has a duty to educate and inform the public about the importance of participation in the democratic process.

  The Government has also introduced, from 2002, citizenship education into the national curriculum. The programme of study includes teaching pupils about the importance of voting and participation in the democratic process which is intended to give young people sufficient knowledge to engage with the political process.

  Solicitors (Regulation)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to change the regulatory system used in relation to solicitors in the UK. [126242]

  Mr. Lammy
  We announced in July 2002 that we will undertake a review of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales. Details of the independent review will be announced soon.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the case for making the regulatory system used in relation to solicitors in the UK a fully independent body. [126243]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have made no such assessment. However, we are aware of concerns surrounding the regulation of legal services and will be announcing details soon of a review of the regulatory framework in England and Wales.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs who will be responsible for the rules of procedure of the new Supreme Court. [126745]

  Mr. Leslie
  That is a matter we will wish to consider in consultation with the present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who will form the initial members of the new Court.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124805]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since August 2001, when the current planning regulations; on mobile telecommunication masts came into force, there have been no planning applications and no applications for prior approval to site telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department and its predecessors since 29 October 2002 [126614]

  Mr. Lammy
  25 written ministerial statements have been made by my Department and its predecessor since 29 October 2002.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on United Kingdom support for a national Afghan army. [125706]

  Mr. Ingram
  While the United States is the G8 lead nation for creating the Afghan National Army (ANA), since March 2003 the United Kingdom has provided assistance by training the ANA's Junior Non-Commissioned Officers. The UK has also contributed £5million to pay for ANA salaries. Finally, the UK trained and supported the First Battalion of the Afghan National Guard until it was merged into the wider ANA training programme in January 2003.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom Provincial Reconstruction Team in the Mazar-e-Sharif region of Afghanistan will liaise with Afghan military forces acting under direct authority of the Afghan Interim Administration. [125707]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two of the roles of the Provincial Reconstruction Team are to extend the capacity of the Afghan Transitional Authority and facilitate Security Sector Reform. The Team will therefore liaise as appropriate with units of the Afghan National Army that deploy within the Team's Area of Responsibility.

  Armed Forces (Health Care)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of personnel not fit for employment and awaiting NHS treatment in(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the RAF. [118800]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The information requested is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As at January 2003, 18,338 Service personnel were medically downgraded. Some 40 per cent, of medically downgraded personnel are deployable on military operations although not at the front line, and most of the others are able to undertake some form of military duties. Only a small proportion were not employable in any capacity. The only information held centrally on the numbers of Service personnel awaiting medical treatment relates to those awaiting treatment at NHS Hospital Trusts which host the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units. As of 31 March 2003, the latest date for which figures are available, 967 Service personnel were
  478W
  awaiting in-patient treatment, 1332 were awaiting day-case treatment and 3349 were awaiting out-patient appointments.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) arms, (b) armaments and (c) military equipment sold by the UK Government in the last three years, with their destination. [123416]

  Mr. Ingram
  Individual disposals of defence property requested amount to many hundreds of sites. I will write to the hon. Member once the information has been collated and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Details of the disposal of all surplus armaments and other military equipment as requested would consist of tens of thousands of individual transactions and could only be provided a disproportionate cost. Licences issued for surplus major equipment exported on a Governments-Government basis are listed in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Reports, which are available in the Vote office and on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Army (Drug Testing)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 876W, on drugs, what investigations he has conducted to determine why specific army units have yielded relatively large numbers of positive results on compulsory drugs testing; and what steps he has taken to address the drug problem in units scoring highly on CDT. [125726]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Army has vigorous education and training programmes aimed at deterring drug misuse, and steps taken include drugs awareness lectures and regular poster campaigns to promote awareness on the dangers and consequences of the misuse of drugs. Units with high positive rates are tested more frequently, and are also likely to be given a Drug Awareness Presentation by people with first hand experience of the consequences of drug misuse in relation to Army life.

  ASRAAM
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Tornado F3 aircraft will not be fitted with Helmet Mounted Sight capability for ASRAAM. [125601]

  Mr. Ingram
  Fitting Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) to Tornado F3 to operate the Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) could not be achieved before 2005. Carrying out the required integration work would disrupt the aircraft's operational availability until then. Tornado F3 is expected to retire from service by 2009. It would not, therefore, be cost-effective to fit HMS to Tornado F3 to operate ASRAAM.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the capability improvement of ASRAAM over the AIM9M and AIM9L Sidewinder missiles. [125602]
  479W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) provides a significant overall improvement in capability to that provided by AIM9 missiles. In particular, ASRAAM flies faster and further and is more agile than AIM9 missiles, enhancing the Royal Air Force's ability to engage enemy aircraft. ASRAAM also demonstrates greater counter-measures performance, greater lethality and better target acquisition than AIM9 missiles. These are all key factors in enabling our pilots to achieve air superiority, not only now, but also against all known emerging threats.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason Tornado F3 aircraft have not received an AMRAAM datalink upgrade as part of the Capability Sustainment programme. [125603]

  Mr. Ingram
  Tornado F3 aircraft are receiving a datalink upgrade as part of the ongoing AMRAAM Optimisation Programme. This programme remains on track to complete on schedule in 2004.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Jaguar GR3A has been wired for ASRAAM; and what plans he has for the Jaguar GR3A to be equipped with ASRAAM. [125604]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) is compatible with the wiring in Jaguar GR3A. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 653W to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Typhoon will be capable of delivering(a) Storm Shadow, (b) Precision Guided bombs, (c) ALARM, (d) Brimstone, (e) unguided bombs and (f) cluster bombs in operations. [125614]

  Mr. Ingram
  When Typhoon becomes available for operational deployment in the second half of this decade it will be equipped primarily to carry out air defence sorties but will also have a limited ground attack capability. On current plans, Typhoon will be capable of delivering both ALARM and unguided bombs at that stage. Subsequent incremental operational enhancements will develop Typhoon into a truly multi-role weapon system. The content and timing of these enhancements are the subject of ongoing negotiations with industry and partner nations. Our aim, however, is for a fully enhanced multi-role Typhoon to become available for operations early in the next decade. We have no plans for cluster bombs to be fitted to Typhoon.

  Bowman System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units will be equipped with the Bowman system when it first enters service; and when Bowman will be ready for operational deployment. [125619]

  Mr. Ingram
  12 Mechanised Brigade HQ and Signals Squadron, 1st Bn The Royal Anglian Regiment and 1st Bn The Coldstream Guards, are scheduled to be equipped with Bowman by the target In-Service Date of 30 March 2004. Following that date, they would be capable of engaging in operations other than war.
  480W
  The remaining units of 12 Mechanised Brigade and its associated Divisional troops will be progressively equipped and trained to operate and support Bowman. 12 Mechanised Brigade will be ready for war fighting operational readiness when it has completed operational training and is declared as being at "High Readiness". Target date is June 2005.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Territorial Army personnel have received training on Challenger 2 in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [126141]

  Mr. Caplin
  A total of 330 Territorial Army personnel from The Royal Yeomanry, The Royal Wessex Yeomanry and The Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry have been trained as gunners, loaders, and instructors on Challenger 2 in the past two years.

  Chocolate
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons his Department(a) ended its order for chocolate with Duncans of Scotland and (b) placed the order with Nestlé; [126326]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence ended its order for chocolate with Duncans of Scotland and placed the order instead with Nestlé UK Ltd. on grounds of quality and cost.

  Cluster Munitions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of using cluster munitions in the war in(a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan. [125088]

  Mr. Ingram
  No cluster munitions were used by United Kingdom forces in Afghanistan. The cost of munitions consumed in Iraq in 2002–03 is being calculated. Once it has been audited and approved by the National Audit Office I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list category A projects awarded in the last three years where US companies and the UK subsidiaries of US companies were sub-contractors receiving contracts in excess of £100 million. [126115]

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

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of defence and defence-related(a) imports from and (b) exports to the United States of America was in the last three years for which figures are available. [126113]

  Mr. Ingram
  The value of goods exported to individual countries is published in the Government's annual report on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of these reports, the
  481W
  most recent covering 2002, are available from the Library of the House and via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website www.fco.gov.uk.

  The values of defence imports into the United Kingdom from the USA are as follows:

  Current prices (£ million)

  1999

  660

  2000

  838

  2001

  1,474

  Data for imports during 2002 is not yet available.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list category A projects and their approximate values awarded in the last three years to US companies and the UK subsidiaries of US companies. [126114]

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

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on(a) the front line and (b) procurement in current prices; in each year since 1999–2000; and what his plans are for each year until 2005–06. [125589]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is published in The Government's Expenditure Plans 2003–04 to 2005–06. Tables two and three contain details of the Ministry of Defence's resource consumption and capital expenditure broken down into categories, which include Front Line and Procurement. These tables detail outturn for 1999–2000 to 2002–03 (estimated) and plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 at outturn prices. These figures can be re-based to constant prices using the factors available from the HM Treasury website,

  A copy of The Government's Expenditure Plans 2003–04 to 2005–06 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts(a) initiated and (b) changed by the Defence Logistics Organisation within (i) one week, (ii) two weeks and (iii) one month of the (A) deployment of troops and (B) commencement of hostilities for Operation Telic. [122045]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) places a large number of contracts on a daily basis in support of a wide spectrum of operational and non-operational requirements. The DLO does not maintain a central record of all contracts, and production of a list of contracts initiated or changed during the periods specified could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Urgent Operational Requirements placed by the Defence Logistics Organisation within(a) one week, (b) two weeks and (c) one month of the commencement of (i) Operation Telic and (ii) the hostilities in Afghanistan. [122046]
  482W
  Mr. Ingram
  No Urgent Operational Requirements were placed by the Defence Logistics Organisation over the periods of the operations stated.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what value of drugs has been confiscated in operations involving Royal Navy warships in each of the past two years. [126139]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy warships provide assistance to HM Customs and Excise and other anti-narcotics agencies resulting in the seizure of drugs worth some £40 million in 2001–02 and some £110 million in 2002–03. So far in 2003–04 drugs worth approximately £500 million have been seized.

  Drummore Harbour
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accessibility of Drummore harbour to seacraft. [125735]

  Mr. Caplin
  The accessibility of Drummore Harbour is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106841]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his department over each of the last five years. [120854]

  Mr. Caplin
  EU Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for implementation in national law.

  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary gave on 30 June 2003, Official Report, columns 64–65W, to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

  Many regulations apply across many different Whitehall Departments. Information relating to implementation of regulations is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his letter D/S of S/GH 3295/03/Y, what progress has been made on interoperability with the United States in relation to the Galileo Project. [126269]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations continue between the European Union and the United States on the interoperability of the Galileo satellite navigation system and the US Global Positioning System.

  Gulf War Illnesses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his letter D/US of S/IC 3139/03/6, what the most recent results of his longitudinal studies into tracking Gulf War illnesses are. [126268]
  483W
  Mr. Caplin
  As part of our portfolio of research into the ill-health suffered by some United Kingdom veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict, we funded a long term study of the changing health over a three-year period of a cohort of veterans of that conflict. The study is complete and the results are to be published in a scientific journal following peer-review. In May, we announced plans for research into the physical and psychological health of those who deployed to the Middle East on Operation Telic on 7 May 2003,Official Report, columns 34–36WS. This includes initiating a longitudinal study of veterans, the results of which will be published in the peer reviewed scientific literature when available.

  Hermitage Site
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Ministry of Defence site at Hermitage, Berkshire. [126376]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence is undertaking a study to examine the operational benefits of reducing the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency (DGIA) estate from three principal sites to two. One of the Business Units of DGIA is the Geographic Engineer Group (GEG), which is located at Hermitage, near Newbury in Berkshire. Initially, the study will consider the operational benefits of moving the GEG from Hermitage to RAF Brampton, Cambridgeshire, where it would be co-located with another DGIA Business Unit, the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC). If it is concluded that there are operational benefits, the feasibility of undertaking co-location will be assessed in the second phase of the study. The study is expected to be completed by the end of February 2004.

  The MOD regularly conducts such studies, with a view to improving operational effectiveness and value for money. There will be full consultation with all people potentially affected by the outcome of the study. No decisions on a move have been made and options for the use of the Hermitage site, should the current occupants move, have not yet been considered.

  HMS Bulwark
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Bulwark will be operational. [125618]

  Mr. Ingram
  On the basis of current information, it is expected that HMS Bulwark will enter service with the Royal Navy towards the end of next year and be available for operational deployment in the spring of 2005. However, the programme for completion of HMS Bulwark is yet to be finalised with the contractor, BAE Systems. When dates are confirmed, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what the status is of the Iraqi prisoners handed over to the US army by British troops. [125247]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 8 July, the United States was holding on behalf of the United Kingdom one prisoner of war and 23 internees captured by British Forces, who 484W
  are either suspected of committing criminal offences or are interned where necessary for imperative reasons of security in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries are providing troops for peacekeeping duties in Iraq. [124464]

  Mr. Hoon
  At least 18 states are expected to contribute military forces and personnel to work alongside United Kingdom and United States troops in the multi-national stabilisation force in Iraq. These states are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand and Ukraine. New Zealand will provide engineers for humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. Other nations are also expected to contribute.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training was given to Army personnel deployed on Operation Telic in respect of use of the grenade launchers for SA80A2. [125593]

  Mr. Ingram
  A specialist training team was deployed to Kuwait and Iraq, to provide in-theatre training to selected battalions on the use of the SA80 Under-slung Grenade Launcher (UGL). Some units had already received training, relating to their previous deployment to Afghanistan.

  The main focus of the team was to train unit instructors and Senior Non-commissioned Officers, who then oversaw the training of other individuals within their units. This training was accompanied by training to unit armourers on holding and maintaining the UGL and its ammunition.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when orders were placed for additional desert clothing which was required for Operation Telic. [125595]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 46W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen and women were(a) killed and (b) injured in the conflict in Iraq. [118047]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 10 July, 43 United Kingdom military personnel had died since the start of coalition military operations against Iraq. All were men. Thirty-four were killed in action or subsequently died of wounds received and nine died in non-battle accidents or from natural causes; 155 UK military personnel were injured in battle. We do not hold central records for those injured in other incidents.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of each of the friendly fire incidents involving British personnel in Iraq; what changes are planned to reduce future occurrences; and if he will make a statement. [125982]

  Mr. Ingram
  Thorough investigations are on-going into all such incidents. We will give close consideration to the reports and recommendations of these
  485W
  investigations, and where appropriate, will consider what can be done further to improve the safety of our forces on operations.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when UORs for Operation Telic were first issued. [125567]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: The Ministry of Defence began to approve urgent operational requirements as part of contingency planning for possible operations in Iraq in mid-October 2002.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when all Army personnel based in(a) Iraq and (b) Kuwait for Operation Telic had been issued with full desert kit. [125963]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when underslung grenade launchers for Operation Telic were first issued; and to which battlegroups. [125964]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: Underslung Grenade Launchers were first issued in support of Operation Telic in early April 2003 to Battle Groups within 16 Air Assault Brigade which was part of one UK Armoured Division.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Camel water bottles were first issued for Operation Telic; and what percentage of Army personnel have been issued with them. [125965]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: Army personnel are all issued water bottles as standard issue kit. In addition, 10,000 Personal Hydration Systems (PHS) were initially ordered for Operation Telic. One of the manufacturers uses "Camelbak" as the trade name for its product. The first receipt of the PHS in theatre was in early February 2003. A further 15,800 PHS have since been ordered. The majority of these have been sent to theatre, although it is not possible to determine what percentage of Army Personnel have received a personal issue of this item of equipment.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational period for the biological and chemical attack detectors on Challenger 2 tanks in Operation Telic. [125966]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank NEC filtration system. I am, however, withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists served with(a) 1 Bn Black Watch, (b) 1 Bn Royal Irish Regiment, (c) 1 Bn The Duke of Wellington's Regiment and (d) 1 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers during Operation Telic. [126099]
  486W
  Mr. Caplin
  As at 14 July 2003, the following number of reservists have served on Operation Telic with each of the battalions:

  Battalion (Bn)

  Number of reservists

  1 Bn Black Watch

  37

  1 Bn Royal Irish Regiment

  74

  1 Bn The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  0

  1 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  35

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sponsored reserves served on Operation Telic and with which units. [126100]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 16 July, a total of 94 sponsored reserves (SRs) have served on Operation Telic. This figure is broken down as follows:64 served on the Strategic Service Ships MV Eddystone, MV Hurst Point and MV Hartland Point;
  26 served with the RAFs Mobile Meteorological Unit (some have completed more than one deployment); and
  4 SERCo SRs attached to 32 Sqn RAF provided engineering support for BAe 125 aircraft.

  The use of SRs for Op Telic depends on operational requirements and they will continue to be used in response to operational needs.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Joint Strike Fighter aircraft will be allocated to the(a) Fleet Air Arm and (b) RAF if the current requirement stands at 150 aircraft; and which squadrons will operate the aircraft. [125598]

  Mr. Ingram
  We intend that a joint force, comprising personnel from both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, will operate the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The way in which this force will be configured will be determined closer to JSF's planned in-Service date, which is 2012.

  Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an initial gate announcement on the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control programme. [125600]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are continuing to refine plans for the MASC programme. Further details will be released in due course.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make service personnel medical records fully accessible to the service person concerned and his or her medical advisors; and if he will make a statement. [120004]

  Mr. Caplin
  Serving members of the Armed Forces and ex-Service personnel are entitled to access to their medical records in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. If serving or former members of the Armed Forces want their medical records to be
  487W
  made available to third parties, such as their civilian healthcare provider or solicitor, their explicit written consent to the release of their records is required.

  Medical Treatment (Charging Arrangements)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the charging arrangement between his Department and(a) the Department of Health and (b) NHS acute trusts for the treatment of armed forces personnel. [117884]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The Ministry of Defence has Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with the NHS Hospital Trusts which host the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and the MOD Hospital Units (MDHUs). In accordance with each SLA, the host Trust pays MOD a proportion of the costs of military clinical personnel working within the Trust, and the MOD pays for the treatment of Service personnel by the Trust. The SLAs include financial incentives for the host Trust to meet waiting time targets set by my Department. A pilot scheme for fast-tracking orthopaedic cases is currently being run at MDHU Northallerton under the provisions of the SLA but at additional cost.

  Separate charging arrangements apply in respect of the Ministry of Defence's reimbursement of costs incurred by the Department of Health in support of Operation TELIC.

  Naval Air Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is for the current requirements for naval anti-air warfare capabilities; and if he will make a statement. [125592]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy's current anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities are provided by the Seadart missile on the Type 42 Destroyers and the Seawolf missile on the Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates. We are currently considering a number of projects to maintain the capability of Seawolf. The Type 45 Destroyers are expected to begin replacing the Type 42s from 2007 and will be fitted with the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS).

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which infantry regiments have served in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [125616]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Infantry Regiments have been committed to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to serve in Northern Ireland over the last five years. The list does not include those Infantry Battalions temporarily transferred from Land Command for the main marching season.
  488W

  Infantry units under GOC (NI) command 1998–2003

  The 1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards

  (June 1999 to December 1999, November 2001 to May 2002)

  The 1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards

  (September 1999 to March 2000, May 2001 to May 2003)

  The 1st Battalion, Scots Guards

  (March 1998 to April 2000, June 2001 to November 2001)

  The 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards

  (May 2003-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

  (March 1999 to September 1999, August 2000 to April 2002)

  The 2nd Battalion, The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment

  (November 1998 to May 1999, June 2002-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  (April 1997 to May 1999, December 2001 to June 2002, March 2000 to September 2000)

  The 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  (April 2003-)

  The 1st Battalion, The King's Regiment

  (March 1999 to March 2001)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment

  (May 1999 to May 2001)

  The 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment

  (November 2000 to June 2001, June 2002 to December 2002)

  The 1st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  (September 2000 to March 2001, April 2002-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Light Infantry

  (June 2000 to December 2000)

  The 2nd Battalion, The Light Infantry

  (January 1997 to March 1999, December 1999 to June 2000)

  The 1st Battalion, The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  (November 1999 to May 2000, December 2001-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Green Howards (Alexandra Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment)

  (May 1999 to November 1999, April 2002-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  (March 2001-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment

  (July 1996 to August 1998, June 1999 to December 1999, June 2002 to December 2002)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  (August 1998 to August 2000, June 2001 to December 2001)

  489W

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales

  (June 1998 to December 1998)

  The 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  (September 2001 to March 2002)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling) 83rd and 87th and the Ulster Defence Regiment)

  (June 2001 to December 2001)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  (March 1998 to September 1998, April 2000 to April 2002, December 2002 to June 2003)

  The 1st Battalion, The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  (December 1999 to December 2001, April 2003-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  (August 1997 to December 1999, March 2001 to September 2001)

  The 1st Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  (May 1998 to November 1998)

  The 1st Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)

  (December 1998 to June 1999)

  The 1st Battalion, The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons)

  (June 1998 to December 1998, June 2000 to December 2000)

  The 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

  (February 1997 to March 1999, March 2001-)

  The 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  (December 2000 to June 2001)

  The 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  (December 1998 to June 1999, December 2000 to June 2001, September 2002 to April 2003)

  The 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  (December 1999 to June 2000, December 2001 to June 2002)

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  (March 1999 to March 2001, May 2002 to November 2002)

  As well as the Infantry Regiments listed above there are also the three Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment permanently based in Northern Ireland.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 46W, on procurement, and 20 June 2003, Official Report, column 885W, on Type 23 frigates, which ships will be provided with the Sonar 2087 system; what plans he has for those which will not; and if he will make a statement. [125368]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 516W, 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 47W, and 13 May 2003, Official Report, column 159W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the savings have been achieved through(a) cancellation, (b) delay and (c) scaling back of procurement programmes in each year since 1997. [125612]
  490W
  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people serve in the Royal Irish Regiment. [125905]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 18 June 2003, there are 2,620 full-time personnel and 1,340 part-time personnel serving in the headquarters, depot, general service and home service battalions of The Royal Irish Regiment.

  RV Triton
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the trials programme of RV Triton. [126140]

  Mr. Ingram
  A comprehensive trials programme has now been completed in conjunction with the United States Government. These trials are an integral part of a research and development programme that also involves model experiments and computational analysis, and which is leading to the availability of design tools and design guidance for trimaran ships.

  Service Manning Requirement
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have taken place in each Service's manning requirement since April 1997. [125607]

  Mr. Ingram
  The trained requirements for the armed forces are as follows:

  All Services

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  1 April 1997

  205,720

  42,910

  106,360

  56,440

  1 April 1998

  201,940

  41,940

  105,770

  54,530

  1 April 1999

  199,240

  40,940

  105,270

  53,020

  1 April 2000

  198,160

  39,860

  106,400

  51,900

  1 April 2001

  198,460

  39,900

  106,970

  51,590

  1 April 2002

  196,150

  39,180

  106,970

  49,990

  1 April 2003

  195,130

  38,510

  106,980

  49,640

  1 June 2003

  194,860

  38,490

  106,730

  49,640

  Note:

  Due to founding methods, used totals may not always equal the sum of the parts.

  Services Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the recent tri-service audit of initial training; [123942]

  (2) what the estimated cost will be for (a) his Department and (b) each of the three services to implement the recommendations of the recent tri-service audit of initial training; [123943]

  (3) when all the recommendations of the recent tri-service audit of initial training will be implemented; [123944]

  (4) what funding has been allocated to implement the findings of the tri-service audit of initial training. [123945]
  491W
  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement I made on 16 July 2003,Official Report, columns 35–36WS.

  Skynet 5
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department expects to finalise the Skynet 5 contract with Paradigm; and if he will make a statement; [125570]

  (2) on what grounds his Department chose the joint bid for the Skynet 5 deal from BAE and EADS; whether the departure of BAE affected the bid; and if he will make a statement; [125508]

  (3) when the Government was first informed about BAE Systems' plan to hand its share of the Paradigm joint venture in Skynet 5 to the European Aeronautic Defence and Space group; how it was informed; how his Department was consulted about the transfer of Paradigm to EADS before the deal was made; and what the substance of such meetings was. [125507]

  Mr. Ingram
  The preferred bidder for Skynet 5 was selected because it offered the best value for money. The departure of BAES had no direct affect on the bid from Paradigm.

  Paradigm informed the Ministry of Defence of the restructuring of its shareholding in January this year. A series of meetings took place between industry representatives and senior MOD officials to ensure that there was no adverse affect to Skynet 5.

  The arrangements required to conclude the Skynet 5 deal are in the final stage. We expect to place the contract in the next few weeks.

  Smart Acquisition
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have been achieved through the Smart Acquisition initiative; and what the largest single saving is that has been achieved. [125611]

  Mr. Ingram
  Smart Acquisition is an integral part of Ministry of Defence business and it is no longer possible to attribute savings directly to Smart Acquisition.

  Sonar 2087 Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 885W, and 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 46W, if he will name the ships to be fitted with the ordered Sonar 2087 systems; what his plans are for those which are not; and if he will make a statement. [124149]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 516W, 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 47W, and 13 May 2003, Official Report, column 159W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I have nothing further to add to those answers.

  Submarine Threat
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the threat to UK forces from hostile submarine forces; and if he will make a statement. [125591]

  Mr. Ingram
  The capability to operate submarines remains a weapon system of choice for many potentially hostile nations. The potential threat to United Kingdom forces ranges from strategic missile submarines, through the nuclear or conventional submarine threats in open ocean, to the threat from smaller coastal vessels or mini-subs in littoral waters. The submarine threat is kept under constant review and the UK maintains an Anti-Submarine Warfare capability for both offensive and defensive operations.

  Aircraft Armament
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the(a) Typhoon and (b) Joint Strike Fighter will be armed with a gun. [125613]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently have no requirement for either Typhoon or Joint Strike Fighter to be armed with a gun.

  Violent Conflict
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's estimate is of the number of people affected by violent conflict in(a) 2003 and (b) 2002; and whether he expects to meet his Department's Public Service Agreement in respect of this point. [125610]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Public Service Agreement (PSA) covering this issue is; shared between Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence to reflect the Government's closely coordinated approach to improving the United Kingdom's contribution to reducing conflict overseas through the Conflict Prevention Pools for sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world. The information sources we use to derive the number of people affected by violent conflict (the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the Journal of Peace Research, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, UN High Commission for Refugees and the United States Committee for Refugees) report annually and cover the figures collated for the previous year. Therefore, we do not expect to have the details for last year before the end of 2003 and the figures for this year before the end of 2004. Overall assessment of progress; will be based on the data, but will also take account of factors beyond UK control, either in-country or within the wider international system.

  The UK is beginning to make an impact in meeting the PSA targets. Examples of important initiatives include our post-conflict reconstruction work in Afghanistan and the Balkans, our political support to the Middle East Peace Process, our direct assistance to Sierra Leone and our support to African-led peacekeeping missions in general. UK efforts through the Pools to reduce the risk of conflict also include programme and project activities further afield, such as in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. We will continue to evaluate progress and improve the effectiveness of the Pools over the coming years.

  Warships (NATO Commitment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the UK commitment is to NATO forces in terms of(a) frigates and (b) destroyers. [126097]

  Mr. Ingram
  All of the Royal Navy destroyers and frigates are available to NATO for the full range of alliance missions and make a significant contribution to NATO's standing naval forces.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Arson Attacks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what efforts are being made(a) by his Department and (b) by his Department in conjunction with other Departments to protect schools from arson attacks. [126050]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department has produced the guide Fire Safety, which includes advice on how to reduce the risks of arson attacks. This complements our guidance on reducing crime in schools, such as the booklet Improving Security in Schools and the video Can You See What They See? A school security website has been established—www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity.

  Officials from my Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and Government departments. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide How to Combat Arson in Schools, which is available free and has been well received by schools.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to(a) encourage and (b) support more people with disabilities to enter (i) teaching and (ii) other employment in education; and what discussions he has had with Scottish counterparts on this issue. [125670]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Teacher Training Agency (TTA), acting on this Department's behalf, has implemented a number of measures to encourage more people with disabilities to enter teaching and support them throughout the process. Funding has been agreed with SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, as a contribution towards updating their Into Teaching' publication which is due to be completed by 31 August 2003. The new TTA recruitment brochure will also highlight people with disabilities as a priority group that will be addressed in the content.

  The TTA is also leading the work on behalf of the Department to produce guidance to support Initial Teacher Training providers in meeting their legal responsibilities in accommodating and supporting trainees with disabilities.

  In the wider context of other employment in education, Disability Employment Advisers and other advisers in Jobcentre Plus offices are available to provide help and practical support to people with disabilities.
  494W
  In the wider context of other employment in education, Disability Employment Advisers and other advisers in Jobcentre Plus offices are available to provide help and practical support to people with disabilities.

  There have been no particular discussions on this subject with the Scottish Executive.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms. Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what services will be provided for children who are in families where there has been domestic violence. [125473]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy).

  European Credit Transfer System
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to ensure that English universities are prepared for the introduction of the European Credit Transfer System; and if he will make a statement. [124640]

  Alan Johnson
  We are keen to see widespread use of credit in England and effective systems for recognising credits across Europe. To this end, we have commissioned the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to work with key partners in Higher Education, to develop credit practice. Part of this work is to raise the awareness of institutions of the European Credit Transfer System and to encourage developments that both support students and promote compatibility between systems.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to higher education institutions in their block grants to recognise the additional costs of recruiting and supporting students from disadvantaged or non-traditional backgrounds in each year since 1997; if he will express this as a proportion of the Higher Education Funding Council for England budget; and what projections there are for such support in future years, expressed both as(a) funding sums and (b) a proportion of the HEFCE budget. [125543]

  Alan Johnson
  The table shows the funding the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has allocated for widening participation measures since 1999/2000 and the percentage this is of the total HEFCE institutional allocation. No funds for widening participation were allocated as part of block grant in 1997/98 and 1998/99.

  Widening participation funding (£)

  Percentage of total HEFCE allocation

  1999/2000

  19,874,648

  0.5

  2000/01

  31,276,261

  0.8

  2001/02

  37,016,630

  0.9

  2002/03

  47,653,002

  1.1

  2003/04

  260,501,27

  3.5

  495W
  The definition of widening participation and the funding method for determining its allocation has changed over this period so figures are not directly comparable. Institutions also receive funds for widening participation through the Excellence Challenge and Aim Higher programmes, but as these go directly to institutions they are excluded from the table. Some special funding is also allocated separately to higher education institutions for widening participation projects. This is also excluded from the table. For 2004/05 and 2005/6, the HEFCE funding as set out in the grant letter and the White paper "The future of Higher Education" will be £6,757,000,000 and £7,295,000,000 respectively. The allocation for widening participation in each of these years will be announced in February/March 2004 and 2005. This will reflect the outcome of the review of the HEFCE funding method, on which the sector will be consulted.

  King's Ford Junior School
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will provide the hon. Member for Colchester with copies of the correspondence between himself and the Chair of Governors of King's Ford Junior School, Colchester(a) prior and (b) subsequent to his visit to Colchester. [125890]

  Mr. Miliband
  I am sending a copy of previous correspondence with officials to the hon. Member. There has been no correspondence with the Chair of Governors of King's Ford Junior School since the Secretary of State visited Colchester on 9 June.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many lay inspectors are working for OFSTED in each region. [126118]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many non-British European Union students there were on(a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate courses in English universities in each of the last 10 years; and what assessment he has made of the likely trend of applications following EU enlargement in 2004. [124641]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is in the table.

  Numbers of non-British European Union students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses in English HE Institutions and FE colleges

  Academic year

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  1992/93

  20,564

  8,187

  1993/94

  25,187

  9,757

  1994/95

  32,630

  13,121

  1995/96

  42,903

  16,614

  1996/97

  49,535

  18,249

  1997/98

  55,689

  19,676

  1998/99

  57,932

  22.760

  1999/2000

  56,527

  24.369

  2000/01

  54,211

  26,316

  496W

  Numbers of non-British European Union students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses in English HE Institutions and FE colleges

  Academic year

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  2001/02

  49,513

  25,631

  Projections of applicants to English institutions are not available centrally. The Department does, however, project the number of students, EU resident or otherwise, likely to attend English institutions.

  The number of non-British, EU resident students1 attending English institutions is projected to grow by 4 per cent, from 71,000 in 2003/04 to 74,000 in 2004/05 and then by a further 5 per cent, to 77,000 in 2005/06. These projections are based on a number of assumptions including our, estimates of the impact of EU enlargement and should be treated with caution. Detailed projections for later years are not available.
  1 On a headcount basis including full and part time students on undergraduate and postgraduate courses

  Overseas Teachers
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many overseas teachers have been working in English schools in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [125917]

  (2) how many overseas teachers working in English schools have not had (a) qualified teacher status in England and (b) the equivalent of qualified teacher status in their home country in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [125918]

  (3) how many overseas teachers working in English schools have been classified as instructors in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement, [125919]

  (4) how many overseas teachers working in English schools have been classified as occasional teachers in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [125920]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on numbers of teachers with overseas qualifications is not available.

  School Funding
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much extra money his Department has provided to schools in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire to help ameliorate the effects of this year's school funding problems. [123914]

  Mr. Miliband
  The funding of schools in Chesham and Amersham is a matter for Buckinghamshire local education authority (LEA).

  My Department has made available additional grant of £28 million in 2003–04 to ensure for all LEAs an effective increase of 3.2 per cent, per pupil after taking into account the ending of a range of Standards Fund grants this year. As Buckinghamshire local education authority's per pupil increase after the ending of the Standards Fund grants was 3.3 per cent., it did not receive additional grant.
  497W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding was allocated to(a) Essex Local Education Authority and (b) other local education authorities for turbulence factors in respect of schools with a large number of children of military personnel in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [125894]

  (2) what his policy is on providing additional funds for the turbulence factors at schools with a large number of children of military personnel; [125895]

  (3) what plans he has to provide financial assistance for schools with a large number of children of military personnel. [125896]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills does not allocate any funding to any local education authority for the specific purposes of addressing turbulence for schools with large numbers of children of military personnel.

  We recognise that turbulence in pupil numbers can have an impact on school budgets and pupil attainment. A local military presence is one cause, influxes of asylum seekers are another. Local authorities are able to include factors in their funding formulae to provide additional funding to take account of high turnover of pupils during the year. Essex local education authority has such a factor.

  We believe further work on mobility should be done on the basis of data from the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) so that it is possible to consider in an informed way whether a mobility indicator might be included in the AEN part of the formula when the three-year formula freeze ends in 2006–07.

  Specialist Subjects
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms are in place to ensure that specialist school subject designations correlate to pupil and parent demand; and if he will make a statement. [125708]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are encouraging Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to work in partnership with all secondary schools to develop a strategy that enables individual schools to establish a specialism that plays to their strengths but also contributes to achieving a balance of specialisms in their area.

  Many LEAs have drawn up plans with schools for a specialist system across the whole of their local area. The Government are encouraging this approach while recognising the final decision on the choice of specialist application lies with the individual school. LEAs adopting a more strategic approach include the Excellence in Cities authorities and the six Diversity Pathfinder LEAs.

  Youth Services
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much each local authority spent on youth services in each year since 2000–01. [125325]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is contained in the following table:
  498W

  Youth service expenditure since 2000–01

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,004,168

  951,453

  Barnet

  1,711,110

  1,563,723

  Barnsley

  1,848,124

  1,660,524

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,388,823

  1,271,942

  Bedfordshire

  1,437,528

  1,743,509

  Bexley

  1,875,541

  1,685,156

  Birmingham

  4,601,895

  4,643,143

  Blackburn

  1,272,798

  1,342,920

  Blackpool

  791,990

  891,829

  Bolton

  1,572,393

  1,588,801

  Bournemouth

  1,406,147

  1,317,837

  Bracknell Forest

  970,383

  751,465

  Bradford

  4,240,381

  5,385,999

  Brent

  2,435,987

  2,276,403

  Brighton and Hove

  813,268

  811,565

  Bromley

  1,294,259

  1,303,124

  Buckinghamshire

  2,740,507

  2,460,200

  Bury

  1,416,707

  1,196,770

  Calderdale

  2,236,617

  2,423,087

  Cambridgeshire

  2,074,794

  2,056,987

  Camden

  3,655,059

  3,025,733

  Cheshire

  2,897,322

  3,184,263

  City of Bristol

  2,890,887

  2,950,182

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,624,304

  2,710,114

  Cornwall

  2,925,464

  3,299,592

  Coventry

  2,696,493

  3,094,050

  Croydon

  3,197,804

  3,246,130

  Cumbria

  1,552,584

  678,132

  Darlington

  453,050

  510,188

  Derby

  1,891,361

  1,890,379

  Derbyshire

  3,800,688

  4,347,357

  Devon

  2,741,698

  2,801,103

  Doncaster

  1,942,685

  2,150,565

  Dorset

  2,414,175

  2,662,039

  Dudley

  2,049,271

  1,756,525

  Durham

  2,157,733

  1,543,994

  Ealing

  1,850,835

  1,783,287

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,346,654

  1,580,381

  East Sussex

  1,962,009

  2,311,157

  Enfield

  1,062,935

  966,509

  Essex

  6,748,926

  6,567,980

  Gateshead

  1,205,334

  1,001,050

  Gloucestershire

  3,088,459

  3,136,081

  Greenwich

  2,810,581

  2,826,400

  Hackney

  0

  14,691

  Halton

  969,777

  1,049,166

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,558,078

  942,540

  Hampshire

  4,355,857

  4,538,385

  Haringey

  1,732,980

  1,953,319

  Harrow

  907,237

  869,559

  Hartlepool

  900,972

  1,003,576

  Havering

  1,560,814

  1,718,958

  Herefordshire

  909,417

  905,443

  Hertfordshire

  6,237,936

  6,303,750

  Hillingdon

  1,630,052

  1,667,618

  Hounslow

  896,713

  963,371

  Isle of Wight Council

  997,135

  1,120,183

  Islington

  4,226,725

  4,349,353

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,166,640

  3,971,120

  Kent

  5,918,603

  5,117,151

  Kingston upon Thames

  736,108

  825,791

  Kirklees

  1,746,776

  1,929,071

  Knowsley

  105,922

  98,628

  Lambeth

  2,495,281

  3,471,813

  Lancashire

  7,520,246

  7,045,899

  Leeds

  8,445,009

  7,719,800

  Leicester

  2,131,502

  2,311,692

  Leicestershire

  3,745,260

  3,878,072

  Lewisham

  2,743,783

  2,947,715

  Lincolnshire

  2,571,578

  2,335,680

  Liverpool

  6,264,669

  6,057,000

  Luton

  1,299,964

  1,336,332

  Manchester

  3,438,625

  3,331,400

  Merton

  709,817

  646,882

  Middlesbrough

  1,234,314

  1,339,188

  Milton Keynes

  1,704,881

  1,811,902

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,954,944

  2,962,865

  499W

  Youth service expenditure since 2000–01

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Newham

  1,922,135

  2,718,218

  Norfolk

  2,893,412

  2,914,054

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,185,796

  1,397,717

  North Lincolnshire

  1,157,216

  1,197,615

  North Somerset

  798,774

  877,540

  North Tyneside

  866,590

  849,253

  North Yorkshire

  1,604,374

  1,619,990

  Northamptonshire

  3,226,816

  4,033,887

  Northumberland

  1,548,555

  2,228,413

  Nottingham City

  3,505,811

  3,211,865

  Nottinghamshire

  5,812,259

  5,966,931

  Oldham

  1,529,279

  2,287,924

  Oxfordshire

  2,735,893

  2,750,677

  Peterborough

  1,100,072

  1,094,891

  Plymouth

  1,184,230

  1,281,571

  Poole

  864,089

  1,016,433

  Portsmouth

  0

  1,072,437

  Reading

  1,287,364

  1,589,441

  Redbridge

  1,903,828

  1,910,967

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,330,912

  1,367,091

  Richmond upon Thames

  794,625

  665,184

  Rochdale

  1,426,181

  1,578,086

  Rochester and Gillingham

  1,241,847

  944,862

  Rotherham

  4,000,372

  3,908,697

  Rutland

  234,204

  228,495

  Salford

  1,700,511

  1,538,565

  Sandwell

  1,748,886

  1,745,341

  Sefton

  1,957,058

  1,643,118

  Sheffield

  4,582,827

  4,650,775

  Shropshire

  1,667,141

  1,718,668

  Slough

  1,018,177

  905,080

  Solihull

  730,374

  723,658

  Somerset

  3,368,864

  3,022,907

  South Gloucestershire

  1,138,615

  1,442,166

  South Tyneside

  1,662,195

  1,883,338

  Southampton

  932,178

  1,110,462

  Southend

  812,929

  927,968

  Southwark

  3,360,149

  3,158,763

  St. Helens

  1,235,685

  905,922

  Staffordshire

  6,077,732

  6,139,629

  Stockport

  1,829,561

  2,046,957

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,220,601

  1,322,136

  Stoke on Trent

  1,848,684

  1,804,635

  Suffolk

  2,723,338

  2,375,006

  Sunderland

  1,657,684

  2,641,825

  Surrey

  6,866,364

  6,206,392

  Sutton

  1,225,428

  1,204,340

  Swindon

  1,249,685

  1,622,018

  Tameside

  2,524,578

  2,331,479

  TheWrekin

  1,291,391

  1,156,873

  Thurrock

  1,235,653

  1,077,862

  Torbay

  412,638

  435,969

  Tower Hamlets

  4,172,061

  4,039,740

  Trafford

  1,434,075

  1,514,899

  Wakefield

  1,956,117

  1,963,617

  Walsall

  1,361,374

  1,393,789

  Waltham Forest

  2,263,444

  1,840,419

  Wandsworth

  2,865,692

  2,790,230

  Warrington

  867,377

  918,272

  Warwickshire

  2,110,669

  2,559,567

  West Berkshire

  834,811

  968,020

  West Sussex

  4,013,460

  4,233,300

  Westminster

  1,737,223

  2,083,638

  Wigan

  1,524,468

  1,550,440

  Wiltshire

  2,069,299

  2,134,079

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  654,589

  910,624

  Wirral

  2,286,654

  2,343,046

  Wokingham

  160,809

  199,241

  Wolverhampton

  3,753,824

  3,683,860

  Worcestershire

  1,910,568

  2,219,056

  York

  1,142,190

  1,155,742

  Note:

  1. Youth Service figures shown are Net Current Expenditure (after recharges) and includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by LEAs.
  500W
  2. Youth Service figures, include provision at residential and non residential youth centres, including activity, outdoor and urban studies centres related to Youth Service provision Also

  development workers, advisers and youth leaders not based at youth centres.

  3. Real term figures have been used are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using the June 2003 GDP deflators.

  4. Nil returns were submitted by Hackney and Portsmouth for 2000–01.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment the Office has made of the adequacy of current civil contingency planning; what plans there are to make changes; and if he will make a statement. [126816]

  Mr. Alexander
  Direct assessment of emergency planning at the local level is carried out through bodies such as the Audit Commission and the emergency services' inspectorates, as part of their wider assessment role.

  The draft Civil Contingencies Bill proposes that these bodies, and others such as the utility regulators, will continue to assess civil protection duties in the future, to a more rigorous standard, supported by appropriate regulations and guidance which will set out clear standards and expectations.

  At central Government level, the Government are formalising standards and guidelines against which departmental contingency planning activities can be monitored and audited, to ensure that Departments' planning and preparation is performed to the high standard expected by Parliament and the public.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish an updated "List of Ministerial Responsibilities". [126074]

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the latest "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" will be published. [126124]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am today pleased to announce the publication of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities". For the first time ever, it is being published in both paper and electronic form. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  For the electronic version, the website can be accessed at: http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/elmr/ minister.nsf

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the running costs of Ministers' private offices have been in his Department in each year since 1997. [123114]

  Mr. Alexander
  The running costs of Ministers' private offices, the Cabinet Office parliamentary branch and the ministerial correspondence and support team for each financial year from May 1997 to 2002–03 are set out in the table.
  501W

  Financial year

  Number of private offices

  Total net running costs (£)

  May 1997–98

  3

  1,173,014

  1998–99

  3

  1,368,862

  1999–2000

  4

  1,465,634

  2000–01

  4

  1,877,053

  2001–02

  6

  2,173,436

  2002–03

  3

  1,429,560

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Computer Security
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission (1) whether the House of Commons Commission plans to comply with UK Security Standard BS7799, relating to computer security, by the end of 2003; [126584]

  (2) what (a) technical and (b) procedural security Counter-measures are in place to protect PDVN users' data and e-mails from unauthorised internal or external interception while users are working (i) on the Parliamentary Estate and (ii) remotely. [126586]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Security of Members' e-mails and data is important; measures are in place to ensure that users working remotely and on the Parliamentary Estate are protected. As a matter of policy, the Commission does not comment on the details of parliamentary security arrangements. However, I can say that there is a parliamentary IT security policy for information technology and systems and that work is in hand to ensure that this policy keeps pace with developments in current best practice. We have no plans at present to seek accreditation to BS7799, but the philosophy and best practice elements within the standard form an important part of our approach.

  All users of the network are subject to conventional password controls, which in turn, govern file rights and system permissions to prevent unauthorised access internally. For users on the Estate, the protection of corporate firewalls and anti-virus software prevents unauthorised external access. For remote users, the introduction of data encryption, personal firewalls and anti-virus software with the new Virtual Private Network (VPN) service hosted on known parliamentary-issued personal computers will minimise the risk of unauthorised access and interception. Members and their staff using equipment other than that provided or purchased centrally are responsible for their own arrangements.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what timbers are being used in the Houses of Parliament ticket office that is currently being constructed; which countries these were sourced from; and what evidence has been received to confirm that all the timber being used is from legal and sustainable sources. [126026]
  502W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The softwood timber used in the construction of the new ticket office is mainly spruce and originates in either Bavaria or Finland. The contractor has confirmed that it has been harvested from sustainable sources and is covered by either the Pan-European Forest Certification scheme (PEFC) or the Forestry Stewardship Council certification (FSC), or both. Certificates are being provided; copies will be sent to the hon Member.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has for increasing the recruitment of women into the armed forces; and what discussions she has held with ministerial colleagues on the issue. [125979]

  Ms Hewitt
  From April 2002 to March 2003, 3,230 new women recruits joined the armed forces, an increase of 20 per cent, on the previous year. The Services' recruiting force actively encourage women to apply for the wide range of posts available to them.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 143W, on domestic violence, if she will place in the Library copies of her correspondence with the Home Secretary regarding the collection of domestic violence statistics. [125686]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: No. The correspondence relates to the analysis of policy options that are currently the subject of consultation following the publication of the "Safety and Justice" domestic violence consultation paper on 18 June 2003. It is therefore covered by Exemption 2 (Internal Advice and Discussion) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the AdvocateGeneral how many staff are employed by her Department. [106287]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 780W.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Leader of the House when he expects to answer the question of 24 February 2003 from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire on IT contracts in his Department above £50 million. [126902]
  503W
  Mr. Hain
  The question to which the hon. Member refers was not tabled to me as Leader of the House of Commons. I therefore regret that I am unable to answer his question.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  A400M
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to her answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, columns 677–78W, on A400M, if she will place in the Library the letter of intent to Rolls-Royce dated 4 May 2003; [126039]

  (2) whether she has agreed the size of the grant to be provided to Rolls-Royce; and under which scheme the support will be delivered. [126055]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to Rolls-Royce on the 4 May 2003 regarding the engine selection for the A400M military transport aircraft. However, the content of this letter is commercially sensitive under Exemption 13—Third Party's Commercial Confidence's of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and it cannot be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Imports of goods from Burma, January to May 2003

  Product

  Amount (£000)

  Fish, (not marine mammals), crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates and preparations thereof

  3,022

  Vegetables and fruit

  106

  Tobacco and tobacco manufactures

  1

  Cork and wood

  365

  Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  996

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, nes

  52

  Non-metallic mineral manufactures

  3

  Manufactures of metal nes

  2

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  915

  Transport equipment other than road vehicles

  7

  Furniture and parts thereof; bedding, mattresses, supports, cushions and similar stuffed furnishings

  521

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  15,815

  Footwear

  14

  Miscellaneous manufactured article nes

  70

  Commodities and transactions not elsewhere classified

  43

  Total

  21,934

  Notes:

  nes = not elsewhere specified. Products are classified according to the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2)

  Business Support
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of Business Support. [126698]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI invests around £1 billion a year in supporting businesses—of that sum between £400 and £500 million is spent on business support schemes. Our aim is to use this money in a way that ensures the best possible return on that investment for the UK and makes a real difference to business performance.

  Excellent progress has been achieved in the radical restructuring of the DTI's business support to create products that promote enterprise and innovation and

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the financial impact on the UK insurance and reinsurance industries of the United States Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2002; and if she will make a statement. [125830]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are aware of the United States Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003 in the context of maintaining information on employers' liability and asbestos, but we have not undertaken a formal assessment of the Act. We will continue to keep abreast of developments in this area.

  Burma
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), of 25 February 2003,Official Report, columns 393–94W, on Burma, if she will provide figures for 2003 to date. [126634]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to figures published by HM Customs and Excise, UK imports of goods from Burma for January to May 2003, the latest period for which data are available, were as follows:

  meet customer need for a streamlined range of products that are easy to access.

  As a result of the review we are reducing the number of schemes from over 100 to around 10. These new products are broader, more flexible and better targeted at the needs of our business customers than those they replace. We are carefully planning a transition from the old schemes to the new products.

  Four new products have already been launched and are being used by customers. The Small Firms Loan Guarantee builds on the success of its predecessor and the new scheme is expected to increase take-up by around 25 per cent. At the beginning of June three more products designed to help small businesses develop innovative products and processes were launched.
  505W
  These are:
  Grant for Research and Development, building on and extending the SMART scheme;
  Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, based on the Teaching Company Scheme, and
  Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea.

  We are currently working on the next tranche of new products for launch next April. That work includes drawing up detailed marketing plans and training staff to provide the best possible advice to businesses about accessing the products. We are also working closely with the Business Link network to ensure that they have everything they need to support the delivery of our new products and to act as a point of access for information about DTI business support.

  The new products support:

  1. Knowledge Networks

  2. Collaborative Research and Development

  3. Best Practice Networks

  4. Implementing Best Practice

  5. Regional Capital Investment.

  We are currently consulting on a sixth product to support small business investment companies.

  In the development of these products I have been advised by an expert Investment Committee that includes independent business members. In future the Committee will not only endorse the business cases for new products but also review the impact of existing products.

  The changes described above represent a major and forward-looking improvement in the provision of business support. However they are just one element of the reshaping of the DTI. In September I will publish a new Strategy for the Department that will tighten the focus on our key policies and set the scene for better services, more professionally delivered.

  This new Strategy and the Business Support Transformation are being informed by the current Innovation Review which I announced on 27 November 2002. I asked the Review Team to make proposals to boost the nation's innovation capability and the exploitation of our creative science and engineering base. Initial findings suggest three key areas for action: a stronger national focus on exploiting our world-class science base; building and strengthening regional innovation activity; and using other government activities—in particular public procurement—to stimulate innovation.

  I intend to publish the results of the Innovation Review this autumn.

  China
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of British-owned manufacturing was in China in 2002. [126435]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest available UK outward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock for manufacturing in Mainland China from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is £938 million for the end of 2001.
  506W
  The equivalent FDI stock figure for Hong Kong (which is not included in the Mainland China stock) is £697 million for the end of 2001.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding British trade with China. [126580]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Trade Partners UK regularly receives requests for advice and information from companies about China.

  We also regularly receive ministerial and official Chinese trade delegations with whom we explore our bilateral trade relations. I will be heading a high-powered business delegation to Beijing and Shanghai from 20 to 22 July.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what tariffs or other import and export levies are enforced(a) by Britain on Chinese goods and (b) by China on British goods. [126436]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities the range of import duties imposed on goods entering into the UK varies from 0 per cent. to 26 per cent. on non-agricultural products and up to 74.9 per cent. on agricultural products. There are also specific (non ad valorem) duties on some agricultural products. These rates apply to China except when it benefits under the Generalised System of Preferences. A list of the specific rates is available at the European Community's website www.europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/databases/database.htm.

  The UK's implementation of the European Community's external trade policy includes trade defence measures taken against China. A complete listing of the European Community's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures against China is available from the European Community's website at www.europa.eu.int/comm/trade/policy/dumping/stats.htm.

  With regard to China's tariffs and levies on UK goods, China is a member of the World Trade Organisation and as such treats UK imports on a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) basis. Import duties levied on British goods vary from 0 per cent. to 32 per cent. and, exceptionally, up to 52.4 per cent. on crude oil and farm product based oils. Substantial tariff cuts are being made as part of China's WTO accession agreement. Average tariffs now stand at 11 per cent., down from 12.2 per cent. last year and 15.3 per cent. at the time of accession.

  China/Japan
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of trade between the UK and(a) China and (b) Japan was in 2002, broken down by (i) imports and (ii) exports; and what percentage of total UK trade volumes trade with (A) China and (B) Japan accounted for in 2002. [126543]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on UK trade in goods with individual countries is not available in volume terms. The value of UK trade in goods with China and Japan in 2002, along with their share of total UK trade was as follows:
  507W

  Value of trade (£ billion)

  Share of total (Percentage)

  China

  Japan

  China

  Japan

  UK imports

  6.7

  8.2

  2.9

  3.5

  UK exports

  1.5

  3.6

  0.8

  1.9

  Source:

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, Office for national Statistics

  Coal Investment Aid
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received in respect of Coal Investment Aid; from which companies the applications were received; how many applications have been successful; and what aid was awarded in respect of each of the applications. [126726]

  Mr. Timms
  The deadline for applications for support under the first period of Coal Investment Aid is 31 July 2003. The details supplied at Section 9 of each application received, which includes the name of the applicant, a description of the project and the amount of money applied for, will be posted on the website— www.dti.uk/energy/coal/invest_aid—in early August. This information will be updated in due course to indicate which applications have been successful and what aid has been awarded. One application has been received to date.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [124565]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government recommends that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal 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. The specific information requested is not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, consultation exercises run by the Department of Trade and Industry since the Code of Practice came into force in January 2001, have been published on the Department of Trade and Industry website.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish the results of the recent consultation on the licensing regime under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [126264]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Reforming the licensing regime of the Consumer Credit Act is a key element of my review of that Act. I anticipate that I will be making an announcement very shortly on how I intend to reform the regulation of consumer credit including those aspects of the regulations that relate to the licensing regime.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister with responsibility for competitiveness and e-commerce will reply to the letter dated 21 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on the Competition Commission inquiry into veterinary-prescription only medicines. [126775]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I responded to the letter dated 21 May from the hon. Member on 30 June 2003.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the impact on businesses in London and the south-east of(a) a decision not to go ahead with the Crossrail project and (b) the delays which have been experienced to that project; and if she will make a statement. [124735]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The business case proposals for the east-west Crossrail project, which have been submitted to the Department by Cross London Rail Links (CLRL), include an appraisal of the impact of a decision to go ahead against a wide range of criteria, including the economy. This is an extremely complex issue, which is the subject of continuing discussions between CLRL and the Government.

  We are not aware of any estimates of the impact of the delay caused by the failure to secure parliamentary approval for a private Bill, deposited in November 1991, which had sought powers to build an earlier version of the scheme.

  Energy Imports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where the gas delivered to the UK will come from in(a) 2005,(b) 2010 and (c) 2015; and what percentage of t he gas will be delivered from each location. [125578]

  Mr. Timms
  Future gas supplies to the UK will be a commercial matter for energy companies in the competitive marketplace.

  The most recent view of the future gas supply demand balance anticipates that the UK will again become a net gas importer (on an annual basis) after 2005. We have already depended on imported gas in some winter

  509W
  quarters. It is anticipated that the UK will remain self-sufficient until 2005, with our import dependency expected to rise to around 50 per cent. in 2010 and 80 per cent. in 2015.

  The UK already receives imports from Norway, and there are active treaty discussions with Norway that would facilitate further imports. A proposed gas inter connector from the Netherlands would enable gas from there to be supplied to the UK. In the longer term, British suppliers may contract for pipeline gas from Russia, from other former Soviet Union countries, from Middle Eastern suppliers such as Iran, and from elsewhere.

  The Energy White Paper noted that expansion of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market would contribute to diversity and security and would provide competition to piped gas. There are three active projects considering LNG imports to the UK. One aims to bring LNG from Qatar; the other two have not yet publicly committed to particular sources of gas. LNG imports could come from a variety of Atlantic Basin or Middle East sources. Some of the closest include Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria—countries all with significant LNG expansion plans.

  The Energy White Paper also sets out our strategy for encouraging the development of a competitive international market place, and for monitoring developments affecting the reliability of energy supplies.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency plans she will put in place to ensure that energy is delivered to households in the UK in the event that future foreign gas supplies are interrupted. [125580]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to attracting diverse and reliable future sources of gas supply to the UK.

  In the event of gas shortage, Transco, the operators of the national gas transmission system, have well-established procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure that domestic supplies are taken off only as a last resort.

  These plans are tested regularly and, under the auspices of the Gas Industry Emergency Committee, they are reviewed continually to ensure that they take account of changes in the market and infrastructure.

  Copies of the plans are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the regulatory impact assessments her Department has carried out on measures to protect the environment since January 2002; and which of these have included an assessment of the economic benefits to environmental industries of the markets created by environmental protection measures. [125534]

  Ms Hewitt
  Seven such regulatory impact assessments have been carried out by the Department since January 2002. These related to the negotiation and implementation of the End of Life Vehicles Directive,510W
  the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, and the Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. Each took account of the economic and environmental costs and benefits to all relevant sectors, including the environmental industries.

  Global Poverty
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is planned to help deliver the Doha Development Agenda and reduce global poverty at the forthcoming WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico. [126104]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is important that the WTO Ministerial in Cancun makes progress on a range of issues across the Doha Development Agenda including—of most interest to developing countries—on agriculture; on an agreement on TRIPS and Public Health; and on a package of measures of Special and Differential Treatment.

  Trade has an important role to play in reducing poverty. As an example, studies have shown that halving protection in agriculture, industrial goods and services around the world could boost developing country incomes by around $150 billion a year—around three times the level of current aid payments. Substantial trade liberalisation could reduce the number of people living in poverty by over 300 million by 2015— a significant contribution to reaching the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place a copy of the UK's presentation to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting for June in the Library; and if she will ensure that it is posted on the departmental website. [124741]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am placing in the Libraries of the House a copy of the statement made by the UK Governor to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the IAEA Board of Governors' meeting, on 18 June 2003 in response to the IAEA Director General's report to the Board on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran. A copy of this statement is also available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/ Files/kfile/IAEA. pdf.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to require mobile telephone companies to cease the practice whereby individuals are permitted access to their services anonymously. [126895]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to require mobile phone companies to change the arrangements they make with customers wishing to take out a pre-pay service.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UK mobile users are registered with their networks with verifiable personal details. [126896]
  511W
  Mr. Timms
  This information is not available to the Department. It is a matter for the mobile phone companies.

  Mine Shafts
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress made by the working group set up in her Department on mine shafts; and when the working group is expected to finalise its conclusions. [126379]

  Mr. Timms
  The Working Group has initiated and guided a range of measures aimed at ameliorating the impact of historic mineshafts, for example, work to establish the viability of non-invasive techniques for locating shafts in built environments and steps to encourage the reporting and treatment of shafts encountered in the course of building development. Other initiatives which will allow house owners and purchasers to take a more informed view on the significance of mineshafts will be launched later in the year. The Department will, in due course, consider when it would be sensible to wind the Group up and whether, at that time, to prepare a final report on its work.

  New Electricity Trading Arrangements
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to help intermittent suppliers adversely affected by New Electricity Trading Arrangements. [126720]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been a number of refinements to NETA since its implementation in March 2001 that should have helped intermittent generators. These include:Shorter gate closure, implemented in July 2002, has made it easier for all participants to manage their risks, particularly intermittent generators who should be better able to predict their output better one hour ahead of real time.
  Recent changes to the Balancing and Settlement Code and National Grid's charging methodology were implemented to help smaller generators (many of which are intermittent) by unbundling so-called embedded benefits further. Embedded benefits are those benefits which accrue through not having to use the high voltage electricity transmission grid. These changes allow smaller generators to be paid these benefits directly from National Grid, rather than have to negotiate with electricity suppliers during contract rounds, which enables smaller generators to receive more of the embedded benefits that they create.

  The Government have always been clear that they support Consolidation and changes which make it easier for larger suppliers to market power on behalf of smaller generators. This gives smaller generators an outlet for their supply, and larger generators have a wider portfolio of power.

  The way in which energy imbalance prices in the Balancing mechanism are calculated was changed in March 2003 to make them more cost-reflective. This revised the definitions of the System Buy Price and the System Sell Price and has changed the way that National Grid calculates them. Early indications are that it has significantly reduced the spread of imbalance prices, which should be of particular benefit to intermittent generators. The spread of imbalance prices, which was
  512W
  around 20/MWh at the time of the introduction of NETA, was reduced to 0.6/MWh during the week commencing 7 July 2003.

  Outside of NETA, there have also been further changes that have helped smaller generators. Last November the DTI and Ofgem launched a webportal, on the main Ofgem website, which contains comprehensive guidance for smaller generators to help them understand the market. The recent Energy White Paper further commAted to making the administration procedures for the Balancing and Settlement Code more accessible to smaller generators to help them participate more effectively in the market.

  In the Budget 2002 the Chancellor also announced the completion of the exemption of Good Quality CHP from the climate change levy, thus ensuring that Good Quality CHP used on site, sold direct and sold indirect will be exempt from the levy. The decision recognises the environmental benefits of all Good Quality CHP and has given the CHP sector, which has been hard hit recently by falling electricity prices and rising gas prices, a much needed boost. Finally, the Renewable Obligation was introduced in April 2002, which requires licensed suppliers to buy a specified proportion of their electricity from accredited renewable sources every year. Intermittent generators typically fall into this category and many o f them have benefited considerably.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the changes were in the export price of renewable energy generators(a) since the implementation of New Electricity Trading Arrangements and (b) in each year since 1997. [126721]

  Mr. Timms
  The export price of renewable electricity is subject to contract between generators and their customers. As such the export price is a matter of commercial confidence and the DTI does not have information on this.

  Ofgem's report "The Review of the First Year of NETA", published in July 2002 contains some information on the ex port price of electricity, including a section on smaller generators and a survey of export prices for renewable energy in the first year of NETA (2001–02). This report can be found at: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/1984_48neta_year_review.pdf

  Nuclear industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many nuclear stations there are; and how many will continue beyond 2020. [125586]

  Mr. Timms
  From the last published company information on expected station lifetimes, three of the UK's 19 stations are expected to operate beyond 2020, with six already closed. These are:

  Heysham 2–2023

  Torness—2023

  Sizewell B—2035.

  Post Office Card Account
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the steps taken once an application for a Post Office Card Account has been received. [125835]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have fee-charging ATMs. [125270]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions relating to ATMs are a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd. who tell me that of the 2,100 ATMs currently in stalled in post office branches, around 1,500 are fee charging.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will arrange for the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd. to meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss post office closures. [125274]

  Mr. Timms
  I shall forward my hon. Friend's request to the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd.

  Print Cartridges
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the use of practices in the print cartridge manufacturing industry aimed at preventing the recycling of products; and what plans she has to regulate such practices; [126855]

  (2) what estimate her Department has made of the proportion of toner cartridges which are remanufactured in the UK; what assessment she has made of the benefit this represents (a) to the environment and (b) in terms of lower imports; and if she will make a statement; 126856]

  (3) what representations she has received from (a) printer cartridge manufacturers and importers and (b) printer cartridge re-manufacturers on the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; and what response she has made to these; [126857]

  (4) what plans she has to require print cartridge manufacturers to remanufacture toner cartridges returned to them by consumers after use; [126929]

  (5) what her policy is on the use of prebate schemes by the print cartridge manufacturing industry intended to discourage consumers from passing on cartridges to a third party. [126930]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has received over 50 letters from the printer cartridge refilling industry, following a recent press article about the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. They have written raising concerns that their operations might be put at risk if the WEEE Directive scope does not include these goods.

  We have made clear in our replies that we take these concerns seriously and we are keen to see the cartridge refilling sector flourish. Officials are due to meet
  514W
  representatives from the UK Cartridge Recyclers Association to discuss these matters. They will also be seeing the original cartridge manufacturers shortly. So far the Department have received no written representations from manufacturers of printer cartridges on these issues.

  Business estimates that, at the moment, around 30–40 per cent. of toner and inkjet cartridges are re-used or recycled. The Department has made no specific assessment of the environmental benefits of this activity or of its impact on imports.

  The refill industry has raised concerns related to existing technology applied to some of the goods currently sold, which prevents re-use. 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. The Government agrees with this assessment. In the meantime, if the spread of new technology in cartridges specifically to prevent their re-use beings to impinge significantly on the independent refill market, we would want to consider what additional action might be warranted. However the Department has no present plans to intervene in the market, either in relation to manufacturers' use of probate schemes or to force them to remanufacture their own cartridges returned by consumers.

  Any evidence of anti-competitive practices in the cartridge manufacturing industry would be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much subsidy was paid by the Government to electricity generators as a result of their renewable energy policy(a) in total and (b) to generators using wood-fired power stations in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; what the payments are estimated to be in 2005; and if she will make a statement. [125112]

  Mr. Timms
  For 2001–02 and 2002–03, the Government paid the following amounts in support for research and development into renewable energy through the DTI's Renewable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils:

  £ million

  (a) All renewable DTI R&D programme

  (b) Biomass Research Councils

  DTI R&D programme

  Research Councils

  2001–02

  11.32

  8.30

  1.33

  0.73

  2002–03

  16.69

  19.00

  1.59

  10.79

  1 Estimates

  Estimates for 2005 are not available. The figures show payments to all recipients: figures for payments to electricity generators are not readily available.

  My Department and the New Opportunities Fund have set up a £66 million Bioenergy Capital Grants Programme. While grants from this programme have been announced, no payments relating to these have been made to date.
  515W
  Other forms of support for renewable energy, such as the Renewable Obligation and the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, are not subsidies paid by Government.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the remediation of Sellafield building B30 to commence. [124834]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: BNFL has advised me that remediation within building B30 at Sellafield has been in progress since the pond ceased operations early in the last decade. Work to prepare for the acceleration of these operations is in progress. The Health and Safety Executive has given BNFL the requirement to retrieve and treat 90 per cent. of the sludge in B30 by 2010.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of dried radioactive waste sludge she expects to be removed from building B30 at Sellafield in the post-operation clean-out process. [124835]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: BNFL has advised me that, because the amount of de-watering which will be needed to facilitate removal and treatment of these sludges has not yet been established, this volume cannot yet be accurately determined. However, BNFL currently expects it to amount to several hundred cubic metres.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the safety of the Magnox storage and decommissioning B30 facility at Sellafield. [124886]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: The B30 pond contains many tonnes of Magnox fuel and sludge from corrosion of the Magnox fuel cladding and the fuel. These must be removed and converted into forms suitable for long-term passively safe storage and eventual disposal, while minimising radiation doses to the work force and risk to the public. This decommissioning poses significant technical challenges.

  I have been informed that as a result of the increased concern of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) over the state of the plant and lack of progress in decommissioning, it served an Improvement Notice in July 2001 requiring BNFL to produce a decommissioning plan, programme and a project specification. NII further required BNFL to prepare a risk assessment of the failure of B30 structure and equipment. Following assessment of this report by NII, BNFL has now committed to a full structural analysis of the whole B30 facility, to be completed by June 2004. Additionally, Nil requires BNFL to retrieve and treat 90 per cent. of the sludge from B30 by 2010. NH will be continually monitoring the programme and the technical work.

  Copies of a report prepared by BNFL on the B30 facility were recently placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what facility attachments and safeguards provisions apply to the B30 spent fuel and waste store at Sellafield; when Euratom safeguards inspectors last 516W
  visited the B30 plant; what discussions her Department has had with the (a) Euratom Safeguards Directorate and (b) European Commission authorities on B30; and if she will make a statement on the application of safeguards at B30. [126522]

  Mr. Timms
  The B30 store at Sellafield is subject to regular Euratom safeguards inspections, the last one being in March of this year. Particular Safeguards Provisions (PSP) have been prepared by the European Commission for this part of the Sellafield facility but have yet to enter into force. A facility attachment would only be negotiated in the event the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decided to designate B30 for inspection under the UK's safeguards agreement with the IAEA and Euratom.

  The Department maintains close contact with both the European Commission's safeguards authorities and also BNFL across the range of issues that relate to safeguards arrangements at Sellafield. Definitive statements on such Euratom safeguards implementation as a whole are contained in recent reports on Euratom Safeguards operations as published by the European Commission. The Executive Summary to the most recent of these (on activities during 2001, published in October 2002) notes that
  'verification activities conducted by Commission inspection staff led to the conclusion that, apart from some discrepancies between evaluations carried out by operators and Commission inspectors, which are in the process of being solved, no diversion of nuclear material from its intended use was established'.
  This follows a similar conclusion, that the Commission
  'did not find any indication that nuclear material had been diverted from its intended peaceful use'
  in the corresponding report for 1999–2000.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications of a shortage of silicon for the solar cells industry; and if, pursuant to the letter of 30 May from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), she will make a statement. [126267]

  Mr. Timms
  No assessment has been undertaken by the UK of the implications of a shortage of silicon for the solar cells industry, as the UK currently has no major silicon cell manufacturers. As my predecessor's letter of 30 May stated, multi-national cell manufacturers are monitoring the situation, and may build dedicated silicon production plants or diversify into non-silicon cell technologies if a prolonged shortage does arise.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance the Government has given to(a) households and (b) business in the installation of solar energy devices; and how many (i) households and (ii) businesses have installed solar energy devices in each year since 1997. [126658]

  Mr. Timms
  Government assistance for the installation of solar photovoltaic systems has been provided since 2000 through the Domestic (DFT) and Large-Scale Field Trials (LSFT), totalling £10 million. The DFT is supporting the installation of PV roofs on 30 projects throughout the UK, comprising some 500
  517W
  homes in the social and private housing sectors. The LSFT is supporting 15 projects in public sector buildings, including universities, council offices and visitor centres. Since April 2002 grants have been provided through the £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme (MDP). Under the MDP, grants totalling £10 million have so far been allocated to 300 individual householders and to 66 medium and large-scale projects with housing groups and on non-residential buildings, only a few of which are businesses.

  For solar water heating systems grants have been available since March 2003 under my Department's £10 million Clear Skies Programme and the £3.7 million Scottish Community Renewable Initiative. So far, grants have been awarded to 230 individual households and to 14 of the 22 successful community schemes in the first call for proposals, giving a total of around £300,000 in grants for solar water heating systems. The Clear Skies programme is not open to businesses.

  It is difficult to assemble accurate figures for the number of solar devices installed on an annual basis since 1997. However, an indication of the growth of the solar PV market in the UK shows the following trend:

  Figures are for cumulative capacity in Megawatts:

  1997: 0.6MW

  1998: 0.7MW

  1999: 1.1MW

  2000: 1.9MW

  2001: 2.7MW

  2002: 4.1MW

  For solar water heating it is estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 domestic systems are installed each year. Current cumulative figures for the UK are estimated to be around 50,000 homes.

  Trade Justice Movement
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response she will make to the representations from the Trade Justice Movement on trade with poorer countries; and what plans she has to raise these issues at the next meeting of the World Trade Organisation. [125680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to all members of the House, on 16 June, in response to the Trade Justice Movement campaign setting out the Government's support for trade to be free and fair and, in particular, the need for the WTO to address the concerns of developing countries.

  My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to argue for an international trading system which benefits the world's poorest nations with WT0 members from both developed and developing countries. It is vital that we make progress on implementing the Doha Development Agenda before, during and after the mid-Round Ministerial Conference in Cancun this September.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the development of wind power facilities in the United Kingdom. [126730]

  Mr. Timms
  I am encouraged by the number of new wind farm developments coming forward in the UK.

  There is no requirement on developers to inform the Department of when a project will commence construction or when the completion date for construction will be. The Department therefore has no details of how many wind farms are under construction or when they will be completed. The DTI only collects data for wind farm applications above 50 MW (1 MW for offshore applications). Proposals for wind farms in England and Wales with a capacity of 50 MW or below fall to be determined by the local planning authority under the normal planning regime. The Government have made a commitment in the Energy White Paper to improve our statistics gathering for all planning applications regarding renewable energy, and we are presently working on this.

  There is currently 995 MW of generation capacity in the application process and an additional 671 MW capacity has been given planning consent for wind farms in England and Wales, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Powers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as they apply to Scotland, have been devolved to the Scottish Executive. In Scotland there is currently 1,060 MW in the planning process and an additional 292 MW has received consent.

  In Northern Ireland wind farms with a capacity of 10 MW or above fall to be determined by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for Northern Ireland under Article 39 of the Northern Ireland Electricity Order 1992. There is currently 115 MW in the application process and 62 MW have received consent and are commissioned.

  The DTI announced on 14 July 2003 that it had asked the Crown Estate to invite applications for sites for offshore wind farm developments in three strategic areas around the coast—the Thames Estuary, the Greater Wash and the north-west (which covers the area of the Irish Sea from the north Wales coast to the Solway Firth). This invitation to developers is likely to lead to a significant increase in the number and capacity of offshore wind farms.

  World Trade Organisation
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding accession by China to the World Trade Organisation; and if she will make a statement. [126576]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The People's Republic of China joined the World Trade Organisation on 11 December 2001.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take steps in the next round of WTO negotiations to improve access to patented drugs in the developing countries. [126375]
  519W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government consider it important to find a solution to the outstanding issue from Doha on TRIPS and public health at or before the forthcoming WTO Ministerial in Cancun in September. The issue centres on how countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make effective use of the compulsory licensing provisions of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. We are therefore working with partners to secure a solution which will be acceptable to all participants.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take steps in the next round of WTO negotiations to prevent subsidised EU products being dumped on developing countries. [126371]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All WTO members are committed to negotiations aimed at reducing, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies and significantly reducing trade-distorting domestic support. I will be pushing for agreement on how to implement this and all other elements of the Doha mandate on agriculture at the next WTO Ministerial this September. As part of the WTO agriculture negotiations, the EU has already offered to reduce its trade distorting domestic support by 55 per cent. and export subsidies by 45 per cent. In addition it is pressing for proper controls on the use of food aid and export credits to prevent these being used as a form of export subsidy.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take steps in the next round of WTO negotiations to protect sugar producers in developing countries from competition from subsidised sugar production in the EU. [126370]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All WTO members are committed to negotiations aimed at reducing, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies. I will be pushing for agreement on how to implement this and all other elements of the Doha mandate on agriculture at the next WTO Ministerial this September. As part of the WTO agriculture negotiations, the EU has already offered to reduce its export subsidies by 45 per cent. In addition it is pressing for proper controls on the use of food aid and export credits to prevent these being used as a form of export subsidy.

  The UK will also continue to press for early and radical reform of the EU sugar regime in line with other recent CAP reforms.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Ambition Construction Programme
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) annual budget and (b) total central Government funding was for the Ambition Construction Programme in each financial year since 2000–01. [126838]

  Mr. Browne
  Ambition: Construction began to operate in June 2002. It is not possible to provide figures for the annual budget for the programme because, in addition to central Government funding, the programme draws money from a range of other sources,520W
  including the Construction Industry Training Board, European Social Fund, Single Regeneration Budget and local employers in individual pilot locations.

  Central Government funding for 2002–03 was £1,516,890. For the period April to September 2003, £3,394,600 of central Government funding has been allocated to the programme. Funding for the remainder of the year will be allocated following the mid-year review of expenditure carried out by Jobcentre Plus.

  Benefit Entitlement (EU Citizens)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what period has to elapse before EU citizens who remain in the UK under the habitual residency test can claim UK benefits. [126826]

  Mr. Pond
  EU citizens who are living in the United Kingdom are treated the same as United Kingdom citizens in respect of claims for income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, the habitual residence test limits entitlement to these non-contributory benefits to people with genuine ties to the United Kingdom. There is no set timescale for satisfying the test and each case is considered on its own merits.

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families are expected(a) to gain and (b) to lose from the child support reforms, broken down by (i) couple families and (ii) families headed by a lone parent [99052]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. Our latest available estimates are in the tables below. It is estimated that 82 per cent. of maintenance liabilities calculated under the new scheme will be phased in over (up to) five years.

  Earning non-resident parents (Per cent.)

  (i) Repartnered

  (ii) Single

  Total

  (a) Gain

  14

  45

  59

  (b) Lose

  18

  21

  39

  In addition, a further 60 per cent. of non-resident parents on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance will have an increased liability for maintenance. of these, 9 per cent. have a new partner, and 91 per cent. do not.

  Earning non-resident parents (Per cent.)

  (i) Repartnered

  (ii) Single

  Total

  (a) Gain

  11

  44

  55

  (b) Lose

  8

  31

  39

  In addition, up to 90 per cent. of parents with care on benefit stand to gain by up to £10 a week through the introduction of the Child Maintenance Premium. Of these, 3 per cent. have a new partner and 97 per cent. do not.
  521W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from 5 per cent. samples of all 'live and assessed' cases of quarterly scans of the Child Support Agency Computer System August 2001 and so are subject to sampling variation.

  2. Figures are for Full Maintenance Assessments only.

  3. Information relating to the non-resident parent and parent with care's status as repartnered or single is held only at time of case take-on, so this information may be out of date.

  4. Totals may not sum exactly dues to rounding. There is also a small proportion of parents who will see no change in maintenance liability.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research has been commissioned on the financial impact on absent fat hers of the interaction between child support maintenance assessments and the new tax credits, with particular reference to(a) absent fathers who have new partners and (b) fathers who are registered as absent, but who look after their children for three nights per week. [126567]

  Mr. Pond
  No specific research has been commissioned on the interaction between new tax credits and child support. The introduction of new tax credits has been carefully reflected in the regulations governing child support. These are kept under regular review.

  Gas Fitters
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the compulsory registration of gas fitters according to the Corgi Standard; and how many complaints his Department has received in the last year over the action of unregistered gas fitters. [123498]

  Mr. Browne
  For many years health and safety legislation has required anyone carrying out work on gas appliances to be competent and registered with the Council for Registered Gas Installers (CORGI). This legislation is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Over the last year my Department has received one complaint about unregistered gas fitters.

  In addition, registered fitters and members of the public report fitters suspected of working illegally to CORGI. Where, on investigation, CORGI finds evidence of unregistered working, it will pass the information to HSE for further action. In the year 2002–03, CORGI reported details of 1,003 unregistered fitters to HSE. Complaints about unregistered fitters may also be made directly to HSE area offices, though HSE's current database does not enable these to be quantified separately from other gas-related complaints and reports.

  HSE's policy is to follow up all gas-related complaints and reports that it receives, including those about unregistered fitters, and where appropriate take enforcement action.

  Adult Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding his Department and its predecessors allocated to Work Based Learning for Adults in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114473]
  522W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the allocation to Work-based Learning for Adults was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the allocation will be in (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05, (iii) 2005–06 and (iv) 2006–07. [116015]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on spend on the Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA) programme is in the following table:

  Spend (£million)

  1997–98

  382

  1998–99

  264

  1999–2000

  264

  2000–01

  275

  2001–02

  168

  2002–03

  123

  sources:

  DfEE and ofsted Departmental Report and Main Estimates

  DfEE Appropriation Accounts

  Employment Service Annual Reports and Accounts

  From 2003–04 a separate budget is no longer allocated for WBLA. Spend figures for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 will become available when Jobcentre Plus Annual Reports for each year are published.

  It is not yet possible to confirm the position for 2006–07 as this is subject to outcomes from the 2004 Spending Review.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to award a severely disabled person attendance allowance for the six-month qualifying period once it has been established that the conditions of entitlement have been met. [126369]

  Maria Eagle
  No. Attendance allowance provides a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people as a result of long-term disability. The six-month qualifying period helps to establish that the disability, and the resulting personal care or supervision needs which give entitlement to the benefit, are of a long term nature. However, special considerations apply to people who are terminally ill, and our arrangements recognise the particular difficulties faced by people who have only a short time to live. Such people are awarded attendance allowance automatically without having to complete a qualifying period. The arrangements ensure that claims are dealt with quickly and sensitively. We have no plans to extend this exception to attendance allowance claims generally.

  Benefit Costs
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost per claimant was of administering each of the major benefits in the last 12 months. [125409]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested. In accordance with the requirements of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by strategic objective, as set out in its Public
  523W
  Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual requests for resources (RfRs), as set out in the Department's Estimates and Accounts.

  Benefit Errors
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have had(a) their state pension and (b) other benefits incorrectly deducted after a hospital stay lasting more than six weeks since 9 March. [126851]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff are responsible for detection of benefit fraud, broken down by region; what change has been made in the level of such staff in the last six months, broken down by region; on what basis the decision was made to change staff levels; and if he will make a statement. [123041]

  Mr. Pond
  The overall aim of the Department's antifraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means than an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  The information currently available suggests that around 5,000 staff are employed at any one time by the Department and its agencies in work to investigate suspicions of fraud. Information on changes made in the level of such staff in the last six months is not available

  Benefit/Pension Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants in each benefit client group who have been sent direct payment invitation letters have opened(a) normal bank or building society accounts, (b) basic bank accounts and (c) Post Office Card Accounts. [123296]

  Mr. Pond
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  I refer the hon. Member for Northavon to the table of latest key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment placed in the Commons Library on 7 July 2003.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants in each benefit client group have been sent direct payment invitation letters; and for each of those groups how many have(a) opted for payment via a normal bank account or building society account, (b) opted for payment via a basic bank account, (c) opted for payment via a post office card account, (d) responded indicating that they wish to continue using order books and (e) not responded. [123322]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the table of latest key figures on the progress of conversion to direct payment placed in the Library on 7 July 2003.
  524W
  In addition to these figures 26,488 customers have indicated that they do not wish to be paid by direct payment. Of these, 20,509 are child benefit customers, 350 are Veteran Agency customers, 3,783 are pension customers, and 1,846 are Jobcentre Plus customers. Those customers who are paid by order book will for the meantime continue to be paid this way. However, order books will eventually be phased out and we will need to make payment by another method.

  So far, 821,713 customers have yet to respond. This consists of 503,456 child benefit customers, 11,360 Veterans Agency customers, 118,194 pension service customers, and 188,703 Jobcentre Plus customers.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many customers(a) will and (b) will not be paid by direct payment if the Department meets its public service agreement target to pay 85 per cent. of customers via bank accounts by 2005; and if he will make a statement; [124014]

  (2) what his target is for the (a) number and (b) proportion of customers receiving benefits by direct payment by 31 December 2005: [124016]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2003, Official Report, column 440W, and 20 May 2003, Official Report, column 753W, what method of payment his Department plans to use to pay the 15 per cent. of customers that may not be being paid by direct payment by the end of 2005, following the completion of the phasing out of order books by that date; and if he will make a statement. [124100]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department has a published Public Service Agreement that by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct Payment. Already 87 per cent. of all customers and 90 per cent. of pensioners have access to a bank account that can receive direct payment. We expect that more than 85 per cent. of customers will provide us with their bank account details or choose a Post Office card account. Everyone wi11 be able to access their money at the Post Office if they wish—just as they do now.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. We will develop an alternative method to pay this group, which can be accessed at Post Office branches.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether customers who have more than one carer or a number of irregular carers will be able to nominate more than one such person to collect their benefit from the Post Office, following the transfer to direct payment; and if he will make a statement; [124017]

  (2) pursuant to the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 9 July 2003, Official Report, column 310WH, whether it is his policy that all pensioners and benefit recipients with more than one carer should be able to use the exceptions service; and if he will make a statement. [125961]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: Customers will be supplied with information that clearly sets out their account options and will enable them to choose the account which best meets their needs and circumstances.

  525W
  If they have more than one carer or a number of irregular carers customers may find that accounts that offer cheque books/building society passbooks provide more flexibility.

  We are currently looking to find the best way to meet the needs of people who have no regular carer or helper. Where people need help to collect their money they will, for the meantime, be allowed to keep their order book.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. We will develop an alternative method to pay this group, which can be accessed at Post Office branches.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been contacted following a failure to respond to an invitation to transfer to direct payment; and of those, what proportion responded to this further contact. [124019]

  Mr. Pond
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Coventry have converted to direct payment of their benefits and pensions. [125354]

  Mr. Pond
  The following table shows the breakdown of claimants in Coventry that have converted to direct payment of their benefits and pensions in the past six months.

  Number of claimants

  January 2003-March 2003

  843

  April 2003-June 2003

  1,371

  Notes:

  1. The above figures are payload not caseload figures therefore, a claimant may be counted more than once if they are on several benefits.

  2. If a claimant is receiving one combined payment through the Income Support system for both MIG and RP they will only be shown on MIG and not on RP.

  3. Data is only available on a monthly basis, with parliamentary constituency from December 2002.

  4. Figures quoted are for Coventry North East, Coventry North West and Coventry South combined.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. data).

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 837W, on benefits, how many consolatory payments were made to customers for gross inconvenience or severe distress as a result of official errors; and what the (a) total and (b) average award was in each of the last 10 years. [126392]

  Mr. Pond
  The special payments scheme was revised in 1997 to introduce consolatory payments for inconvenience and distress. Information on payments made under the previous redress arrangements is not available.
  526W
  The available information is in the tables.

  Ex gratia consolatory payments made in respect of benefits 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Total payments made

  Total amount paid

  1997–98

  123

  29,525

  1998–99

  302

  80,544

  1999–2000

  693

  82,637

  Ex gratia consolatory payments made in respect of benefits 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Gross inconvenience

  Severe distress

  Total payments made

  Total amount paid

  Total payments made

  Total amount paid

  2000–01

  714

  64,474

  161

  23,983

  2001–02

  941

  84,946

  242

  26,748

  2002–03

  1,048

  89,069

  175

  18,870

  Notes:

  1. Consolatory payments were not recorded by category prior to 2000–01.

  2. Payments in 2000–01 and preceding years were made by the former Benefits Agency and War Pensions Agency.

  3. Payments in 2001–02 were made by the former Benefits Agency only following the transfer of War Pensions Agency (now the Veterans Agency) to the Ministry of Defence.

  4. Payments in 2002–03 were made by Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service and Disability and Carers Service.

  5. Figures prior to 2002–03 do not include any payments for redress made by the former Employment Service.

  6. As some customers will have received consolatory payments for both the inconvenience caused and the distress suffered, information on the average payment made to an individual is not available.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to his Department regarding making benefit and pension payments to clients who fail to open a bank or Post Office card account and whose current order books have expired. [126276]

  Mr. Pond
  Around 87 per cent. of customers already have bank accounts. And for those who do not, new easy to operate accounts, which are accessible at the Post Office, are widely available. Those customers who have yet to respond to their invitation and whose current order books have expired will, for the meantime, continue to be paid by this method, until order books are eventually phased out in 2005.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account, and the Department is committed to developing an alternative method to pay this group.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which his Department cold-calls customers in connection with the transfer to direct payment; and in what circumstances his Department cold-calls customers to invite them to receive payment via bank accounts when they have already opted for a Post Office card account. [126811]

  Mr. Pond
  Initial contact with any customer is made either by letter, or in the case of some Jobcentre Plus customers, face-to-face as part of normal business.
  527W
  There is no attempt to persuade customers away from the Post Office card account. Customers will be provided with information on all of their banking options. It is for the customer to decide on the best option to suit their needs.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much extra grant per year would need to be paid from central Government to local authorities if take-up of all income-related benefits was to be 100 per cent. assuming that current take-up rates are at the mid-point in the range of estimates provided by the Government. [126564]

  Mr. Pond
  We estimate that a 100 per cent. take-up of income related benefits in 2003–04 would increase centrally funded housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure by £1.7 billion. Subsidy for local authorities to administer housing benefit and council tax benefit claims is distributed by the Department using a caseload based formula on a definitive sum. Any changes in caseload, or type of caseload, may affect the amount allocated to individual authorities, but not the overall allocation.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are consistent with Budget 2003 estimates of 2003–04 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB and CTB) expenditure.

  2. The estimate of the increased funding is rounded to the nearest £100 million

  3. Current take-up rates are mid-point 2000–01 estimates from "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 2000/2001", published by DWP.

  4. Centrally funded benefit expenditure is defined as all HB and CTB benefit expenditure not funded by local authorities.

  5. Estimates are based on the assumption that local authorities would contribute the same proportion of HB and CTB benefit expenditure as at present.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate, Benefit Forecasting

  British Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's recent discussions regarding the allocation of funding to support British Sign Language initiatives; and whether there was direct representation at these meetings by organisations from(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland. [126109]

  Maria Eagle
  The British Sign Language working group we have established considered priorities for allocating the additional £1; million funding at its first meeting on 2 July. Their work is on-going and we will receive recommendations in due course. In selecting organisations to be represented on the group, we have identified key organisations of and for deaf people with remits across Great Britain. They will ensure that initiatives progressed reflect needs across Great Britain including Scottish and Welsh interests. The situation in Northern Ireland is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  528W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what policies and procedures are being modified and what actions are being taken within his Department following the Government's decision to recognise British Sign Language as an official language. [126240]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is chairing and supporting the BSL working group which was established following the statement on 18 March. We will use that forum, working with organisations of and for deaf people, to identify issues impacting on our capacity to perform as good practice service providers to sign language users and to develop strategies to improve access for deaf people who use BSL. We will then make appropriate modifications to policies and procedures.

  Carers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people aged over 65 are receiving(a) carer's allowance and (b) the carer's premium in income support; and how many people aged over 65 have claimed (i) carer's allowance and (ii) the carer's premium in income support since April 2003. [126562]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested The information that is available is in the table.

  Carer's allowance: number of claims made by people aged 65 and over in Great Britain in the period from 1 October 2002 to 28 February 2003; and the number of people aged 65 and over receiving the allowance at 28 February 2003

  Number

  Claims for carer's allowance 1 October 2002 to 28 February 2003

  21,705

  In receipt of carer's allowance at 28 February 2003

  6,630

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Claims figures refer to the number of people making a claim. Each person may have made more than one claim.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent, sample

  Awards of carer premium to claimants and partners aged 65 and over, and numbers of claimants and partners aged 65 and over in receipt of carer premium—Great Britain

  Thousands

  New awards of carer premium 1 November 2002 to February 2003

  4.2

  In receipt of carer premium as at:

  November 2002

  12.3

  February 2003

  17.1

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 5 per cent, sample of income support and carers allowance claimants, therefore subject to sampling variation.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Based on any live income support benefit unit where a carer premium is in payment and either the claimant or partner are aged 65 and over and have entitlement to carer's allowance. Includes cases where CA is not actually paid due to overlapping benefit rules.

  5. In receipt figures include some cases who claimed carer's allowance and carer premium before the age of 65.

  529W
  6. New awards have been defined as people aged over 65 who were IS carer premium cases in February 2003 and were not IS carer premium cases in November 2002. Cases that were on IS in November and not getting carer premium but appear on the February 2003 scan with carer premium are included. However, figures exclude cases with an existing award of carer premium who reach 65.

  7. This will undercount the number of in flows as those cases flowing on then off again between the scan dates will not be captured.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether an allowance is made for child care costs, in relation to a child living with an absent parent with care or with the parent being assessed, in the Child Support Agency's formula for child maintenance. [126160]

  Mr. Pond
  In both the old and new child support schemes, no specific allowance is made for formal child care costs. In the old child support scheme, an allowance is made in the exempt income calculation for the nonresident parent's natural children who reside with them, and all the children who reside with them (including stepchildren) in the protected income calculation. In the new scheme, any children residing with the non-resident parent are taken into account before maintenance liability is calculated.

  Allowance is also made for those non-resident parents who share the care of their children. In the old child support scheme, maintenance liability reduces if care is shared for 104 or more nights in a year. In the new scheme, reductions apply if care is shared for 52 nights or more. For equal care, there are special rules.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress made by the CSA in introducing the new system of assessment. [117902]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, (Malcolm Wicks), gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 54W.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many liability orders were placed on members of the armed forces by the Child Support Agency in each month since July 2002. [123931]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Diana Organ, dated July 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many liability orders were placed on members of the armed forces by the Child Support Agency in each month since July 2002.
  530W
  We have not placed any liability orders on members of the armed forces. We have however made deduction of earnings requests in respect of members of the armed forces.
  We do not have the information to provide a monthly breakdown. As at 28 February 2003 the Agency had made just under 3,000 deduction of earnings requests. I do not have the figures relating to periods after February 2003.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the application of child support regulations to armed forces personnel. [123933]

  Mr. Pond
  Child support regulations are applied to civilians and armed forces personnel equally, other than the regulations concerning deductions from the pay of service personnel.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much interest was earned from monies held by the Child Support Agency between receipt from parents without care and payment to parents with care in the last year for which figures are available. [124975]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated July 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how much interest was saved from monies held by the Child Support Agency between receipt from parents without care and payments to parents with care in the last year for which figures are available.
  Where an amount has been received from the non resident parent and has not been paid over to the parent with care within a 14 day period; any interest accrued during that time, in excess of £5, will be reimbursed to the parent with care. During the 2002–03 financial year this amounted to £20,803. I have no information on the interest relating to amounts paid over to the parent with care within the 14 days and the interest relating to amounts less than £5.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will apply the new rules for Child Support Agency claims to pre-existing cases. [125163]

  Mr. Pond
  We have made it clear that we shall only make a decision on this once we are sure that the new scheme is working well.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the consultation documents issued by his 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. [124571]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department for Work and Pensions came into being in June 2001. The following table gives the titles of consultation papers issued, dates of issue, number of copies issued, and written replies received. All consultation documents are also posted on the DWP internet site www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/index.asp. Formal Consultation documents are only part of the
  531W
  policy development process. Other additional activity employed by DWP includes seminars, public meetings, meetings with professional and other expert groups and

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  Number of documents issued

  Number of written responses

  Amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

  23 July 2001

  70

  13

  Occupational Pension Scheme Winding-up Notices and Reports (etc) Regulations 2001

  1 August 2001

  57

  29

  Occupational and Personal Pension schemes (Disclosure of Information) Amendment Regulations 2001

  13 August 2001

  57

  17

  Occupational and Personal Pension schemes (contracting-out)-draft miscellaneous amending regulations

  3 May 2001

  160

  75

  Changes to Invalid Care Allowance

  23 July 2001

  445

  133

  The Minimum Funding Requirement: the next stage of reform. Consultation on the draft Occupational Pension schemes (Minimum Funding Requirements and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2001

  18 September 2001

  740

  140

  Private Pensions simplification

  19 October 2001

  225

  119

  Bulk transfer of accrued Pension rights without member consent

  20 December 2001

  35

  19

  Revised code of practice on gathering of information as required in Social Security Fraud Act 2001

  8 April 2002

  100

  1

  Consultation on Three Recommendations in the Myners' report "Institutional Investment in the UK—a review"

  4h February 2001

  102

  21

  Member nominated trustees and directors

  12 February 2002

  72

  22

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) quinquennial review

  10 May 2002

  100

  50

  Measuring Child Poverty

  18 April 2002

  2,000

  80

  The future of the residential allowance component of income support, minimum income guarantee, jobseeker's allowance

  22 May 2002

  90

  44

  Equality, Opportunity and Independence for all (Race Relations Amendment Act)

  30 May 2002

  400

  30

  Social Security Advisory Committee review

  16 January 2002

  33

  13

  Pathways to work—helping people into employment

  18 November 2002

  500

  137

  Simplicity, security and choice—helping people into retirement

  17 December 2002

  15,039

  800

  Replacing benefit periods

  20 December 2002

  100

  60

  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2003

  29 January 2003

  12

  16

  The Social Security (Earning Factor) Amendment Regulations 2003

  31 January 2003

  5

  0

  Contracted-out Rebates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) with reference to Figure A3.1 on page 148 of the Pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677), what the assumed number of people receiving contracted-out rebates is in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2011–12, (c) 2021–22, (d) 2031–32, (e) 2041–42 and (f) 2051–52; [125411]

  (2) with reference to Figure A3.1 on page 148 of the Pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677), what the projected level of expenditure is (a) as a percentage of GDP and (b) in 2003 prices on contracted-out rebates in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2011–12, (iii) 2021–22, (iv) 2031–32, (v) 2041–42 and (vi) 2051–52. [125412]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in Tables 1–3.

  Figure A3.1 on page 148 of Simplicity, Security and Choice (Cm 5677), shows projected future expenditure on state benefits to people over state pensions age, including state Second Pension. The tables set out assumptions on the levels of contracting-out over time which underpinned Figure A3.1.

  There have already been many changes to the contracting-out regime since the date of the last available data. The Green Paper therefore makes it clear that these assumptions should be interpreted with
  532W
  a web-based discussion forum. Costs of producing and printing documents is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  considerable care because of the uncertainties surrounding the assumptions used. Projecting over such a long period can be significantly affected by even minor changes in the assumptions used.

  Table 1: Assumed number of people receiving contracted-out rebates

  GB-billion

  Number

  2001–02

  13.0

  2011–12

  12.0

  2021–22

  10.7

  2031–32

  9.2

  2041–42

  8.9

  2051–52

  8.8

  Table 2: Assumed expenditure of providing contracted-out rebates

  GB-billion

  Number

  2001–02

  9.5

  2011–12

  11.4

  2021–22

  11.4

  2031–32

  10.4

  2041–12

  10.6

  2051–52

  11.6

  533W

  Table 3: Assumed expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  GB

  Percentage

  2001–02

  0.9

  2011–12

  0.9

  2021–22

  0.7

  2031–32

  0.5

  2041–12

  0.4

  2051–52

  0.3

  Note:

  (a) The figures shown in Table 1 were used as a basis for the Green Paper and are based only on the assumed number of people contracted out, and earning above the Lower Earnings Limit, and hence eligible for a rebate.

  (b) They show the average number of people contracted out at any point in the year, rather than the total number of people who have been contracted out some time during the year.

  (c) Figures are shown in constant 2002–03 price terms, except the figure for 2001–02 which has not been adjusted.

  (d) The projected rebate expenditure for 2011–12 reflects the sharp rise in the cost of rebates between the 2001–02 and 2002–03 tax years. This was due to the introduction of the State Second Pension which resulted in a large increase in the amount of rebates paid to Appropriate Personal Pensions.

  (e) The figures reflect the analysis of long term economic and demographic developments in the governments long term public finance report presented in November 2002.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to ensure that the Department sends out acknowledgements to letters from hon. Members writing on behalf of constituents; and when the practice of sending acknowledgements ceased. [126461]

  Maria Eagle
  It has not been our practice to send acknowledgements automatically to all letters received by hon. Members. We do however aim to reply to correspondence within 20 working days and send interim replies where appropriate.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115576]

  Cost in future years of increasing the deferral rate

  Year

  Increase deferral rate (per cent.) to:

  2004

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  2025

  2030

  Ultimate

  10.4

  2

  6

  40

  45

  45

  40

  30

  0

  20

  7

  26

  175

  275

  315

  320

  310

  165

  30

  13

  47

  315

  510

  595

  615

  605

  335

  40

  19

  68

  455

  750

  875

  915

  895

  505

  50

  25

  89

  595

  985

  1155

  1210

  1185

  675

  Notes:

  1. Costs include the effect of increasing the deferral rate to 10.4 per cent. in 2010, as detailed in 1995 Pensions Act

  2. Figures shown in million in 2003–04 price terms

  3. Figures for 2004 and 2005 rounded to nearest £1 million. Figures for 2010 and later rounded to nearest £5 million.
  534W
  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend met Sir Ewen in February of this year.

  Customer Conversion Centre
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what procedures are available to customers who wish to register complaints regarding his Department's Customer Conversion Centre. [126034]

  Mr. Pond
  Procedures are in place to ensure that customers wishing to register a complaint regarding the Customer Conversion Centre are able to do so. Complaints are recorded and dealt with by the appropriate responsible office in line with Departmental standards.

  The Department can receive complaints regarding the Customer Conversion Centre through a number of channels and the procedures in place depend on the method of approach taken by the customer.

  Complaints can be made directly over the telephone to call centre operatives, in writing to the call centre, the relevant business unit, or the Payment Modernisation Programme direct. Customers may also register complaints with their respective Member of Parliament or the relevant client group Chief Executive's office.

  Deferred Pensions
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of paying the basic state pension, deferred by five years, at(a) 110.4 per cent., (b) 120 per cent., (c) 130 per cent., (d) 140 per cent. and (e) 150 per cent. assuming the number of people choosing to defer their pension remains unchanged. [97663]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For every year a person defers drawing their State Pension, they are entitled to receive increases of 7½ percentage points.

  This rate is due to increase to 10.4 percentage points in 2010. In the 2002 Pensions Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677) it was announced that the government was consulting on whether this increase should be brought forward.

  The following table shows the additional cost in selected years if we were to increase the deferral rate from 2004, assuming the number of people choosing to defer their State Pension remains unchanged.
  535W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost has been to the Exchequer of deferred sions, in(a) cash and (b) real terms, over the last 10 years. [97665]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The answer is not available in the format requested.

  Prior to 1999, the amount of inherited increments in payment was not recorded and so we cannot accurately estimate the total expenditure on increments before 1999. Such information as is available is shown in the following table.

  Cost of paying deferred State Pension

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real

  2002

  450

  460

  2001

  450

  470

  2000

  450

  470

  1999

  450

  490

  Notes:

  (a) Cash terms refer to the annual cost of paying all forms of increments, based upon administrative data from 30th September of each year.

  (b) Real terms are calculated by taking the level of the Retail Price Index in September of each year and up rating to the level of the April 2003 Retail Price Index level.

  Results include both Great Britain and overseas cases.

  Figures rounded to nearest £10 million.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have deferred their pension in each of the last five years by up to(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years. [97666]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible say how many people are deferring their State Pension at a single point in time because it is not necessary to inform the Department for Work and Pensions of an intention to defer. Administrative data only records people after they have finished their deferral and claimed State Pension.

  The duration of deferral for pensioners who are now in receipt of State Pension has been calculated based upon the amount of increments in payment, from which the duration of deferral is calculated.

  The following table shows the number of people aged five years over State Pension age who receive State Pension including increments, along with the duration of their deferral period.

  Number of people aged 5 years above the State Pension age that deferred their State Pension

  Deferral period

  Total

  Under 1 year

  10,000

  1 to 2 years

  9,000

  2 to 3 years

  4,000

  3 to 4 years

  3,000

  4 to 5 years

  4,000

  5 + years

  1,000

  All

  31,000

  536W
  Notes:

  1. Based upon administrative data from September 2002

  2. Numbers relate to men aged 70 and women aged 65

  3. Numbers exclude people in receipt of inherited increments only

  4. Numbers include recipients of a State Pension in Great Britain and overseas

  5. Numbers rounded to nearest 1,000

  6. People who have still not claimed their State Pension by the age of 65 (women) or 70 (men) are not included in the table above

  Ductile Iron Gas Mains
  Mr. Heyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who owns the medium pressure ductile iron gas mains within 30 metres of buildings reported to HSE in response to its October 2002 warning to gas transporters other than Transco; where these are located; what programme of remedial measures the HSE has agreed with the owners; and what deadline has been set by HSE for completion of this programme. [120477]

  Mr. Browne
  Transco notified HSE of 35 sites which might contain medium pressure ductile iron (MPDI) gas pipework. The sites were in public or private ownership and in many parts of the country. HSE inspectors wrote individually to each site requiring a response within an eight week deadline. A third of the sites reported that they had no MPDI pipework or had already removed it. No common timescale for action was set at the remaining sites but a remedial programme is being agreed for individual sites, based on the information in the returned proformas and risk assessment. Additionally a further 12 sites where MPDI pipework was suspected have Peen made known to HSE and the same approach for action is being applied.

  Getting clearance for the release under the Open Government Code of the list of organisations and sites that HSE is following up is a complex matter and cannot be accomplished within the timescale required. However, I will write to my hon. Friend with a summary of the results of HSE's work, when this is complete and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  E-government
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list by project the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental bodies have used on e-Government projects since 1 January 2001. [122271]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, (Brian Cotter) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, columns 920–21W.

  Two consultancies were mistakenly omitted from the table in my earlier answer. The complete list is as follows.
  537W

  Project

  Consultancy

  Activity

  E-Government Strategy

  BMRB

  Quantitative market research

  AIA Consultancy

  Qualitative market research

  Gov Connect (subcontracted by EDS)

  Strategic consultancy

  Interactive e-Services

  Ezgov (subcontracted by EDS)

  Development of electronic forms

  Accenture

  Project management

  Detica

  Security and authentication solutions

  Qinetiq

  Security and testing

  Sema

  Project management

  Digital Television (The Pension Service)

  DNA

  Design and development

  MORI

  Evaluation

  Worktrain

  Xansa

  Future strategy consulting

  Brahm

  Design

  Oakleigh Consulting

  Tendering strategy and project management

  Commissum Consulting

  Security review

  University of Warwick Institute for Employment Research/Adset

  Classification mapping

  University of Sheffield Computing Department

  Development of natural language processing

  Internet Job Bank

  KPMG

  Project audit

  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young

  Strategic review of internet job bank and worktrain

  Modernising Appeals

  PA Consulting

  General support

  BT Syntegra

  Development

  Disability.gov.uk

  Xansa

  Web re-design

  OPRA (Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority)

  Logica

  Strategic study on use of e-Government technologies

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124719]

  Mr. Pond
  No environmental appraisals have been undertaken since June 2001. Guidance on how to conduct an initial environmental screening is available to the Department's officials and formal arrangements are being finalised for recording the results of these and any subsequent appraisals that are required. A round of formal training events on incorporating sustainable development into all decision-making is under way across the Department and its Executive Agencies. When any screenings or appraisals are undertaken in the future, the results will be published in the DWP Annual Sustainable Development Report.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126600]

  Mr. Pond
  Since 8 June 2001 the Department for Work and Pensions has implemented the following EU Directives:Directive 1997/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 1997 amending for the first time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from risks relating to exposure to carcinogens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
  538W
  Directive 1998/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
  89/391/EEC)
  Council Directive 1998/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community
  Directive 1999/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 1999 amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to include mutagens, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), and hardwood dusts (VCM was previously the subject of a separate Directive). (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
  Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations
  Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
  Commission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work
  Parts of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. DWP implemented the disability discrimination aspects of the Directive in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations
  Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001 amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European Parliament and

  539W
  Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relating to dangerous substances in implementation of Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data sheets)
  Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
  Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he 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. [124785]

  Mr. Pond
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, the Department has had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. 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.

  Fee-charging ATMs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 11 July 2003,Official Report, column 1036W, on fee-charging ATMs, what information is given by his Department to customers who change to direct payment about fee-charging ATMs; and if he will make a statement. [126906]

  Mr. Pond
  The letters and leaflets being issued to customers set out clearly their account options. It is for the customer to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances. Customers who want to have their benefit or pension paid into a bank or building society account should discuss with their account provider the features of their chosen account.

  Customers have a number of options as to how they access their money free of charge. Including, at the Post Office, over the counter at many banks and building societies, many ATMs and via the cashback facilities offered by retailers.

  Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed to detect and prosecute suspected fraud in each of the last six years; and what the cost was of their employment. [124498]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire North-East (Mr. Heald), by my hon. Friend the former 540W
  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks), on the 12 December 2002, Official Report, column 502W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have committed benefit fraud on two or more separate occasions since 1 April 2002; and of that number how many have had their benefit reduced under the two strikes provision of the Social Security Act 2001. [124504]

  Mr. Pond
  The provision to sanction people convicted of two separate benefit fraud offences in a three-year period, known as the 'two-strikes provision', came into force on 1 April 2002. This provision cannot be applied retrospectively and only applies to people who have committed, and then been convicted for, two separate benefit offences after that date.

  To date, we have recorded five individuals who have committed and been convicted of benefit fraud on two or more occasions since 1 April 2002. In three of these cases a benefit sanction has been imposed. In the two other cases there is no current claim to a sanctionable benefit but these cases have been noted and a sanction will be imposed if they claim benefit in the next three years.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the level of fraud in(a) order books and (b) giros was in 2002–03, broken down by type of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [125265]

  Mr. Pond
  We estimate that total losses arising from the fraudulent encashment of order books and giro cheques during the year 2002–03 was £71.1 million.

  The £21.4 million for giro cheque losses arises from three main sources. £1.8 million was lost from counterfeiting, £2.6 million from manipulation/forgery and £17.0 million from duplicate encashment/repudiation. £49.7 million was lost through fraudulent encashment of order books. It is not possible to break this figure down by type of fraud.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many instances there were of income support fraud in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997; [124837]

  (2) what the estimated cost of job seeker's allowance fraud in Scotland was in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority; [1248348]

  (3) what the estimated cost of income support fraud in Scotland was in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority; [125320]

  (4) how many instances there were of jobseeker's allowance fraud in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [125321]

  Mr. Pond
  Information on the level of fraud in Scotland broken down by local authority is not available. However information on estimated level
  541W
  of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance in the whole of Scotland is in the following reports, copies of which are available in the Library:
  The Results of the Area Benefit Review from April 1998 to March 1999 and Measurements for the Public Service Agreement: Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance.
  The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 1999 to March 2000: Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance.
  The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 2000 to March 2001: Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance.
  Fraud and Error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance from April 2001 to March 2002.

  Health and Safety Executive
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the funding for the Health and Safety Executive in(a) 2003–04 and (b) each of the last three years, broken down by region. [124525]

  Mr. Browne
  The table reflects the funding for the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 2000–01.

  Budget1 (£ million)

  2000–012

  181.3

  2001–023

  199.4

  2002–03

  210.4

  2003–04

  225.5

  1 The funding has been interpreted as the total amount voted by Parliament.

  2 The budget for 2000–01 was the last under the cash budget system.

  3 A proportion of increase in the funding was due to the introduction/implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) in Government Departments. Under RAB, all Departments produce budgets and accounts on an accruals basis, which include costs for depreciation, cost of capital and provisions for liabilities.

  Note:

  The funding is not broken down by region.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many health and safety inspectors there are in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales, and how many there were in each year since 1998. [124526]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) gave on 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1269W.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many health and safety inspectors are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in each of the last five years; [112712]

  (2) how many health and safety inspectors there are in England and Wales; and how many there were in (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [118555]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not employ Health and Safety Inspectors. However, since 2002 it has been responsible for sponsoring the Health and Safety Executive (HSE); the 542W
  number of Heath and Safety Inspectors employed by HSE in each of the last five years is given in the following table.

  Inspectors

  1 April 1998

  1,437

  1 April 1999

  1,497

  1 April 2000

  1,507

  1 April 2001

  1,534

  1 April 2002

  1,625

  1 April 2003

  1,651

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress towards reform of the housing benefit system. [126587]

  Mr. Pond
  Our overall strategy for reforming housing benefit is to improve administration, promote choice and responsibility, enhance work incentives and reduce levels of fraud and error in the system.

  We are abolishing the need to automatically reclaim housing benefit after a set period, and in October we launched Rapid Reclaim for Housing Benefit. This has removed barriers to taking and declaring work by reducing concerns about the delays in reclaiming benefits if a job does not last.

  And in his most recent Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed our commitment to reform housing benefit. He announced new measures to apply the 30-hour disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit to those working between 16 and 29 hours per week; to change the hospital downrating rules so that there will be no reduction in benefit for those in hospital for up to 52 weeks; and to extend the housing benefit run-on to people receiving incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance.

  The Standard Local Housing Allowance is a further, radical step forward in the simplification of housing benefit, which we will test out in 10 pathfinder local authorities from October 2003.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the 200 wards with the highest percentage of adults claiming incapacity benefit in(a) the UK and (b) Wales. [126103]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the library.

  Income Support
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was claimed in income support in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority area. [126849]

  Mr. Pond
  Income support gross benefit expenditure in Scotland for 2002–03 was £1,521,323,469.27. This figure is not available broken down by local authority area but is available by district and local office, and this information has placed in the Library.

  Information Leaflet
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the Plain English Campaign's Crystal Mark does not apply to the section on collecting and using information on page 6 of the Information about Pension Credit leaflet, ref. PC1N 04/03. [126751]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The section in question derives from the requirements of the Fair Processing Code of the Data Protection Act 1998 and is common to a number of the Department's forms and leaflets. Minor changes to the original wording suggested by the Plain English Campaign were not considered to be consistent with its intended meaning.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [126196]

  Maria Eagle
  The question covers periods prior to the establishment of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in June 2001. This reply therefore relates to outsourced IT contracts signed by the former Employment Service and the former Department for Social Security, both of whom had made their own contractual arrangements prior to merging to form DWP. No further outsourced IT contracts have been signed since the formation of DWP.

  IT Partnership Agreement: On 1 August 1998, the Employment Service outsourced its IT work in a contract with Electronic Data Systems. In October 2000, the agreement was revised to reflect major new investment in IT and telephony to improve services for jobless people and employers in the Modernising Employment Service (MES) Project.

  Strategic Outsourcing Business Allocation (SOBA): On 1 September 2000, the Department of Social Security outsourced the provision of its IT design, development, delivery functions and operations to Electronic Data Systems, as prime contractor of the Affinity consortium.

  Both contracts are still in place.

  The value of these contracts is commercial in confidence and is not disclosed in line with paragraph 13, Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Department for Work and Pensions continuously seeks to ensure that both contracts meet the future needs of the Department.

  IT Expenditure
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he spent on IT(a) maintenance, (b) licences, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125718]

  Mr. Browne
  In 2002–03, the Department spent £103 million on IT maintenance, although this figure does not include any local service agreements that may have 544W
  been negotiated outside the central contracts. £4 million was spent on software licences and £142 million was spent on hardware, mostly in connection with the provision of new desktop IT equipment in the Department. Software costs are often not separately identified from the hardware to which they relate.

  The above information does not include costs of licenses, software and hardware where these are provided via PFI/PPP service contracts. In these circumstances, the costs form part of the service charge and are not separately identified.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is in cases of individuals claiming Jobseeker's Allowance refusing a job on grounds of conscientious objection; and if he will make a statement. [125239]

  Mr. Pond
  Individuals are sanctioned when they refuse to take up employment, unless they can show good cause for doing so. Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations specify that a person is considered to have good cause where, among other things, they have a sincerely held religious or conscientious objection to taking up the employment being offered.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(1) how many fixed period sanctions have been applied in the income-related jobseeker's allowance in each year since the sanctions were first applied, broken down by whether claimants have without good cause (a) failed to carry out a reasonable jobseekers directive, (b) failed to apply far a compulsory training scheme or employment programme where this has been notified to them, (c) given up a place on, or failed to attend, a compulsory training scheme or employment programme, (d) neglected a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme or employment programme and (e) lost a place on a compulsory training scheme or employment programme because of misconduct; if he will break down these figures according to whether (i) two and (ii) four weeks' sanction was applied; and if he will make a statement; [125912]

  (2) how many claimants sanctions have been taken since the introduction of the jobseekers allowance broken down by whether (a) they lost their job through misconduct, (b) left their job voluntarily without just cause, (c) failed to apply for or to accept a job notified by the Employment Service without just cause, (d) neglected a reasonable opportunity of a job without good cause and (e) suffered sanctions for other reasons, and by whether the claimants were (i) men and (i) women, and the age of the claimants, noting for each category the average length during which the sanction applied; and if he will make a statement. [125913]

  Mr. Pond
  Information on sanctions broken down by gender, age, length of sanction or type of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information is only recorded on the number of sanctions imposed. It is not possible to say how many individuals have been sanctioned as an individual could be subject to more than one sanction.
  545W
  The available information on the number of sanctions imposed for the periods requested is published in the quarterly publications Labour Market Statistics Analysis of Adjudication Officers Decisions and, from the quarter ending 30 June 2002, the Labour Market Statistics Analysis of Sector Decision Making. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Fixed period sanctions are listed at decision numbers 713 to 718, the New Deal sanctions decision numbers 713(E to V) to 717(E to V) are also fixed period sanctions.

  Lone Parents
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have had income support reduced as a sanction for failure to attend a compulsory personal adviser meeting; and if he will make a statement. [124548]

  Mr. Browne
  We have introduced compulsory Work Focused Interviews for lone parents claiming income support to ensure that they are aware of the wide range of help they can access to move into work. We are giving lone parents more choices and more help than ever before to move off welfare and into work, in return for greater responsibility to consider the help that is on offer.

  Between May 2001 and April 2003 4,352 lone parents had their income support reduced as a sanction for failure to participate in a compulsory personal adviser meeting.

  In addition 1,800 lone parents making new or repeat claims have had their claim disallowed because good cause was not shown for non-participation in a compulsory personal adviser meeting.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123137]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security, parts of the former Department for Education and Employment. Information on media training is not held centrally for the period of 1997 until June 2001.

  No media or voice training has been provided for Ministers, at a cost to the Department, since June 2001 to date.

  Costs for media training for Departmental Press Office Staff is as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  National Press Office

  20,230

  12,044

  Regional Press Offices

  24,283

  22,344

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) financial and (b) other support is available to (i) an individual and (ii) a family where the
  546W
  sole earner receives the national minimum wage; and which benefits are available when the earner is working (A) part-time and (B) full-time. [115571]

  Mr. Pond
  Families with children are eligible for the Child Tax Credit whether or not they are in work and as long as family income does not exceed certain maxima. In addition, workers with children or a disability can claim Working Tax Credit if they work at least 16 hours a week, and workers over 25 can claim if they are working at least 30 hours a week where family income is below certain levels. All families with children are also entitled to Child Benefit.

  From October 2003, the Working Tax Credit guarantees a minimum income of £241 a week for a family with one child and one earner working full-time on the National Minimum Wage and £187 a week for a single earner couple without children or a disability, aged 25 or over and working full-time on the National Minimum Wage.

  Individuals and families where the sole earner works less than 16 hours per week and receives the national minimum wage may be entitled to receive Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support, or Incapacity Benefit, in addition to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit may also be payable to people in full-time work on low income grounds.

  People who receive either Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and satisfy the relevant conditions of entitlement may also be entitled to free milk and vitamins, free school meals and payments to assist prison visits. They are also entitled to help with National Health Service charges, optical costs and travel costs to hospital for NHS treatment. Families on a low income may also be entitled to help with these costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme. Certain recipients of Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit are also eligible for help with these costs, and certain recipients of Child Tax Credit are eligible for free school meals.

  People receiving Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit with a disability element and have an annual income of less than £13,896 may also be able to get assistance with the costs of visiting a close family member or partner who is being held in prison.

  Receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance also gives people access to the Social Fund.

  A variety of local government schemes and benefits are also available to people onlow incomes. Details of these schemes are not collected centrally.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123146]

  Maria Eagle
  The purchase cost of mobile telephone equipment is charged to an account code that includes the cost of all telecommunication equipment up to
  547W
  £2,000, e.g. faxes, dictaphones etc. Mobile phone purchase costs could not be separately identified without incurring disproportionate costs. However, the running costs for departmental mobile phones is separately identified and these details are as follows.

  Department of Social Security

  £000

  1997–98

  1,330

  1998–99

  1,213

  1999–2000

  1,447

  2000–01

  1,344

  Department for Work and Pensions

  £000

  2001–02

  3,223

  2002–03

  3,369

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 and brought together the former Department of Social Security and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment.

  Telephone calls made using privately owned mobile phones, but subsequently reclaimed, are charged to an account code which also includes call charges relating to land lines. To separately identify mobile calls would mean investigating all expenses claim forms for the last six years. This exercise could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate for each contributory benefit the extra annual expenditure which would result from abolition of the national insurance contribution requirement. [125118]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  Estimated additional annual cost of contributory benefits if there was no contribution condition

  £ million

  Benefit

  Estimated annual cost

  Basic state pension

  4,100

  Incapacity benefit

  600

  Jobseeker's allowance

  200

  Bereavement benefits

  200

  Notes:

  1. The costs are net of income-related benefit offsets. They are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are given in 2003–04 prices.

  2. State pension costs are for the basic state pension only and do not include the state second pension, graduated retirement benefit (GRB) or state earnings related pension (SERPS). It is assumed that all those people of state pension age and above in 2003–04 receive the maximum rate payable of the basic state pension regardless of their underlying contribution record. This is £77.45 in 2003–04.

  3. For incapacity benefit (IB) and jobseeker's allowance (JSA), the costs cover payments which would be made to people who are currently claiming the benefits as credits only (for IB we have assumed SDA claimants would also become entitled to IB). In practice, there would also be costs generated from people who currently satisfy the medical or actively seeking work conditions for IB or JSA, but do not claim because they fail the contribution conditions.
  548W
  4. For bereavement benefits, the estimate is of the likely cost of paying a full basic (Dr age-related rate of widowed parent's allowance (WPA), widows pension (WP), widowed mother's allowance (WMA) and bereavement allowance (BA) to all those who currently receive those benefits. Due to the limitations of the data, the estimate is likely to be an upper limit to the costs of this change. No estimate is available of the numbers of people who would become newly entitled.

  5. The costs for all benefits exclude dependency increases.

  Sources:

  1. Costs for incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance are estimated from a 5 per cent. sample of benefit records taken in February 2003.

  2. Costs for bereavement benefit are estimated from a 5 per cent. sample of benefit records taken in September 2002.

  3. Costs for the basic state pension are based on estimates supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. Income-related benefit offsets are calculated using the Department for Work and Pensions Policy Simulation model.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many sanctions have been applied to New Deal participants, broken down by programme, in each year since the programme began; how many sanctions have been applied to participants in Employment Zones since they began; how many sanctions there were on(a) each New Deal programme which uses sanctions and (b) Employment Zones, broken down by reason for the sanction; and if he will make a statement. [122469]

  Mr. Browne
  Within the New Deal programme, benefit sanctions are applied only within the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) and New Deal 25plus.

  Information on the numbers of sanctions applied to NDYP participants, broken down by reason for sanction, up to March 1999, is published in the 'Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions'. Information from April 1999 onwards is published in 'Analysis of Sector Decision Making'. These are available in the Library.

  Separate information is not available for sanctions for New Deal 25plus participants. We are currently developing an IT enhancement to enable collection of accurate information on the sanctions imposed

  The information requested for Employment Zones has been placed in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) proportion and (b) number of people have found employment as a result of the New Deal, broken down by programme, in each year since these schemes have been introduced; how many of these were in sustained employment (i) six months and (ii) 12 months after leaving New Deal; how many returned to jobseeker's allowance after (A) six months and (B) 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [124540]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deal has been a success, helping nearly 900,000 people into work by the end of March 2003. In a dynamic labour market, it is inevitable that some people will experience unemployment after leaving the New Deal. However, those who do return to benefit will have added to their skills and experience, making it easier for them to find a job in the future.
  549W
  Information is not collected on jobs gained through the New Deal which were sustained for six months or 12 months, or on those returning to benefit following participation in NDLP, NDDP or New Deal 50 +.

  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those who left the gateway of the New Deal for Young People without proceeding to any of the options were in full-time employment 12 months later; and if he will make a statement. [124541]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  For the purposes of recording New Deal statistics, employment is classed as sustained if the individual has not returned to claim Job Seeker's Allowance within 13 weeks.

  Based on this definition, by the end of March 2003, of the people who had left the programme without proceeding to any of the NDYP options, 42 per cent. left to an unsubsidised job.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of New Deal leavers have entered sustained unsubsidised jobs since the programme began; and if he will make a statement. [124542]

  Mr. Browne
  For the purposes of New Deal statistics, employment is classed as sustained if the individual has not returned to claim Job Seeker's Allowance within 13 weeks.

  Information on New Deal leavers moving into sustained work is published in the 'New Deal for Young People and Long Term Unemployed People aged 25 plus Statistical First Release'. This is available in the Library. Equivalent figures are not available for the other New Deal programmes.

  New deal for young people—Percentage of each ethnic group moving into work1

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Ethnic group

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  White

  58.1

  43.5

  59.1

  45.4

  57.5

  43.7

  Black—Caribbean

  46.3

  31.4

  46.3

  32.8

  45.0

  31.3

  Black—African

  38.8

  25.7

  39.1

  26.9

  38.1

  26.8

  Black—other

  45.9

  30.9

  46.4

  32.9

  45.5

  32.6

  Indian

  52.0

  41.2

  50.6

  40.4

  51.7

  42.2

  Pakistani

  45.2

  34.6

  44.7

  34.3

  44.2

  35.1

  Bangladeshi

  47.2

  37.1

  47.4

  39.3

  44.6

  37.0

  Chinese

  43.7

  36.0

  46.4

  38.8

  43.4

  36.1

  Mixed/other

  45.9

  34.1

  44.0

  33.3

  43.3

  33.1

  2001

  20022

  20032

  Ethnic group

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  White

  54.0

  40.2

  45.5

  33.2

  15.6

  13.3

  Black—Caribbean

  37.7

  25.7

  29.3

  20.1

  8.5

  6.9

  Black—African

  35.9

  24.8

  24.6

  17.4

  6.1

  4.8

  Black—other

  37.2

  26.9

  31.7

  21.2

  6.0

  5.0

  Indian

  48.3

  39.1

  43.2

  35.2

  14.9

  13.0

  Pakistani

  39.0

  30.1

  32.4

  24.5

  8.7

  8.1

  550W
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) number and (b) proportion of people who went on to New Deal have left for unknown destinations, broken down by (i) programme and (ii) ethnicity in each year since the programmes began; and if he will make a statement. [124543]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on destinations on leaving New Deal is available for New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25plus, and the New Deal for Lone Parents. Equivalent information is not available for the other New Deals.

  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents who have participated in the New Deal for Lone Parents have later returned to income support, broken down by(a) those who originally left the NDLP because they found work, (b) those who left the NDLP to return immediately to income support and (c) those who left the NDLP for other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [124544]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is delivering services tailored to meet the needs of individual lone parents and giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. By the end of March 2003, it had helped over 193,000 lone parents to find jobs.

  The information requested on the number of lone parents claiming income support after leaving NDLP is not available. However, the recent evaluation of the NDLP national programme found that over 87 per cent. of those lone parents moving into work through NDLP were still in work six months later.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of participants in the New Deal for Young People from non-white ethnic minorities found(a) jobs and (b) sustained jobs in each year since 1997, broken down by ethnic minority; and if he will make a statement. [124545]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table:
  551W

  2001

  20022

  20032

  Ethnic group

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  All jobs

  Sustained

  Bangladeshi

  40.5

  32.2

  35.9

  27.8

  9.4

  8.2

  Chinese

  45.0

  34.1

  35.9

  30.4

  8.4

  7.5

  Mixed/other

  38.9

  29.5

  30.7

  24.2

  10.6

  9.7

  Notes:

  1. On a review of statistics, we have found that previous figures published on the breakdown by ethnicity included some accounting errors. This has now been corrected and the figures in this table supersede all previous figures provided.

  2. Figures for these years will appear to be lower as a higher proportion of starters will still be on the programme.

  Source:

  DWP Statistical Services Information and Analysis Directorate

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of each quarterly cohort on the full-time education and training option in the New Deal for Young People left with the qualification for which they aimed in each quarter since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [124546]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the achievement of qualifications by New Deal participants is not collected on a national basis.

  Information on qualifications held and subsequently achieved through New Deal is recorded and monitored by New Deal Personal Advisers on an individual basis at local level. However, information at national level could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost per place on each of the four options in the New Deal for Young People was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [124547]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deal for Young People (NDYP) has successfully helped over 420,000 young people into jobs, and represents value for money to the taxpayer. We are now building on the success of the programme by providing more help for those who face the greatest barriers to work, providing more individually-tailored support, and engaging further with employers to ensure their needs are met.

  Information about the cost per participant of each option in the NDYP is not collected. However, Jobcentre Plus are currently developing a unit cost model that will enable us to provide this information in future.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons leaving(a) the intensive gateway period, (b) the extended gateway and (c) each of the four options in the New Deal for Young People entered (i) unsubsidised and (ii) sustained jobs in each year since its inception; what proportion of persons left (A) first stage and (B) second stage of employment zones; and if he will make a statement. [124549]

  Mr. Browne
  For the purposes of recording New Deal for Young People statistics, employment is classed as sustained if the individual has not returned to claim Job Seeker's Allowance within 13 weeks. Employment can only be subsidised whilst an individual is participating in the programme, therefore all employment obtained on leaving the programme is unsubsidised.
  552W
  In exceptional circumstances, New Deal for Young People (NDYP) participants can have their Gateway period extended. However, these cases are not recorded separately.

  Information on the percentages of NDYP participants entering unsubsidised, sustained jobs and the numbers of leavers from Employment Zones Steps one and two has been placed in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants on New Deal for Young People have been placed on training courses longer than a year in each year since the programme began; and if he will make a statement. [124550]

  Mr. Browne
  It is the policy of New Deal for Young People (NDYP) that nobody should be placed on an NDYP Full-Time Education and Training Course for longer than a year.

  Information on the length of courses taken up by young people on the New Deal Full-Time Education and Training Option is not held centrally and could be only obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants have joined the New Deal for Young People(a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) more than three times; and if he will make a statement. [124552]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  New Deal for Young People (NDYP): Number of times participants have joined the programme

  Number of times on NDYP

  Number

  One

  582,330

  Two

  135,500

  Three

  29,290

  More than three

  3,480

  source:

  DWP Statistical Services Information and Analysis Directorate

  New Deal for Young People has been a success in helping more than 420,000 young people move into work and 79 per cent. of these have moved into jobs lasting 13 weeks or more. Although some young people will re-experience unemployment after leaving New Deal, the skills and experience they acquire after finding work through the programme will make it easier for them to find employment in the future.

  We have also introduced other measures to help people facing additional barriers to work, for example the StepUP pilots, which build on the New Deal for

  553W
  Young People and New Deal 25 plus by providing transitional jobs for those who have not secured sustained employment through New Deal.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 962W, on the New Deal, on what basis the calculation of cost per job for New Deal programmes was made; and if he will make a statement. [125934]

  Mr. Browne
  The average cost of a young person moving into work through the New Deal for Young people was an approximate estimate made in 2000 based on the average spend per young person on the New Deal and the percentage of New Deal participants who had found a job. This was produced specifically in response to the Education and Employment Select Committee's report 'New Deal for Young People—Two Years On'.

  The cost per participant moving into work for the New Deal for Lone Parents was based on independent evaluation (DSS Report No. 108 'Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from the Phase One Prototype—Synthesis Report'). A copy of this report is in the Library.

  Recently, new evaluation has been published showing that far from costing the taxpayer money the New Deal for Lone Parents actually saves money. Every lone parent moving into work equates to a saving to the exchequer of nearly £1,600. This evaluation was published in the DWP research report 'New Deal for Lone Parents: Second Synthesis Report of the National Evaluation'. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria are used by New Deal for Lone Parents advisers to determine whether they will assist with the provision of child care; what the maximum amount is they are empowered to spend on child care per client; and what total annual budget was available on average per client under the NDLP in the last 12 months for discretionary expenditure. [105968]

  Mr. Browne
  New Deal for Lone Parents offers assistance with the costs of registered childcare paid while the lone parent attends interviews with their personal adviser, job interviews arranged by their adviser, or other agreed activity. The amount that can be paid for child care costs is up to £135 per week for one child, £200 per week for 2 or more children.

  This assistance is available to all NDLP participants. NDLP personal advisers will consider whether the amount charged is reasonable, taking into account their knowledge of average charges in their local area.

  Additional help is available through the Adviser Discretion Fund. The fund can offer help with upfront costs of up to £300 which could go towards child care costs where the personal adviser determines this could help overcome obstacles to accepting a job offer. Help from this fund is available to NDLP participants who have not been working, and have not been in full time education, in the preceding six months. The maximum available per client per year from this Discretionary fund is £300.

  Operation Gangmaster
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress of Operation Gangmaster. [126734]

  Mr. Pond
  Operation Gangmaster began in 1998 and, following disruption caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, was re-launched in April 2002. Operation Gangmaster brings together representatives from a range of Government Departments and Agencies and, where appropriate, the police to tackle gangmasters operating illegal practices. This group operates in two ways.

  The first function is to gather and collate evidence on gangmasters operating in the informal economy. This intelligence enables us to ensure that specialist gangmaster compliance activity is better targeted and more effective.

  The second function of Operation Gangmaster is to organise specific operations, using appropriate compliance staff drawn from the relevant Departments and Agencies, to tackle particular gangmasters known to be involved in illegal practices. These operations are lead by the Department or Agency that has the major interest in the individual case.

  Operation Gangmaster does not replace the normal compliance activity taken by each Department or Agency. However, it does provide a co-ordinated approach to tackling gangmasters that may be involved in a range of illegal activity such as breaches of immigration or employment law; tax offences and benefit fraud.

  Each Department and Agency maintains their own statistics on results of operations. Over the last year Department for Work and Pensions officials have imposed sanctions on 138 people who were involved in benefit fraud, made 18,000 adjustments to benefit entitlements and identified overpayments of benefit in 235 cases.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003, ref 124888, if he will list the Government Departments and agencies in the Gangmaster Working Group. [126989]

  Mr. Pond
  Lord Grabiner recommended that Government Departments should work together in tackling informal economy issues. A Grabiner steering group (now called the Informal Economy Steering Group) was set up to promote Joint Working across Government on informal economy issues. Lower level working groups support the steering group in operational initiatives. One such initiative is Operation Gangmaster, which operates in nine regional forums. The following Departments are directly involved:

  The Department for Work and Pensions (lead Department/Agency for Operation Gangmaster and producers of all Operations).

  Her Majesty's Custom and Excise (Chair of the Working Group and Secretariat).

  Inland Revenue.

  National Asylum Support Service.

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  United Kingdom Immigration Service.

  555W
  Other Departments involved on an ad hoc basis include the following;

  Health and Safety Executive.

  Social Services.

  Uniform and Plain Clothes Police Officers including Special Branch etc

  Scottish Executive for Rural Affairs.

  Operational Intelligence Units
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been processed through the operational intelligence units in(a) Glasgow and (b) Edinburgh in each month since 1997; how many staff have been employed in their operational intelligence units in (i) Glasgow and (ii) Edinburgh in each month since 1997; and what the planned staffing levels are for each centre. [125480]

  Mr. Pond
  By the end of 2003–04 it is planned to transfer the work of the Edinburgh unit to the Glasgow site in order to improve co-ordination of the delivery of Operational Intelligence Unit services across Scotland. The Glasgow Operational Intelligence Unit will employ 49 staff.

  The information requested on past staffing and work levels is in the table:

  Glasgow1

  Edinburgh2

  Year/Month

  3Cases

  No.of Staff

  3Cases

  No.of Staff

  July to September 2001

  41,189

  3

  —

  —

  October

  384

  3

  41,379

  9

  November

  5241

  8

  9

  December

  349

  8

  9

  January 2002

  638

  10

  11

  February

  5—

  12

  10

  March

  5—

  17

  450

  10

  April

  799

  18

  456

  13

  May

  591

  19

  725

  13

  June

  594

  20

  559

  11

  July

  1,106

  22

  579

  10

  August

  1,642

  23

  498

  11

  September

  1,119

  23

  658

  11

  October

  792

  23

  796

  12

  November

  720

  23

  587

  13

  December

  825

  22

  565

  13

  January 2003

  1,039

  23

  763

  15

  February

  1,138

  26

  864

  16

  March

  1,271

  27

  897

  18

  April

  1,541

  26

  1,198

  21

  May

  1,395

  26

  1,091

  21

  June

  1,625

  25

  1,423

  21

  1 The Glasgow Operational Intelligence Unit began operating in July 2001.

  2 The Edinburgh Operational Intelligence Unit began operating in October 2001.

  3 Data requests and fraud referrals.

  4 These figures are not available broken down per month.

  5 Records were maintained clerically and are incomplete for these months.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to answer question number 114044, tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire for answer on Monday 19 May. [120325]

  Maria Eagle
  A reply was given to the hon. Member on 19 June. Further information was given in a subsequent reply on 15 July.
  556W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether it is his policy that written answers from Ministers in his Department should be deposited in the Library on the day of answering before the rising of the House; and if he will make a statement. [126367]

  Maria Eagle
  Written answers are despatched in time for them to be delivered before the rising of the House on the day of answering. If the hon. Member is aware of any difficulties I will be pleased to look into the matter.

  Pendle
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what policies(a) initiated and (b) managed by his Department since 2001 had an impact on Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [124087]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 2001 this Department has introduced a range of reforms which are delivering opportunity and independence for all. Amongst the major reforms are the introduction of work focused interviews and the New Deal programmes that are helping people return to work and contribute to record levels of employment. To protect today's pensioners we introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee, which ensures a minimum level of income for all pensioners; and from October t his year, the Pension Credit which will also reward modest savings. In addition, the Winter Fuel Payment is payable to all pensioner households and will be increased by 100 from this winter for every household where someone is aged 80 or over. The Child Support reforms will increase the levels of child maintenance paid to parents, and along with the introduction of the Child Tax Credit, are helping to tackle child poverty. We have also introduced a range of policies that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of disability, help more people with disabilities to find employment, or support those who are unable to work.

  These policies impact upon the whole of Great Britain. The Departmental Report contains details of all areas of DWP's work. This can be accessed, via the internet at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2003/dwpreport/index.asp Copies of the Departmental Report are available in the Library.

  To indicate the impact of some of the policies introduced, unemployment as a proportion of the working age population in Pendle has fallen since 1997 to 2.3 per cent. from 2.8 per cent., with over 20 per cent. fewer lone parents claiming income support. And more than 16,000 pensioners in Pendle will be entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment this year.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the pension credit application form in the Library. [116725]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy of the Pension Credit Application form is available in the Library. This application form is only for the period of advance applications (7 April to 5 October 2003) and will be replaced on the 6 October 2003. A copy of the new form will be placed in the Library when it is available. The supplementary forms also placed in the Library are used
  557W
  depending on the pensioners circumstances and have been created to reduce the complexity of the main application form for many pensioners.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of postage for(a) writing to all those aged 60 and over to tell them about their possible entitlement to pension credit and (b) the return of the pension credit application form by freepost. [126387]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is currently estimated that the postage costs of sending direct mail packs about Pension Credit will be in the region of £1.33 million to the end of May 2004 and that the postage costs of returning completed forms by freepost will be in the region of £0.67 million to the end of May 2004.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what payment options are available to people filling in the pension credit application form who tick the box in part 13B stating that they do not agree to having their money paid direct into any type of account. [126388]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The normal method of payment of Pension Credit will be by direct payment into an account. There are a number of types of account available. Customers who contact the Pension Credit application line are taken through a discussion which covers general aspects of current accounts, basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account to make them aware of the options open to them. Customers who indicate that they do not agree to their money being paid direct into an account can be paid by order book in the short term. It is explained to them that the Department is in the process of inviting all its customers to convert to direct payment and that order books and giro cheques will eventually be phased out by spring 2005. We have always recognised that there will be a small number of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. We will develop an alternative method of pay to this group, which can be accessed at Post Office branches.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), of 10 July 2003, columns 979–80W, what proportion of pensioners are estimated to be affected by each of the significant changes that must be reported to the Pension Service by a Pension Credit recipient; and what proportion of pensioners are affected by one or more of them each year. [126623]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested however it is estimated that, in one year, 0.2 per cent. of the Pension Credit caseload will report a marriage or divorce, 1.2 per cent. death of a partner, 10 per cent. will report admission to a care home and 11 per cent. admission to hospital.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his written statement of 14 July 2003,Official Report, columns 6–7WS, on the pension credit, how many of the pensioner households ready to be paid pension credit from October are (a) existing recipients of minimum income guarantee and (b) non-recipients of minimum income guarantee. [127040]
  558W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available at this stage in the advance application period in the form requested. We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include a more detailed breakdown.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are being taken to minimise the potential for pension credit fraud in advance of its introduction. [124840]

  Mr. Pond
  The Pension Service has established a programme protection strategy which will help combat fraud in claims to pension credit.

  The strategy is aimed at maximising the opportunities provided, in the course of contacts with all customers, to support them in getting the claims correct at the outset, and in keeping those claims correct through the life of the claim. A programme of case management using scans based on data matching of internal and external data sources, together with regular case checks on areas of established risk, will limit the opportunities for fraud.

  Pension Service
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many hours of staff absence there have been among Pension Service employees each month in the last two years. [121497]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the average working days lost for the whole period April 2002 to March 2003 was 9.9.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answers of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 88W, and 2 July 2003, Official Report, column 346W, on pensioners, if he will break down the column headed income related benefit savings into (a) the guarantee element of the pension credit, (b) the savings element of the pension credit, (c) housing benefit and (d) council tax benefit. [125655]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  A breakdown of income-related benefit savings

  £

  Pension credit guarantee

  Pension credit savings credit

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Total

  2003–04

  90m

  60m

  20m

  10m

  180m

  2004–05

  240m

  150m

  60m

  40m

  500m

  2005–06

  400m

  200m

  90m

  60m

  800m

  2006–07

  500m

  300m

  120m

  80m

  1bn

  2007–08

  700m

  400m

  160m

  100m

  1.3bn

  2008–09

  800m

  500m

  200m

  120m

  1.6bn

  2009–10

  1bn

  600m

  240m

  150m

  2bn

  2010–11

  1.2bn

  700m

  280m

  170m

  2.3bn

  2011–12

  1.3bn

  800m

  320m

  200m

  2.7bn

  2012–13

  1.5bn

  900m

  370m

  230m

  3bn

  Notes:

  1. The figures are in 2002–03 price terms. The totals are rounded to the nearest £100 million, except 2003–04 which is rounded to the nearest £10 million. The totals may not sum due to rounding. Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are rounded to the

  559W
  nearest £10 million. Pension Credit figures are rounded to the nearest £100 million, except in 2003–04 and 2004–05 which are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP's Policy Simulation model for 2003–04. Calculations assume Pension Credit is in place for the full financial year 2003–04 and that the starting point of the savings credit increases to the new value of the basic State Pension.

  3. The income related benefit offsets are assumed to remain a constant proportion of the additional expenditure on the basic State Pension in future years as a result of introducing an earnings link in April 2003. The split between the guarantee credit and the savings credit is assumed to remain constant in future years.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to Working and Saving for Retirement: Action on Occupational Pensions, if his plans to ease the indexation requirements will apply to an individual's accrued rights prior to the implementation of his reforms; [121119]

  (2) pursuant to Working and Saving for Retirement: Action on Occupational Pensions, if it is his intention to allow firms to protect part of an individual's pension contribution at 5 per cent. and the rest at 2.5 per cent. [121120]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement to the House on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 682, the proposals in the Action Plan for Occupational Pensions for relaxing the mandatory indexation requirements will not affect pensions in payment, nor the value of existing accrued rights. The value of 5 per cent. protection to the date the new mandatory minimum cap takes effect must be safeguarded.

  As he also made clear, the proposed changes to Section 67 of the Pensions Act will allow schemes significantly more scope to achieve simplification by restructuring benefits. Schemes should be able to translate accrued entitlement into rights of equivalent value provided they continue to meet the applicable legislative requirements, including those concerning annual increases in accrued rights.

  Subject to the indexation requirements, it will continue to be for schemes to determine the level to which an individual's pension in payment is protected from inflation. Some schemes choose—and will continue to choose—to protect members' pensions at a level above the legislative requirement.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to issue(a) a further response to the consultation on the Pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677) and (b) a White Paper on pensions; and if he will make statement. [126466]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government published its response to the Pensions Green Paper on 11 June 2003. The document, Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement—Action on occupational pensions (Cm 5677), sets out the timetable of our reform programme, on which we will make further announcements in due course.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the appointees to the(a) Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, (b) Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, (c) Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and (d) Social Security Advisory Committee and which of the appointees from each body are from ethnic minorities. [122993]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Position

  Appointee

  Ethnic Minority Background Declared

  Disability Living Allowance

  Chair

  Mrs Anne Spaight

  —

  Member

  Mrs Simone Baker

  —

  Member

  Dr. David Cohen

  —

  Member

  Mrs Jean Cooper

  —

  Member

  Mrs Judith Holt

  —

  Member

  Ms Marilyn Howard

  —

  Member

  Dr. Lee Illis

  —

  Member

  Dr. John Keen

  —

  Member

  Dr. Ben Ko

  Yes

  Member

  Dr. Richard Lucas

  —

  Member

  Dr. Ian McGill

  —

  Member

  Dr. Audrey Oppenheim

  —

  Member

  Mrs Clare Poole

  —

  Member

  Professor David Scott

  —

  Member

  Miss Cynthia Smith

  —

  Member

  Mrs Marion Westacott

  —

  Member

  Mrs Christine Whitehead

  —

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  Chair

  Professor Anthony Newman Taylor

  —

  Member

  Dr. Mark Britton

  —

  Member

  Dr. Ian Brown

  —

  Member

  Dr. Anne Cockcroft

  —

  Member

  Professor David Coggan

  —

  Member

  Mr. Gordon Ifill

  Yes

  Member

  Mrs Diana Kloss

  —

  Member

  Dr. Ian Lawson

  —

  Member

  Dr. Simon Levene

  —

  Member

  Dr. Keith Palmer

  —

  Member

  Mr. Mark Platt

  —

  Member

  Mr. Hugh Robertson

  —

  Member

  Dr. Lesley Rushton

  —

  Member

  Ms Jenny Thurston

  —

  Member

  Mr. Owen Tudor

  —

  Member

  Dr. Derek White

  —

  Member

  Dr. Lucille Wright

  —

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Chair

  Mrs Harriet Maunsell OBE

  —

  Member

  Mr. David Adams OBE

  —

  Member

  Ms Wendy Beaver

  —

  Member

  Miss Belinda Benny

  —

  Member

  Mr. Hugh Brown

  —

  Member

  Mr. Duncan Campbell

  —

  Member

  Mr. Laurie Edmans

  —

  Member

  Mr. Mike Jones

  —

  Member

  Miss Myra Kinghorn

  —

  Member

  Mrs Mary MacLeod

  —

  Member

  Ms Joanne Segars

  —

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Chair

  Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter KBE

  —

  Member

  Mr. Neil Barlow

  —

  Member

  Mrs Elisabeth Elias

  —

  Member

  Dr. Angus Erskine

  —

  Member

  Mr. Richard Excell OBE

  —

  Member

  Mrs Ros Gardner

  —

  Member

  Mrs Alison Garnham

  —

  Dr. Christine Kendrick

  —

  Member

  Dr. Piu-Ling

  —

  Member

  Professor Eithne McLaughlin FRSA

  —

  Member

  Mr. Laurie Naumann

  —

  Professor Anthony Ogus CBE

  —

  Member

  Professor Robert Walker

  —

  561W
  Notes:
  The table contains the names of chairs and members of the groups requested. The appointees noted as being from an ethnic background have given their consent for this information to be released.

  Seasonal Unemployment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has for addressing seasonal unemployment fluctuations in seaside towns; and if he will make a statement. [124772]

  Mr. Browne
  In a dynamic economy, like the UK, jobs begin and end frequently and we cannot legislate to prevent change. Seaside towns suffer more seasonal fluctuation, but this can be reduced over time as broader employment bases are established. However, where there are job losses, the people affected need help and support to find a new job as quickly as possible—whatever part of the economy they work in.

  Jobcentre Plus is providing everyone of working age with advice and guidance on the full range of support available to help them move into work, including where this need is as a result of seasonal fluctuations. For those who need more help, we have introduced a wide range of programmes and initiatives designed to tackle the barriers that can prevent individuals from returning to work. We are making sure that people who become unemployed get back into employment as soon as possible.

  These policies have contributed to a reduction in unemployment across the country. For example, in Torbay, 2,277 people have been helped into work through the New Deals and the percentage of the working-age population in Torbay who were unemployed and claiming benefit has fallen from 5.8 per cent. in May 1997 to 2.9 per cent. in May 2003.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126671]

  Maria Eagle
  Departmental special advisers travelled abroad on one occasion to Boston and Washington, USA at a cost of £4,900.00.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many staff in his Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years; [109244]

  (2) how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sick leave in each of the last two years. [115866]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001 but statistics for the new Department as a whole have only been available since April 2002. Statistics for the former Department of Social Security are also not available.
  562W
  Such information is available as follows:
  Long-term sick leave is defined as absences lasting 28 working days and over.
  13,853 people out of 166,286 (8.3 per cent.) in the Department have taken one spell of long-term sickness absence between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003.
  A further 2,504 people in the Department have taken at least two spells of long-term sickness absence between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003.

  This is summarised below:

  Number of spells

  Number of people

  1

  13,853

  2

  2,154

  3

  303

  4

  35

  5

  9

  6

  3

  Standard Local Housing Allowance
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what size of geographical area he will determine as appropriate in setting the standard local housing allowance to ensure that it properly reflects the local market; [118488]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that tenants' views are taken into account in the level set in their locality for the standard local housing allowance. [118491]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Standard local housing allowances in the 10 Pathfinder authorities will be calculated across a Broad Rental Market Area. This will be based on the current concept of a locality, which is used to determine Local Reference Rents and Single Room Rents.

  As with localities, a Broad Rental Market Area will reflect a rent officer's judgment about the area in which someone could reasonably be expected to live while having access to amenities of a similar standard. Therefore, the area covered will depend on local conditions rather than pre-determined geographical size.

  The information on which rent officers' decisions are based is collected from a wide range of sources. Although they are under no duty to formally consult with anyone when setting localities and calculating Local Reference Rents (or Single Room Rents), rent officers welcome discussion and information from any interested party. They currently do this by holding regular meetings with local landlords' forums and tenants' groups. Similarly, although there will be no duty for rent officers to consult with tenants or other third parties when setting Broad Rental Market Areas and calculating Standard Local Housing Allowances, they will continue to welcome discussion.

  Tax Credits
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he and his Department have(a) made and (b) put into action to extend entitlement for application to budgeting and crisis loans to those in receipt of tax credits; and if he will make a statement. [126108]
  563W
  Mr. Pond
  Social fund budgeting loans target help on the neediest people in our society who qualify for income-related benefits.

  All families who move from income support or jobseeker's allowance to child tax credit only will be entitled to the maximum amount of child tax credit up to an annual household income of £13,230. These families can therefore gain considerably from the introduction of the child tax credit.

  Crisis loans will continue to be available to anyone in an emergency, or as a consequence of a disaster where there is no other means of preventing serious damage or serious risk to their health or safety or that of their family. There is no requirement for a crisis loan applicant to be receiving an income-related benefit, but any income or capital they have will be taken into account.

  Widowers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to meet representatives of widowers' groups to discuss issues affecting widowers' pensions; [117120]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the granting of back-payments of widowers' pensions. [118777]

  Mr. Pond
  There are still a number of cases before both the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic courts involving widowers. The UK is defending on a number of aspects of these cases and their outcome will inevitably affect the Government's decisions in dealing with all the widowers affected. We cannot say when all the judgments are going to be available, nor can we speculate about the outcomes. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to meet individuals or groups potentially affected by the litigation.

  We have received a number of representations about the April 2001 reform of support in bereavement and the action taken in the Courts by some individuals. We have replied to all these representations.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126620]

  Maria Eagle
  We have issued 71 written ministerial statements.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had on renewal of the BBC's Charter. [125079]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am now considering the best way to conduct the Charter Review process. As I indicated in the House on 14 July, we intend to publish proposals on 564W
  the Charter Review process before Christmas. The process will be wide-ranging and thorough and will provide a number of opportunities for public debate.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by her Department and agencies for which her Department is responsible in each of the last five years to promote(a) Northumberland and (b) the north-east as a tourist destination. [126450]

  Mr. Caborn
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) was responsible for marketing Britain overseas as a tourist destination over the last five years. It did not allocate funds for individual regions (or sub-regions) of Britain, but promoted Britain as a whole in a way which maximised the impact of its campaigns in individual markets overseas. DCMS allocated the following amounts to the BTA in the last five years:

  Grant (£ million)

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  36

  2000–01

  37

  2001–02

  35.5

  2002–03

  35.5

  In addition, £14.2 million was awarded in 2001–02. A further £20 million was allocated from the Reserve in 2002–03 to help tourism recover from the impact of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak and the 11 September attacks and to drive forward a strategy.

  In 2001–02, DCM S allocated to the English Tourism Council (ETC) £3.8 million from the Reserve to assist the domestic recovery of tourism following FMD; over half that amount was passed to the 10 Regional Tourist Boards in England, including the Northumbria Tourist Board, whose activities cover Northumberland and the north-east, and much of it was used for promotional activities. Other central Government funding provided to the Northumbria Tourist Board in those years via the ETC was for the delivery of the national tourism strategy at regional level, and did not include money for marketing.

  Elite Athletes Funding Group
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on completion of the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Elite Athletes Funding Group Report. [126332]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Elite Sports Funding Review made over 50 recommendations, the large majority of which are for the Sports Councils and National Governing Bodies of sport to take forward. The Review was discussed at the Sports Cabinet on 31 October 2001, chaired by the Secretary of State. The Cabinet brings together the Sports Ministers and Chairmen of the Sports Councils from each of the Devolved Administrations. At the Cabinet, the Sports Councils accepted and are now implementing the overwhelming majority of the recommendations.
  565W
  Following the recent Spending Review, a ring fenced allocation of £4.7 million for 2004–05 and 2005–06 has been provided to UK Sport to enable them to take forward some of the outstanding recommendations that involved an increase in expenditure. Some of the recommendations relate to the World Class Plans and cannot be implemented until the current 4-year Plans have been completed. DCMS will continue to work with UK Sport, the Devolved Administrations and Sport England to ensure that implementation of the recommendations is effective and continues to remain relevant to the changing environment of high performance sport.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [124780]

  Mr. Caborn
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, DCMS Ministers and officials have had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. We have also had regular contact with Member and Accession Stares 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.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to make science and education new criteria for lottery grants. [126735]

  Estelle Morris
  I have no immediate plans to make changes. The New Opportunities Fund has responsibility for education funding from the Lottery and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has responsibility for science.

  National Stadium
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what efforts are being made to ensure that all the timber being used in the construction of the new stadium at Wembley comes from legal and sustainable sources: and if she will make a statement. [126025]

  Mr. Caborn
  In my answer to my Hon. Friend's question on 26 February 2003,Official Report, columns 602–03, I explained that the National Football Stadium is a Football Association project which is being delivered by its wholly owned subsidiary company Wembley National Stadium Ltd. The Government's policy that its central Departments and agencies should actively seek to buy timber from legal and sustainable sources does not therefore apply to the building of the national stadium.

  Wembley National Stadium Ltd. have however agreed under the terms of Sport England's Lottery Funding agreement to have regard to obtaining
  566W
  materials from sustainable or renewable sources. Multiplex Construction (UK) who are building the stadium have environmental plans in place to honour this obligation which extends to sub-contractors. Multiplex have confirmed to Wembley National Stadium Ltd. that they will continue to monitor the source of timber products used throughout the duration of the project.

  OFCOM
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of staff at Of com earn more than £100,000 per annum. [126317]

  Estelle Morris
  Nine members of staff working within Ofcom currently fall in this category.

  Physical Exercise (Northumberland Schools)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of school children in the Northumberland local education authority area receive a minimum of two hours physical exercise and school sport per week. [126452]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not currently held in the format requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisors have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126673]

  Mr. Caborn
  No departmental or non-departmental travel abroad was undertaken by any Special Advisors for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport between the periods of 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003.

  All travel undertaken by Special Advisers is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value of Sport England's Exchequer grant aid was to each national governing body in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04. [125220]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures are shown in the following table.
  567W

  £

  Governing body grants

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Angling—National Federation of Anglers

  45,625

  80,500

  40,000

  43,000

  Angling—National Federation of Sea Anglers

  30,000

  38,250

  47,500

  49,000

  Angling—Salmon and Trout Association

  25,000

  32,000

  40,000

  43,000

  Archery—Grand National Archery Society

  0

  0

  0

  15,000

  Association Football—Football Association

  132,000

  108,000

  0

  144,000

  Athletics—Amateur Athletics

  193,000

  293,000

  293,000

  315,000

  Badminton—Badminton Association

  280,000

  280,000

  280,000

  280,000

  Basketball—EBBA

  457,500

  473,334

  491,833

  450,000

  Boxing—Amateur Boxing Association

  49,333

  98,001

  46,107

  91,666

  Canoeing—British Canoe Union

  200,000

  200,000

  200,000

  200,000

  Cricket—England and Wales Cricket Board

  262,250

  284,500

  207,125

  179,000

  Cycling—British Cycling Federation

  270,000

  270,000

  202,500

  270,000

  Equestrian—British Equestrian Federation

  40,000

  40,000

  42,500

  50,000

  Fencing—British Fencing Association

  45,000

  50,000

  50,000

  50,000

  Fitness—Exercise Association

  28,000

  0

  0

  0

  Golf—Golf Foundation

  94,000

  92,000

  92,000

  92,000

  Gymnastics—British Amateur Gymnastics

  200,000

  200,999.8

  200,000

  200,000

  Hockey—English Hockey Foundation

  470,000

  450,000

  450,000

  450,000

  Ice Skating—National Ice Skating

  25,000

  16,750

  13,750

  15,000

  Judo—British Judo Association

  79,551

  121,000

  125,000

  125,000

  Karate—English Karate

  31,250

  16,250

  0

  35,000

  Lacrosse—English Lacrosse Association

  213,750

  151,250

  140,000

  140,000

  Mountaineering—British Mountaineering Council

  72,778

  65,000

  65,000

  65,000

  Movement and Dance—English Amateur Dance

  8,500

  8,500

  8,500

  8,500

  Movement and Dance—English Folk Dance and Song Society

  17,000

  17,000

  17,000

  17,000

  Movement and Dance—Health and Beauty Exercise

  15,000

  15,500

  15,500

  15,000

  Movement and Dance—Keep Fit Association

  37,333

  36,667

  36,000

  36,000

  Movement and Dance—Margaret Morris Movement

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Movement and Dance—CCPR

  27,913

  42,000

  41,870

  14,000

  Movement and Dance—Medau Society

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Netball—All England Netball Association

  447,500

  460,000

  443,375

  430,000

  Rowing—Amateur Rowing Association

  200,000

  250,000

  262,500

  262,500

  Rugby League—British Amateur Rugby League Association

  320,000

  320,000

  150,000

  130,000

  Rugby League Joint Policy Board

  0

  0

  190,000

  190,000

  Rugby Football—Rugby Football Union

  297,188

  225,312

  200,000

  200,000

  Rugby Football—RFU for Women

  131,666

  150,000

  141,333

  139,000

  Sailing—Royal Yachting Association

  100,000

  130,000

  130,000

  130,000

  Shooting—English Shooting Council

  7,000

  24,125

  4,875

  1,500

  Skiing—English Skiing Council

  50,000

  30,000

  50,000

  40,000

  Squash—Squash Rackets Association

  252,500

  242,500

  307,119.8

  240,000

  Swimming—Amateur Swimming Association

  330,000

  340,000

  340,000

  340,000

  Table Tennis—English Table Tennis Association

  450,000

  435,000

  435,000

  435,000

  Triathlon—British Triathlon Association

  30,000

  40,000

  75,000

  60,000

  Volleyball—English Volleyball Association

  208,000

  208,000

  208,000

  208,000

  Water Skiing—British Water Ski Federation

  35,000

  35,000

  38,000

  35,000

  Weightlifting—British Weightlifters Association

  40,000

  39,999

  40,001

  40,000

  Wrestling—British Wrestling Association

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Petanque—British Petanque Association

  3,750

  0

  5,000

  5,000

  Caving—National Caving Association

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Handball—British Handball Association

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  Orienteering—British Orienteering Association

  82,500

  90,000

  90,000

  90,000

  Rounders—National Rounders Association

  23,500

  32,000

  32,000

  32,000

  Surfing—Surf Life Saving Association

  6,787

  4,612

  8,750

  7,000

  Real Tennis—Tennis and Rackets Association

  12,000

  12,000

  8,000

  8,000

  Tug-Of-War

  4,567

  6,583

  3,250

  3,000

  Softball—British Softball Association

  25,000

  25,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Yoga—British Wheel of Yoga

  7,084

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Baseball—Baseball Federation

  16,000

  16,001

  15,000

  16,000

  British Roller Sports Federation

  —

  0

  0

  20,000

  English Ice Hockey Association

  —

  0

  0

  20,000

  Modern Pentathlon Association of Great Britain

  —

  0

  0

  5,000

  6,481,825

  6,658,634

  6,409,389

  6,566,166

  Tourism
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has allocated for the promotion of tourism in the UK in 2003–04. [126516]
  568W
  Mr. Caborn
  This Department has allocated over £54 million this year in order to promote tourism in Britain to both the overseas and domestic markets, as follows
  569W

  £ million

  2003–04

  VisitBritain grant-in-aid

  Overseas promotion

  35.5

  Domestic promotion

  10.4

  Transition funds for reform

  2.0

  Total

  47.9

  Other

  RDAs

  3.6

  London

  1.9

  EnglandNet (Invest to Save)

  1.2

  Tourism total

  54.6

  In addition, DCMS spends over £1 billion per year on, for example, the arts, royal parks and palaces, museums and galleries, much of which directly benefits tourism.

  Tourism (Northumberland)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in the tourism industry in Northumberland in each of the last five years. [126725]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not available. Employment statistics for the tourism industry are available only for the whole of Great Britain and for England. The most recent data are for June 2002. These are shown in the following table with the figures for the previous four years.

  Employment in the tourism related industries1 in Great Britain and England

  As at June

  Number of jobs2 in Great Britain

  Number of jobs in England

  1998

  1,990,000

  1,560,000

  1999

  2,070,000

  1,780,000

  2000

  2,140,000

  1,830,000

  2001

  2,160,000

  1,820,000

  2002

  2,180,000

  1,830,000

  1 The tourism-related industries are short-stay accommodation, restaurants and cafes, bars and nightclubs, travel agencies and tour operators, libraries, museums and other cultural activities, sport and other recreation activities.

  2 Includes both employees and the self-employed.

  Source:

  DCMS analysis of National Statistics Sources.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126619]

  Mr. Caborn
  As of 16 July 2003, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had made 31 written ministerial statements since 29 October 2002.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commission on Intellectual Property Rights
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of 570W
  the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, on protecting (a) the material in (i) gene banks and (ii) farmers' fields from being directly patented and (b) the rights of farmers to follow traditional practices of reusing, exchanging and informally selling seeds in developing countries. [125901]

  Hilary Benn
  Access to material in gene banks and in farmers' fields, and the criteria under which patents may be obtained on such material, is governed by national legislation. Under TRIPS, plants as such may be excluded from patentability, as also may conventional plant breeding processes. Plant varieties may be covered by patents or other effective sui generis protection systems. The criteria for patentability applying in most countries would prevent the direct patenting of material in farmers' fields.

  The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, when it comes into effect, will establish a Multilateral System on Access and Benefit Sharing for a list of food and fodder plants. The ability to take out intellectual property rights on material in gene banks covered by the Treaty in the form received is specifically excluded.

  The UK has signed the International Treaty and hopes to ratify it, together with all other EU member states, before the end of this year. It will come into effect 90 days after the 40th ratification of, or accession to, the Treaty. In its response to the Commission report, published in May, the government urged all other countries that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible.

  The Government supports the right of developing countries to legislate to provide for the re-use, exchange and informal sale of seeds by farmers.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how the Department will help ensure that the UK's beyond heavily indebted poor countries additional debt relief will be used to tackle poverty in indebted countries. [125816]

  Hilary Benn
  Before a country can qualify for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, it must produce an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) at Decision Point— the first stage of the HIPC process—setting out what action it will take to develop a full PRSP. To reach Completion Point—the final stage when the relief becomes irrevocable—the full PRSP must be in place, and under implementation for at least one year. The PRSP sets out the policy action governments are taking to reduce poverty, and also provides a budgetary framework not only for spending the savings from debt relief but also for allocating all other aid and government revenue so that they have the greatest impact on poverty reduction.

  We believe strongly in the value of the PRSP process, which is leading to improved economic management and social reform. The UK Government goes further than is required under HIPC and provides 100 per cent, debt relief to countries when they qualify for HIPC relief. In addition, all payments received by HMG from HIPC countries will be held in trust and returned to

  571W
  countries when they qualify for HIPC relief, so that they can invest more resources in poverty reduction programmes. For the 26 countries that have qualified for HIPC so far, spending on education and health in these countries is set to rise by some US$4 billion each year. On average, their debts will be reduced by around two-thirds, and social expenditure will be nearly four times higher than spending on debt servicing. The UK is also aligning its bilateral development assistance programmes with the PRSPs.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development 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. [123090]

  Hilary Benn
  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in DFID's staff handbook. All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on the costs of categories (a) ministerial cars and drivers and (f) chartered planes, in respect of ministerial travel, is being provided centrally by the Cabinet Office in response to a parallel question. The detailed information requested for category (d) is not separately recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost but is likely to be small.

  For category (b) DFID currently has two taxi contracts, with a combined cost for 2002 of £108,211. We do not hold central records of taxi costs paid to other companies and claimed for by individual members of staff.

  For categories (c) and (e), for bookings made in the UK through DFID's HQ-based travel implant, the cost to DFID during the last three calndar years was:

  Cost of rail and airline bookings

  £

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Rail

  265,00

  308,000

  346,000

  Airlines

  7.900,000

  8,400,000

  9,800,000

  The figures for categories c) and e) do not include spending on travel by overseas offices, booked through an overseas travel agent:

  Kenya
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the educational projects in Kenya which have received funding from his Department(a) directly and (b) indirectly in 2002–03. [125550]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided direct funding for two education projects in Kenya in 2002–03; the Education for Empowerment project, and the Strengthening Primary Education project (Phase 3). DFID also provides funding for education through multilateral 572W
  channels, but information on this is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development (1) what the average waiting time for hospital treatment is in Montserrat; [126065]

  (2) how many people there are on a hospital waiting list in Montserrat;[126068]

  (3) how many doctors there are per head of population in Montserrat. [126064]

  Hilary Benn
  The government of Montserrat are responsible for health matters on island. However, due to the recent volcanic events on Montserrat, it is not possible to provide an answer to the above questions in the time available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the average class size is in Montserrat, broken down by age group. [126066]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Montserrat is responsible for education matters on the island. However, due to recent volcanic events on Montserrat, it is not possible to provide an answer to the above question in the time available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what plans the Department has to facilitate the development of mutually beneficial partnerships between donors and non-governmental organisations working to assist people in developing nations. [125817]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has significant involvement with a wide range of NGOs and other civil society organisations. In 2001–02, we entered into funding partnerships with over 130 UK based NGOs providing financial support of over £190 million. These partnerships involve working in a wide variety of ways, ranging from humanitarian assistance to Partnership Programme Agreements, which are strategic agreements that provide support for mutually agreed development objectives.

  There are regular meetings with British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), the umbrella membership organisation representing UK NGOs active in international development, and individual NGOs to discuss issues of policy and procedures.

  DFID officials are active participants at the EC Member States Working Group on NGO co-financing, that is considering how best to build mutually beneficial partnerships with NGOs. We also maintain relations with other donors, both centrally and through our various offices in the developing world.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123113]

  Hilary Benn
  It is difficult to separate out completely DFID's expenditure on the running costs of Minister's Private Offices from that of Top Management Group as a whole. However, best estimates for DFID Ministers' Private Office running costs (including staff costs of the parliamentary and correspondence units) for 2001–02 are, £838,040 and 2002–03 are £1,156,445. Estimated costs for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  World Trade Organisation
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps will be taken at the next World Trade Organisation meeting on promoting the freedom of developing countries to choose the path of trade liberalisation best suited to its particular circumstances for achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction. [125899]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government are committed to delivering on our commitments to make the current round of WTO trade negotiations truly a "Development Round". With the European Commission, we are actively working to secure a substantial package of Special and Differential Treatment measures to ensure that any agreements negotiated take full account of the specific needs of individual countries, and are supported by targeted trade related capacity building. We will do all we can to ensure that, through the European Commission, the next WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun makes real progress with the so-called Doha Development Agenda.

  The UK Government are also providing a wide-ranging programme of Trade Related Capacity Building designed to help developing countries formulate and implement their own trade development strategies, stimulate trade, and help them participate in and benefit from the institutions, negotiations and processes that shape national trade policy and the rules and practices of international commerce.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Housing (North-East Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total cost of bringing all council housing in north-east Lincolnshire up to decent housing standards by 2010. [126420]

  Keith Hill
  It is for Local Authorities to determine the level of non-decent housing in their areas based on robust stock condition information. The 2002 Statistical Return from north-east Lincolnshire indicates that there are approximately 3,000 non-decent dwellings. The 2002 Statistical Return provided by the local authority estimated that it would cost £9 million to bring all these dwellings up to the decent homes standard.

  General Elections
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has held discussions with the Electoral Commission about the possibility of abandoning alphabetical listing of candidates on ballot papers(a) at future general elections and (b) in the London Mayoral and Assembly elections. [125421]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have had no discussions with the Electoral Commission on changing the present procedure for listing candidates' names on ballot papers to be used at future general elections or the London Mayoral and Assembly elections. The Commission has recommended in its recently published 'Ballot Paper Design' that alternative listing systems should be tested through pilot schemes to assist them in determining the impact of the present arrangements. The Government are currently considering this recommendation along with all the other recommendations the Commission has recently made on reforming the electoral process.

  House Prices
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether in valuing dwellings for council tax purposes, it is his policy that district valuers should take into account changing values over time of house prices within a given locality; and if he will make a statement on the construction of time services and deflators for such purposes. [125645]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  The current Council Tax bands contained within valuation lists are based upon property values as at 1 April 1991. The Listing Officers of the Valuation Office Agency, who are statutorily responsible for the lists, will use a range of evidence to support the bands ascribed to each property. However, the strongest evidence is property sales evidence which was available close to the valuation date. Other information, such as property indices, are utilised as a check mechanism but are often generalist in nature and must be used with care when dealing with an individual property, or an area, which may have changed character over the ensuing 10 or more years.

  The Local Government Bill currently before Parliament will provide for a council tax revaluation at least every 10 years. The first revaluation in England will have a valuation date of 1 April 2005 with the new lists coming into force on 1 April 2007. The Valuation Office Agency will undertake the revaluation.

  Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the decent homes target will be met by 2010. [126166]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1996 the number of non-decent homes in the social sector has been reduced by over 700,000. Forward plans from local authorities show that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is on track to meet targets of reducing, by a third, the number of non-decent social homes between April 2001 and April 2004. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also now on
  575W
  track for all dwellings owned by local authorities and registered social landlords to meet the decent homes standard by 2010.

  The number of vulnerable private sector households in non-decent homes has been reduced by 400,000 since 1996.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have not transferred their stock or set up an arm's length management organisation with PFI scheme. [126127]

  Keith Hill
  Tabled as follows are those local authorities by region that have not transferred all of their stock. Local authorities that have transferred some of their stock are marked with a (P). Those authorities that have been given places on the 2003 transfer programme are highlighted.

  Local authorities that have either set up an ALMO or are on the programme are also highlighted.

  The table also highlights the two local authorities that have signed a PFI contract to date, as well as marking those that are on the PFI pathfinder programme.

  Region

  LA name

  East of England

  Barbergh

  Basildon (P)

  Braintree

  Brentwood

  Broxbourne

  Cambridge

  Castle Point

  Colchester (Provisional allocation on the Round 2 ALMO programme but has yet to be granted section 27 consent)

  Dacorum

  Epping Forest

  Fenland

  Forest Health (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Great Yarmouth

  Harlow

  Ipswich

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  Luton

  Mid Suffolk

  North Norfolk

  Norwich

  Peterborough (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Rochford

  South Bedfordshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Norfolk

  Southend-on-Sea

  St. Albans

  Stevenage

  Tendring

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Uttlesford

  Watford

  Waveney

  Welwyn Hatfield

  East Midlands

  Ashfield (ALMO set up)

  Bassetlaw

  Blaby

  Bolsover

  Broxtowe

  Charnwood

  Chesterfield

  Corby

  Daventry

  Derby (ALMO set up)

  Gedling

  Harborough

  High Peak

  576W

  Region

  LA name

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Kettering

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Mansfield

  Melton

  Newark and Sherwood

  North East Derbyshire (PFI pathfinder)

  North Kesteven

  North West Leicestershire

  Northampton

  Nottingham City

  Oadby and Wigston

  Rutland

  South Derbyshire

  South Holland

  South Kesteven

  South Northamptonshire

  Wellingborough

  London

  Barking and Dagenham (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Barnet

  Brent (ALMO)

  Camden (PFI pathfinder)

  City of London

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield (P)

  Greenwich (P)

  Hackney (P) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Hammersmith and Fulham (P)

  Haringey

  Harrow (P)

  Havering

  Hillingdon (ALMO—awaiting inspection)

  Hounslow (ALMO set up)

  Islington (P) (has signed a PFI contract) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Kensington and Chelsea (ALMO set up)

  Kingston upon Thames (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Lambeth (P) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Lewisham

  Merton (P)

  Newham (PFI pathfinder)

  Redbridge

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets (P) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Waltham Forest (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  Wandsworth

  Westminster (ALMO set up)

  North East

  Alnwick

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Blyth Valley (ALMO set up)

  Castle Morpeth

  Chester-le-Street

  Darlington

  Derwentside

  Durham

  Easington

  Gateshead

  Hartlepool (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Middlesbrough (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Tyneside

  Sedgefield

  South Tyneside

  Stockton-on-Tees (ALMO set up)

  Teesdale

  Wansbeck

  Wear Valley

  North West

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Blackpool

  Bolton (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  Chorley

  Copeland

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Halton

  577W

  Region

  LA name

  Hyndburn

  Lancaster

  Liverpool (P)

  Macclesfield

  Manchester (P) (has signed PFI contract) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Oldham (ALMO set up)

  Pendle

  Preston (P)

  Ribble Valley

  Rochdale (ALMO set up)

  Rossendale

  Salford (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  Sefton

  South Lakeland

  Stockport

  Trafford (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Warrington

  West Lancashire

  Wigan (ALMO set up)

  Wirral (P) (2003 Transfer Programme)

  South East

  Adur

  Arun

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Bracknell Forest

  Brighton and Hove

  Canterbury

  Cherwell (P)

  Crawley

  Dartford

  Dover

  Eastbourne

  Fareham

  Gosport

  Gravesham

  Guildford

  Lewes

  Maidstone

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  New Forest

  Oxford

  Portsmouth

  Reading (PFI pathfinder)

  Runnymede

  Shepway

  Slough

  Southampton

  Tandridge

  Thanet

  The Medway Towns

  Waverley

  Wealden

  Winchester

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wycombe

  South West

  Bournemouth

  Bristol

  Caradon

  Carrick (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  Cheltenham (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  East Devon

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Isles of Scilly

  Mid Devon

  North Cornwall

  North Somerset

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Purbeck (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Salisbury

  Sedgemoor

  South Gloucestershire

  Stroud (2003 Transfer Programme)

  Swindon

  Taunton Deane

  Teignbridge

  Torridge

  578W

  Region

  LA name

  West Midlands

  Birmingham (P)

  Bridgnorth

  Bromsgrove

  Cannock Chase

  Dudley

  North Shropshire

  North Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Oswestry

  Redditch

  Rugby

  Sandwell (PFI pathfinder)

  Solihull

  Stafford

  Stoke-on-Trent (P)

  Tamworth

  Walsall (P)

  Warwick

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Barnsley (ALMO awaiting inspection)

  Doncaster

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Harrogate

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kirklees (ALMO set up)

  Leeds (6 partial ALMOs set up) (PFI pathfinder)

  North East Lincolnshire (2003 Transfer Programme)

  North Lincolnshire

  Richmondshire

  Rotherham

  Scarborough

  Selby

  Sheffield

  Wakefield (2003 Transfer Programme)

  York

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the time required by a local housing authority from the initial consideration of options to(a) complete a stock transfer, (b) reach agreement on and sign a PFI contract and (c) prepare for and complete establishment of an arm's length management organisation. [126128]

  Keith Hill
  The length of time taken to implement an option will depend on the option chosen and the circumstances of each individual local authority. However the following timescales can be used as a rough guide for future schemes:Transfer—28 months from application to transfer
  PFI—the pathfinder schemes have taken up to three years from application to contract signature, we aim to reduce this timescale to 18 months using lessons learned from the pathfinders.
  ALMO—15 months from ALMO bid to being inspected and, if successful, securing additional funds.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to announce Government proposals on the way forward for housing capital finance following the recent consultation. [126130]

  Keith Hill
  The decisions reached on the issues consulted on in 'The Way Forward for Housing Capital Finance' are reflected in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" and the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament. A letter went to all Chief Finance Officers in local housing authorities in England on 1 April setting out in detail the proposed
  579W
  arrangements for the proposals consulted on. This letter is available at www.odpm.gov.uk and in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the scheme funding requirements to meet the decent homes standard as a result of the change from fitness standard to the health and safety rating system will be financed. [126132]

  Keith Hill
  It is too early to say what will be the financial impact of applying the housing health and safety rating system to the decent home standard when the fitness standard is abolished. The cost of rectifying health and safety hazards will vary, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects many of them to be put right relatively quickly and cheaply. Guidance to authorities on the assessment of decency using the rating system will be issued.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of houses which will be brought up to the decent homes standard in each year up to 2010, broken down by the method of finance to be used. [126133]

  Keith Hill
  The following table shows the estimated year on year change in the numbers of non-decent social sector homes from the baseline date of April 2001 to the target date of December 2010. The extent to which these numbers will be made up of ALMO/PFI/transfer schemes will depend on the results of the option appraisal process that each local authority is currently undertaking. This process is due to be completed by July 2005. In broad terms we have estimated that transfers will tackle between 200,000 and 250,000, ALMOs will tackle between 300,000 and 350,000 and PFI will tackle between 15,000 and 30,000 non-decent homes.

  Remaining number of non-decent dwellings owned by local authorities and RSLs

  April 2001

  1,600,000

  2002

  1,450,000

  2003

  1,250,000

  2004

  1,100,000

  2005

  900,000

  2006

  700,000

  2007

  500,000

  2008

  400,000

  2009

  250,000

  2010

  100,000

  December 2010

  0

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what conclusions he has drawn from the National Audit Office report on the costs of the large scale voluntary transfer programme. [126163]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded that the National Audit Office report Improving Social Housing Through Transfer confirms our belief that the benefits of transfer are clearly visible and worth the costs in ensuring tenants gain from faster renovation of, and improvement to their homes; greater tenant participation in decisions directly affecting their homes and surrounding area; and an increased sense of ownership and involvement in the local regeneration of the wider area.

  Loaned Art Works
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many works of art from the Government art collection are on loan to each Minister in his Department. [121794]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are 86 paintings, prints and engravings on loan from the Government Art Collection to Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at this time. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has 39 in his office and Admiralty House. My right hon. Friend the member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) 0, my hon. Friend the member for Corby (Phil Hope) 18, my right hon. Friend the member for Streatham (Keith Hill) six, my right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker 12 and my office has 11.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether local authorities which under the Communities Plan do not use the options of stock transfer, Arm's Length Management Organisations or PFI, may receive increased investment in their housing stock above that in the Housing Investment Programme. [126164]

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities Plan made it clear that local authorities seeking additional investment in their housing stock are able to choose from three options: stock transfer, PFI and ALMOs.

  The plan also made it clear that authorities that do not pursue these options cannot expect increased investment above that provided for in the Housing Investment Programme.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of allocating only 70 per cent, of housing investment programme funding to local authorities as proposed in the Communities Plan; and what effect it will have on the decent homes target. [126165]

  Keith Hill
  Guidance issued to regional housing boards makes it clear that their allocation proposals should be consistent with the achievement of the decent homes target.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons local authorities in the South West region were not included on the Government's list of councils which can temporarily suspend the right to buy. [126340]

  Keith Hill
  There has been no suspension of the Right to Buy in any area. 41 local authority areas were included in the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003—Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498—which came into effect on 27 March 2003. The Order lowered the maximum Right to Buy discount available to tenants from £38,000 (£34,000 in one area) to £16,000 in these areas, which were judged to be under the greatest housing market pressure as evidenced by high levels of homelessness (reflecting high demand for social housing), and high local house prices (reflecting the demand for social housing), and high local house prices (reflecting the demand for private housing and affordability). The
  581W
  Land Registry lower quartile house price for the third quarter of 2002 was used, to indicate likely availability for first time buyers.

  The model was rerun subsequently to take into account local earnings information. The effect was marginal and insufficient to justify further changes.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not wish to reduce the discounts available to tenants unless there is clear evidence of housing pressure on this basis. This did not appear to be the case in any area in the South-West region. The position will be kept under review. In the meantime, the Home Ownership Task Force is looking at the whole range of programmes aimed at helping people into home ownership, including the Right to Buy. The Task Force is due to report this autumn.

  Vehicles for Sale
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will extend the Control of Roadside Sales Order to enable local authorities to remove vehicles for sale which are parked on the highway or adjacent greenswards; and if he will make a statement. [114654]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans to do so.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers are available to local authorities to remove vehicles for sale which are parked on the highway or adjacent greenswards. [114653]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under an adoptive code contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, distract councils have extensive and flexible powers to regulate street trading in areas within their jurisdiction. No street trading of any kind can lawfully take place in a prohibited street. Anyone convicted of unlawful street trading can be fined a maximum of £1,000. Officers of borough councils undertake enforcement of the law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place since the Afghan conflict with the US Administration concerning the possible transfer of UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay to UK custody; and if he will make a statement. [125505]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) today (UIN 125675).

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the result of the invasion of Afghanistan by the coalition on the change on the amount of land used for cultivation of opium poppies; and what he expects the change to be in the level of production in(a) the current year and (b) the next three years. [126467]

  Mr. Rammell
  The disruption of drug production and trafficking was not among the aims of the military campaign waged in Afghanistan. Any damage to the 582W
  drugs trade as a result of coalition activity would be incidental to the principal aims of the campaign and would not be covered in any battle assessments.

  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. They are in the process of completing the 2003 survey. The final results will be available in the autumn. Although it appears that there has been significant displacement of cultivation within Afghanistan, our current expectation is that the total area under poppy cultivation will be broadly similar to that last year. In addition, however, this year's crop has suffered significant damage from moisture-related diseases that are likely to result in a lower opium yield. It is not clear what the size of the Afghan opium crop will be in subsequent years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter, dated 28 May, from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute regarding Julian Gilbey. [126275]

  Mr. Mullin
  The hon. Member's letter has been passed to my noble Friend Baroness Symons to reply as Minister responsible for consular matters. The reply was signed on 16 July.

  EU Constitutional Treaty
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom's opt-out from the Schengen agreement will be maintained in the proposed Constitutional Treaty for the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [126377]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft constitution produced by the convention on the future of Europe makes clear that the protocols attached to the treaty will remain an integral part of it. These will include the protocol integrating the Schengen acquis, under which the U K has made a successful application for partial participation. The Government position on the protocols relating to our frontier controls in general and our opt-out from the Schengen Agreement in particular has not changed. We will maintain controls at the UK's frontiers.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126596]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office plays a coordinating role in the UK's EU policy. It is rarely directly responsible for implementing EC directives. I am not aware of any directives on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has led on implementation since 8 June 2001.

  EU Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his oral statement of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 1207, on the communitisation of foreign and security policy, if he intends them to become justiciable by the European

  583W
  Court of Justice and EU supreme court under the proposed EU constitution; and if he will make a statement. [126523]

  Mr. MacShane
  Under the draft constitution which emerged from the convention, the Common Foreign and Security Policy will not be justiciable by the ECJ, with one exception.

  Article III-278 provides that:
  "The Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction with respect to Articles (1–39 and 1–40) and the provisions of (Chapter II of Title V of Part III) concerning the common foreign and security policy."
  Article III-17 would, however, give the ECJ jurisdiction in respect of actions brought by persons to challenge the legality of sanctions measures applying to them.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Kirchner of Argentina at the progressive governance conference concerning sovereignty of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [126273]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not meet President Kirchner during his visit.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to propose that Brazil be given a permanent seat at the Security Council of the UN. [126742]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government support an increase in both the permanent and non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council to ensure that it better reflects the modern world.

  We have proposed a model which would include an additional five permanent seats, including one for Latin America. We accept that Brazil is clearly the preeminent candidate for that seat when the Security Council is eventually enlarged and we would be very content with that result.

  It is primarily for those countries aspiring to permanent membership to make their own case, based on their contribution to international peace and security and the wider goals of the UN. We will continue to advocate our model of Security Council reform with the UN membership.

  Global Conflict Prevention
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 77W, on global conflict prevention pool, what progress has been made in each of the five project areas designed to reduce the number of individuals whose lives are affected by violent conflict. [125676]
  584W
  Mr. Straw
  Monitoring and evaluation of Global Conflict Prevention fool (GCPP) activity is carried out on the basis of the strategies listed in my answer to the right hon. Member's question of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 77W, and not by the project areas mentioned in that answer. Individual strategies contain a mixture of activity according to the needs of a particular conflict situation or underlying conflict issue.

  The Global Pool is beginning to make an impact in meeting the Government's Conflict Prevention Public Service Agreement Target through these strategies. As examples, the Balkans and Afghanistan strategies have helped to establish security and stability, to develop better ethnic relations, democratic and accountable government and to protect human rights through training, capacity building and other support for conflict resolution, establishing the rule of law and Security Sector reform. In Indonesia, the Global Pool has also supported security sector governance issues, human rights training for the Indonesian military, and has trained journalists on accurate and objective reporting of conflict. The strategy on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) aims to prevent the supply, demand and availability of SALW around the globe as a contribution to conflict prevention and supports the UN Programme of Action to combat the illicit trade in SALW. The strategy includes support to the UN Development Programme's global weapons reduction programme and UNDP's work on the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants.

  A report on the Global Pool setting out how it operates and describing its geographical and thematic strategies will be published later in the year.

  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member on this issue shortly.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions are applied to British detainees in Camp Delta receiving food parcels. [124669]

  Mr. Mullin
  None of the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay receives food parcels.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the Government has asked for the return of British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to Britain; when the most recent request on such matters was; what the US's response was in each case; and if he will make a statement. [125675]

  Mr. Straw
  We are pressing the US authorities to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have discussed, and are discussing, a range of options with the US, including the possibility of repatriation. I have discussed this matter on numerous occasions with US Secretary of State Colin Powell; most recently by telephone on Sunday 13 July.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the sale of national assets in Iraq by the Coalition provisional administration. [124313]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) took over the administration of Iraq, Iraqi oil has been sold by CPA through the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation in accordance with the terms of paragraph 20 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483. Under paragraphs 20 and 21 of this resolution, all revenues from sales of Iraqi oil are deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq, less 5 per cent, which is to be deposited into the Iraq Compensation Fund as established under UNSCR 687 of 1991. No other Iraqi assets have been sold by the CPA.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with establishing the interim authority in Iraq. [125038]

  Mr. Rammell
  We welcome the formation by Iraqis of the Governing Council—the core of the Iraqi Interim Administration—on 13 July. This is a momentous step that means Iraqis will now play a central role running their country.

  The Governing Council is representative of Iraq society and includes a narrow Shia majority, Sunnis and Christians and three women. The Council will work to ensure views of all Iraqis are represented. It delivers a key part of UNSCR 1483.

  The Governing Council has real power and will be involved in all key decisions on Iraq's future. It will name the new Ministers in the interim administration, run the Ministries and set the budget for 2004. It will also be responsible for Iraq's representation abroad. Some of the Council's early tasks will be: launching the Constitutional process—written by Iraqis for Iraqis; rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure; restoring security and stability; revitalising the economy and provision of essential services.

  In all these activities the Coalition will provide support and advice.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials the Provisional Coalition Administration has in the British controlled sector of Iraq. [125615]

  Mr. Rammell
  The are currently over 60 officials working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in the British area of operations in Southeast Iraq. Plans are in hand to increase this number.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Department has received from the Russian government on the re-establishment of the electrical power system in Iraq. [125696]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have received no such representations from the Russian Government.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers were informed that the CIA had counselled the Security 586W
  and Intelligence Services against including material relating to the alleged procurement of uranium from three African countries in the intelligence dossier published in September 2002; when the CIA communicated the advice to the Security and Intelligence Service; and if he will make a statement. [126328]

  Mr. Straw
  I shall shortly be writing to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in reply to his letter about this matter. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the head of MI6 met Mr. John Humphrys of the BBC since 1 May; who authorised each meeting; and for what purpose each meeting was held. [126464]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the longstanding practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence and security matters. The security and intelligence agencies are outside the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Paragraph 6, Part I).

  IT Expenditure
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Foreign Office spent on IT(a) licences, (b) maintenance, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125777]

  Mr. Rammell
  During the 2002–03 financial year, the FCO spent the following on IT:

  £

  (a) Licences

  1,427,625

  (b) Maintenance

  12,037,671

  (c) Software

  6,538,386

  (d) Hardware

  24,561,014

  Total

  44,564,696

  Middle East
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Israeli Government and (b) the Palestinian Authority regarding the involvement of religious leaders in the Middle East peace process. [124670]

  Mr. Rammell
  We encourage the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to engage with religious leaders on the Middle East peace process. We recognise the important role religious leaders can play in promoting peace in the region, and we have provided administrative, financial and moral support for continuing inter-faith dialogue stemming from the Alexandria Declaration. The Alexandria Declaration pledges religious leaders to work together to promote a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many police officers there are per head of population in Montserrat. [126067]
  587W
  Mr. Rammell
  There is one police officer for every 67 people. This is a little higher than the normal police/population ratio given the special need to police the volcano exclusion and daytime entry zones; and because the Montserratian police force carry out other non-core police duties such as port entry control.

  Nuclear Weapons (Monitoring)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international system of monitoring in which the United Kingdom participates relates to material which may be used for nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [126581]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK is a member of and participates fully in the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is, inter alia, responsible for the international nuclear safeguards regime pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Civil nuclear material in the UK is subject to both the safeguards requirements of the Euratom Treaty and to the terms of the UK's safeguards agreement with Euratom and the IAEA.

  St. Helena
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last visited St. Helena; and who the Minister was. [126171]

  Mr. Rammell
  St. Helena has never had a visit by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister.

  United Nations Security Council
  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 at the UN of the appointment of a single EU representative to the United Nations Security Council. [126000]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Union is not a member state of the United Nations and therefore not eligible for election to the UN Security Council.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will make available to Clare Anyango and her sponsor Michael Meadows, the explanatory statement of the reasons for the rejection of her application to the High Commission in Nairobi for a visa to study in the United Kingdom made on 17 June 2002. [125939]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: I have written to the hon. Member regarding this matter.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa cases the Minister responsible for entry clearance has overturned since 2001. [125779]
  588W
  Mr. Mullin
  Since January 2001 the Minister responsible for entry clearance has overturned 26 refusal decisions.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many family visit visa applications were(a) allowed and (b) refused during the last 12 months at High Commission offices in (i) Bangladesh, (ii) India, (iii) Pakistan and (iv) Sri Lanka. [126174]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information is as follows:

  Family visitor applications issued

  Family visitor applications refused

  Dhaka

  2,348

  2,939

  i. Bangladesh

  Total

  2,348

  2,939

  New Delhi

  12,778

  9,774

  Mumbai

  13,296

  3,932

  Chennai

  5,716

  447

  Kolkutta

  2,459

  65

  ii. India

  Total

  34,249

  14,218

  Islamabad

  16,986

  3,011

  Karachi

  1,693

  321

  iii. Pakistan

  Total

  18,679

  3,332

  Colombo

  865

  711

  iv. Sri Lanka

  Total

  865

  711

  The table shows the number of family visitor visas issued and refused at our visa issuing posts in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. The figures for April, May and June 2003 are still being collated. The figures given are the most up-to-date statistics available.

  Visa facilities (Pakistan)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when full visa facilities will be reintroduced in the Pakistan offices. [125284]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is monitoring developments in Islamabad closely and is personally committed to restoring a full entry clearance operation as soon as practicable.

  He has authorised a number of steps that should increase the number of applications that Islamabad, which is handling applications for the whole of Pakistan, can accept.

  These include:
  rapidly increasing the number of Entry Clearance Officers in Islamabad;
  a reorganisation of part of the visa section to speed up the processing of applications;
  an increase in the categories that can apply to include those that have travelled to the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and to fiancés applying to settle in the UK from October;
  UK visas taking the primary responsibility for correspondence regarding visa cases in Islamabad with immediate effect.

  589W
  The Foreign Secretary will be writing to parliamentary colleagues to inform them of our plans imminently. He and I will, of course, continue to keep the situation under close review.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 117W, on control of asbestos, if she will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122926]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The Crown Prosecution Service is unable to provide a list of buildings identified as having an asbestos presence. Although asbestos registers are located at each property, a central register of asbestos information is not in place. The Crown Prosecution Service is addressing this issue in compliance with Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department's premises, Queen Anne's Chambers, London SW1, and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers' premises in Buckingham Gate, both contain small amounts of properly identified and managed asbestos.

  The buildings occupied by the Serious Fraud Office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate do not contain asbestos.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General when a successor to Sir David Calvert-Smith as Director of Public Prosecutions will be announced. [125785]

  The Solicitor-General
  The process of appointment is currently under way and the Attorney-General expects to be in a position to announce an appointment within a matter of weeks.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sic leave in each of the last two years. [115849]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]The information is as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The number of staff in the Department who have had periods of long-term sick leave in each of the last two years are listed in the following table:

  Long-term sick leave

  Number

  2001

  886

  2002

  915

  590W
  Serious Fraud Office

  Number of staff absent due to long-term sick leave. In calculating the figure, 'long-term' was defined as a continuous spell of sick absence lasting four weeks or more.

  Long-term sick leave

  Number

  2001

  3

  2002

  8

  Treasury Solicitor's Department and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM Crown Prosecution Service

  The number of staff taking long-term sick leave in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate (defined as one month or more) in the last two years was:

  Long-term sick leave

  Department

  Number

  2001

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  45

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  1

  Total

  47

  2002

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  41

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  5

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate

  1

  Total

  47

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Testing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 July 2003,Official Report, column 548W, on animal testing, what factors underlay the underspend in the budget available for the development and promotion of alternatives to animal use in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [125282]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 July 2003,Official Report, column 548W.

  The information in the previous answer relating to the spend in financial years 2000–01 to 2002–03 is shown in resource accounting terms. Resource accounting measures the actual value of goods and services received. Previously, the spend was measured in cash accounting terms—this measured the actual money leaving the Home Office's account.

  At the end of each of the first of the two years in question there was a certain amount of expenditure for which the goods and services had not been received (termed a "pre-payment"), which was not recorded in the figures provided in resource accounting terms, but would have been recorded in cash accounting terms. The figures, including these pre-payments, are as follows.
  591W

  £

  Financial year

  Budget

  Actual spend in resource terms

  Underspend

  Prepayments at end of year

  2000–01

  265,000

  170,203

  94,797

  108,718

  2001–02

  280,000

  173,906

  106,094

  1,12,038

  2002–03

  280,000

  272,104

  7,896

  6,797

  These prepayments affected the situation in 2000–01 and in 2001–02, but by the end of 2002–03 they were minimal, and the spend in resource terms for that year was only £7,896 below the budget. There are several reasons why the projects which constituted prepayments did not start early enough in the financial year to be counted in resource accounting terms. The start of a research project is often delayed. That might be, for example, because the principal researcher takes longer than predicted to identify research assistants. These delays in turn can mean that potential underspends are identified too late for additional projects to be identified, and the work started, before the end of the financial year.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British overseas territories. [123991]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: Under British nationality legislation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for nationality issues in the British overseas territories. He delegates a proportion of his certain functions under the Act to the Governors of the territories. The Home Office nevertheless retains an interest in the proper administration of all aspects of the nationality legislation and, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides instructions, guidance and training on nationality matters to Governors and their staff in the territories. Through the United Kingdom Passport Service my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is also responsible currently for the issue of British citizen passports for some of the territories.

  Carlile Report
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Carlile report. [125454]

  . Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), on 28 April 2003, Official Report, column 199W. The Government response, outlining progress on recommendations made in the Carlile report, is available in the Library.

  Contingency Planning
  . Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met(a) Cabinet colleagues, (b) the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and (c) the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee to discuss the UK's preparedness to cope with a terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement. [125031]
  592W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government keeps all aspects of the security of the UK under constant review and I am in regular contact with various elements of the intelligence community to assess the terrorist threat to the UK.

  The threat from terrorist attack remains real as it has done for some time. However the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the UK are constantly reviewing procedures to be taken in the event of a terrorist attack and the Government has provided significant funding to continue the vital improvements they have been made in this area since the tragic events of September 11th.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training and instructions have been issued to(a) ambulance crews, (b) paramedics, (c) GPs, (d) accident and emergency staff, (e) fire services and (f) police forces about the identification of radioisotopes in the event of the release of a radiological bomb; and if he will make a statement. [125155]

  Mr. Blunkett
  With funding of £2.7 million from the Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) is currently delivering a wide ranging programme of training on CBRN which encompasses responding to the release of radioisotopes from a radiological devise.

  The radiological component is being delivered in conjunction with the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) which has significant experience of such training. NRPB are the body responsible for providing formal advice to Government on radiological protection issues and provided a significant input to the guidance to the NHS.

  The national health service (NHS) has long-standing plans for responding to incidents involving radioactivity and these have been well exercised. The NHS has practical experience of responding to accidental releases of radioactive material. This experience provides a basic platform for dealing with radiological contamination, however caused. Advice to NHS personnel on responding to incidents, such as radioactivity released from radiological bombs, is given in a detailed annex "Practical guidance on planning for incidents involving radioactivity" (www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/chp9/rad.htm) within the document "Planning for Major Incidents: the NHS Guidance" (1998). This guidance contains advice on the provision of facilities and equipment for monitoring for radioactivity for people who might have been contaminated. The document "Deliberate Release of Biological and Chemical Guidance" (2000) also gives generic advice on dealing with a Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) incident (www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/intro.htm).

  On the Fire Service, the Fire Service has always had procedures and training to deal with radiation incidents. All firefighters receive training as part of their normal development. Enhanced by officers who attend the Hazardous Materials and Environmental Protection course at the Fire Service College, and are mobilised to any radiation incident.

  On police force training and instructions, to date a total of approximately 3,800 police officers have been trained with 2,862 of these having been trained at the

  593W
  Police National CBRN Centre since August 2002. All of the police officers trained by the PNCBRNC (Police National CBRN Centre) have received training regarding a possible radiological incident.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what equipment has been issued to(a) ambulance crews, (b) paramedics, (c) GPs, (d) accident and emergency staff, (e) fire services and (f) police forces for the identification of radioisotopes in the event of the release of a radiological bomb; and if he will make a statement. [125156]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Initial detection of any chemical or radiological hazard at the scene of an incident normally falls to the fire service—although the police may also contribute and this is well understood amongst the emergency services. In conjunction with the police, the fire service will also decide the extent of the cordon required and provide advice to ambulance and other NHS staff attending. Expert advice is also quickly available from the Health Protection Agency and other agencies.

  Fire and Rescue services have detection (survey meters) and monitoring (Dosimeter) equipment to enable them to both detect a source and monitor the doses received by firefighters.

  It is not possible to give details publicly of police equipment which is used solely to respond to a CBRN terrorist incident for security reasons.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the optimum treatment time for radio isotope contamination in the event of a radiological bomb. [125157]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the event of radioactive contamination following a radiological bomb the immediate danger is still from any injuries sustained. Therefore, the basic principle is that treatment of serious or life-threatening injuries must take priority over radiation monitoring or decontamination.

  Health risks from radioactive contamination are less immediate and there is therefore time to assess the level of contamination before decontamination and any further treatment.

  Corporate Manslaugher
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the regulatory impact assessment concerning the proposed new offence of corporate manslaughter has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [125049]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The results of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) are still being assessed but the preliminary vindications are that the costs of a change in the lawbwill not be large. As made clear in the RIA, no new burdens will be placed on companies in terms of the standards with which they will be legally required ton comply. That RIA results may need to be refined to reflect any changes to the original proposals.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which industries in the private sector were selected for the regulatory impact assessment for 594W
  the new offence of corporate manslaughter; on what basis such industries were selected; and if he will make a statement. [125050]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The Regulatory Impact Assessment was based upon a survey (conducted in September 2002) of different sectors of private industry. These included the construction sector, the mining and quarrying sector, the transport sector, and others. We did not contact companies directly, but through their representative organisations.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in relation to(a) Crown immunity and (b) who should conduct prosecution inquiries in relation to the proposed offence of corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [125051]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on the 20 May that firm proposals for legislation on corporate killing will be published before the end of this year. The position of Crown bodies and the issue of who should investigate and prosecute, will be issues for consideration. No decisions have yet been made.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support is provided by Government to the Criminal Records Bureau; when the Bureau expects to become self-financing; and what impact he estimates self-financing may have on future fee levels for disclosure certificates. [122485]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2003–04 the Home Office, Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills are expected to contribute £18.8 million towards the £75 million cost of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB); the remainder will be met from fee income. Further funding by the three Departments will be provided in 2004–05. The CRB is expected to become self-funding from 2005–06. The fees for Disclosures are reviewed annually. Decisions on any fee increase for future years will be taken in the light of the then best estimates of the costs of the Disclosure service and the level of demand.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for taking forward the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Criminal Records Bureau. [122486]

  Paul Goggins
  Work is progressing on implementing the Independent Review Team's 10 recommendations. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his written statement on 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, a number of the recommendations are dependent on primary legislation while others are linked to the re-negotiation of the contract with Capita. Amendments to Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, under which the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) operates, have now been incorporated into the Criminal Justice Bill (recommendations 1,2,3,4 and 10). The contract renegotiations with Capita are ongoing and we expect to conclude them by late autumn (recommendations 1 and 7). The CRB is on course to pilot the electronic submission of applications by the

  595W
  end of the year (recommendation 3) and is currently piloting an electronic database to 'flag' the existence of local police intelligence (recommendation 5). We are considering the results of the consultation on the Review Team's proposal (recommendation 6) that applications for Basic Disclosures should be routed through a registered body. We expect to issue a consultation paper by the end of July on whether applicants for the most sensitive positions should be required to submit their fingerprints with their Disclosure application (recommendation 8). An announcement on establishing the CRB as a separate Agency will be made soon (recommendation 9).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the revenue gained as a result of the proposed increase to disclosure fees for standard and enhanced disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau. [122768]

  Paul Goggins
  The estimated revenue gained as a result of the increase in Criminal Records Bureau disclosure fees for the period 1 July 2003 to 31 March 2004 is £29.5 million. Total revenue from fees in 2003–04 is estimated to be £56.2 million, with the Home Office, Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills contributing the balance, of £18.8 million, towards the £75 million cost of the Bureau.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the South East. [125390]

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

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

  DNA Database
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those recorded on the national DNA database has a criminal conviction. [124972]

  Paul Goggins
  The proportion of individuals recorded on the National DNA database who have a criminal conviction is 95 per cent.

  Drugs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many class A drug supply offenders there are for every 10,000 residents in(a) the UK, (b) the west midlands and (c) Coventry; [126048]

  (2) how many people were convicted of class A drug supply offences for every 10,000 residents in 2002 in (a) the UK, (b) the west midlands and (c) Coventry. [126049]
  596W
  Caroline Flint
  The number of Class A drug offenders is not known. We do have information on the number of offenders brought to justice in England and Wales, though not at constituency level. 630 offenders were brought to justice in the west midlands police force area for Class A drug supply offences in 2000, and 8,409 such offenders in England and Wales in the same period.

  Using current population estimates for 2000, 2.41 offenders per 10,000 residents in the west midlands police force area were brought to justice for Class A supply offences in that year. In England and Wales, 1.59 offenders per 10,000 residents were brought to justice.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of defendants sentenced to a drugs treatment and testing order re-offended during the currency of the order in each year since it was introduced. [122121]

  Paul Goggins
  It is too soon for validated information about re-offending since national roll-out of the order in October 2000. It is currently impossible to differentiate between offences committed prior to the commencement of the order and those committed after the order was made.

  A one-year reconviction study of offenders in the pilot areas will be published shortly and I will send the hon. Member a copy as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of offenders with drug problems who enter treatment. [125108]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government fully recognises the need to focus the Criminal Justice system towards drug misusing offenders and has set out measures to use the criminal justice system to engage drug-misusing offenders, driving them into treatment and out of crime.

  Those measures constitute the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme which aims to ensure that while individual Interventions such as Arrest Referral, Drug Testing, Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, are expanded, there is a step-change in interventions delivering an end-to-end system for drug misusing offenders. These measures will work in parallel with appropriate treatment interventions to establish an integrated care pathway.

  Government funding on treatment services for drug misusers will rise from £438 million to £503 million by 2003–04. The National Treatment Agency has several initiatives underway to increase the capacity of the treatment sector and reduce waiting times, and the updated Drug Strategy is currently on track to double capacity, by 2008, with 200,000 problem drug users to be treated each year.

  The Updated Drug Strategy, which provides for a wider programme of targeted interventions, includes making the Drug Treatment and Testing Order available to as many drug misusing offenders as possible within existing capacity levels and taking into account predicted growth within the treatment and Criminal Justice sectors.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls under 18 were held in custody in Holloway Prison in each of the last 12 months, broken down by age. [125662]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of girls aged under 18 who were held in custody in Holloway Prison in each of the last 12 months, broken down by age, is given in the table.

  16

  17

  June 2002

  3

  10

  July 2002

  2

  9

  August 2002

  1

  10

  September 2002

  0

  8

  October 2002

  0

  12

  November 2002

  0

  12

  December 2002

  1

  10

  January 2003

  2

  8

  February 2003

  0

  6

  March 2003

  0

  6

  April 2003

  0

  7

  May 2003

  0

  11

  IT Expenditure
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he spent on IT(a) maintenance, (b) licences, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125716]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The cost to the Home Department for the above in 2002–03 were:IT Hardware: £7,117,123.35
  IT Software: £1,617,224.63
  Maintenance: £120,179,217.54

  The figures include the Forensic Science Service (FSS) but do not include the Prison Service or Passport Agency who were unable to provide a breakdown of IT expenditure without disproportionate cost to the Department.

  The software figures include costs for software licences. The Maintenance figures cover a range of expenditure, namely:
  Bulk Printing; Business Projects; Data Entry Services; IT Other Running Costs; IT Services Sema; Siemens Costs; Sirius Costs; Small Business Projects; Standard Workstation Charges; VAT charges.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 he authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125725]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Information for the Central Home Office projects in relation to IS/IT and Business Change can be found in the table which excludes the provision of desktop services. The table shows information on relevant IT projects for the Passport Agency.
  598W

  Project title

  Department

  Financial year

  Admin IT

  Passport Agency

  2002–03

  Passport Cards

  Passport Agency

  2020–03

  EPA-2

  Passport Agency

  2002–03

  Lost Stolen and Recovered

  Passport Agency

  2002–03

  FRS

  Passport Agency

  2002–03

  FCO Data Exchange Omni base

  Passport Agency

  2002–03

  Individual values have not been given to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many naturalisation applications his Department is dealing with. [123972]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at 31 March 2003, 74,841 applications for all types of British nationality were under consideration by the Nationality Group in Liverpool.

  Operation Corolla
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what intelligence Operation Corolla of 13 November 2002 in Gwent, Dyfed-Powys and Gloucestershire was based. [125558]

  Caroline Flint
  The Welsh Police Forces have a good relationship with the public they serve and this operation came about as a result of community intelligence. Information was received from community members of increased drug activity by a group of criminals from outside of the Newport area—leading to this successful investigation. Early identification of organised crime groups, with the immediate response of disruption tactics, has proved successful and the Force will continue with this approach.

  Prisons
  Mir. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build more prisons; what the cost of the construction programme is; and if he will make a statement. [124595]

  Paul Goggins
  Two prisons are being built at Ashford, Middlesex and Peterborough. The construction costs of the two prisons are £111.5 million but, as the prisons are being procured under the Private Finance Initiative, no costs will be incurred until the prisons open, scheduled for June 2004 and March 2005 respectively.

  Outline planning permission, subject to a legal agreement to give effect to certain planning conditions, has been obtained for two more prisons on land adjacent to Ashworth Special Hospital, Merseyside and adjacent to Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh in southeast London.

  In addition, the Government have provided funds to increase capacity by 3,220 additional prison places at existing prisons, such as an extension to Birmingham prison. The total construction costs for these places will be £390 million.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the construction of new prisons at Ashford and Peterborough was ordered. [125216]
  599W
  Paul Goggins
  The contracts for new prisons at Ashford, Middlesex and at Peterborough were signed on 20 December 2002 and 14 February 2003 respectively. Contract signature authorised the contractor to commence construction which is now in progress at both sites.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost was in 2002–03 of imprisoning an offender for one year; and if he will make a statement. [124596]

  Paul Goggins
  The average cost per prisoner in 2002–03 was £36,268.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the provision of education courses in prisons; [124415]

  (2) what plans he has to contract out education courses in prisons. [124416]

  Paul Goggins
  Effective learning and skills programmes are key to the Government's rehabilitation agenda. It is important that provision available to prisoners reaches the same standards as we expect of providers in the community. Prisoners are working towards nationally recognised qualifications that are relevant to the needs of the labour market—from basic communication skills through to higher level vocational qualifications. We are looking to education and training provision in prisons to meet the national standards expected by Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

  The Prison Service is in the process of appointing new Heads of Learning and Skills across the prison estate who will help to develop and plan provision and drive up standards. The substantial rise in funding for education and training for prisoners over the next three years will enable us to increase the number and range of courses available. We have given early priority to expanding provision in establishments holding female prisoners and young offenders aged 18–21.

  Investment by the Youth Justice Board in learning and skills for the juvenile estate will provide high quality, individualised programmes for all learners together with support appropriate to young people with a diverse range of needs.

  Education courses in prisons are contracted out to a number of further education colleges and local authorities as well as one private provider. The Prison Service is working with the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit, which has policy responsibility for prison education, to let new contracts for learning and skills services from September 2004.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most overcrowded prison is; what the ratio of cells to prisoners is in that prison; and if he will make a statement. [124594]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service defines overcrowding as when the number of prisoners held at the prison exceeds its un-crowded capacity, known as in use certified normal accommodation (CNA). Shrewsbury prison was the most overcrowded prison in England and Wales as at June 2003.
  600W
  At Shrewsbury prison, the in use CNA as at June 2003 was 183 but the number of prisoners held on 27 June 2003 was 344.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio of staff to prisoners was in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [124601]

  Paul Goggins
  The ratio of Prison Service staff to prisoners for each year since 1990 is shown in the following table:

  Ratio

  1990

  1:1.40

  1991

  1:1.41

  1992

  1:1.31

  1993

  1:1.17

  1994

  1:1.25

  1995

  1:1.26

  1996

  1:1.33

  1997

  1:1.45

  1998

  1:1.49

  1999

  1:1.40

  2000

  1:1.37

  2001

  1:1.36

  2002

  1:1.43

  2003

  1:1.44

  Prison Service recruitment has increased significantly in recent years, particularly among operational grades, in response to the rise in the prison population. In total, 6,217 new staff joined the Service during 2002–03 compared to 4,337 in the previous 12 months.

  During 2002–03, 2,096 new prison officers completed initial entry-level training compared to an average of 978 new officers in each of the previous four years. This is expected to increase to 2,200 new officers during the current financial year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to tackle the number of suicides in prisons. [124414]

  Paul Goggins
  All suicides are tragic events affecting families and staff deeply, and reducing prisoner self-inflicted deaths and managing self-harm remains a key priority for Ministers and the Prison Service. The general prison population contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug dependency, family background and relationship problems, histories of self-harm and previous abuse, all of which raise their risk of suicide. Good care and support from staff saves many lives but such instances go largely unreported. One hundred and forty-one prisoners were resuscitated following self-harm incidents in 2002 and 37 in the first five months of this year.

  The Prison Service is in the final year of a three-year strategy to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self-harm in prisons. Over the next few months the outcome of this will be reviewed taking into account pilot project evaluations and emerging research findings. The next steps will be agreed in consultation with partner agencies and organisations.
  601W
  As part of this close partnership with other agencies such as the Youth Justice Board and outside organisations such as Samaritans, there has been a particular focus on improvements at six pilot sites in areas such as improved reception, first night and induction areas and mental health in-reach support. The Prison Service is running a series of projects to develop improved suicide prevention and self-harm management policies, concentrating on pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; inter-agency information exchange; prisoner care; detoxification; prisoner peer support, and learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  Additionally, Samaritans are recruiting and training more prisoner peer supporters (known as Listeners) in high-risk establishments. One thousand one hundred and forty new Listeners were recruited between 1 October 2001 and 31 December 2002 with further recruitment and training continuing. Listeners are selected, trained and supported by Samaritans to offer confidential support to their fellow prisoners who may be at risk of suicide, otherwise in crisis, or simply in need of someone to talk to. The scheme's objectives are to assist in preventing suicide, reducing self-harm and to help alleviate the feelings of those in distress.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men over 65 and (b) women over 60 are held in prisons in England and Wales. [125501]

  Paul Goggins
  On 31 May 2003, there were 608 men over the age of 65 and 22 women over the age of 60 in prisons in England and Wales.

  Royal Security
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions on royal security at Buckingham Palace he has held with Palace authorities. [125987]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The protective security measures implemented at Royal sites are constantly under review and, as such, the Home Office is in regular contact with Palace authorities and the police over these measures. The hon. Member will also be aware of the review established following the incident at Windsor Castle last month. However, as the hon. Member will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment upon the details of these measures on the grounds of security.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124812]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  No central records are kept on the number of planning applications to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. However, since August 2001 when the current planning regulations on mobile telecommunications masts came into force there have been five applications to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Prison Service.

  Vignettes Programme
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reason was for the delay in the vignettes programme announcement; and if he will make a statement. [125528]

  Beverley Hughes
  Contract negotiations have proved to be more complex than originally foreseen. An announcement of the outcome will be made shortly.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many out of country work permits have been granted in the first six months of 2003; and what(a) the primary occupations were for which such permits were issued and (b) the country of origin of recipients; [123779]

  (2) how many in-country work permits have been granted in the first six months of 2003; and what (a) the occupations were for which such permits were issued and (b) the country of origin of recipients. [123780]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures for the second quarter will not be available until August 2003.

  Figures for the primary occupations for which most in-country and out-of-country work permit applications have been issued in the first three months of 2003, include the top five nationalities for each occupation.

  The total number of out-of-country work permits issued in the first three months of 2003 is 20,769.

  A copy of the tables will be placed in the Library.

  Young Offenders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were placed on Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes, broken down by region, 2002–03. [124556]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of young offenders placed on the scheme by region between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 is set out in the table.

  Regions

  Number of young offenders placed on ISSP1 between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003

  East Midlands

  180

  East of England

  127

  London

  533

  North East

  369

  North West

  724

  South East

  192

  South West

  58

  West Midlands

  411

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  452

  Wales

  265

  1 Intensive Supervision and Surveillance.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new entrants to the Civil Service
  603W
  were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119819]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 658W.

  Dover House
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Dover House. [120174]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: Dover House is the headquarters of the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate-General, which are now part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what revised guidelines have been issued in respect of Scottish Executive use of Dover House. [121151]

  Mrs. McGuire
  None. The Scottish Executive continues to occupy accommodation in Dover House on the basis of an agreement with the Scotland Office.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116647]

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has for improving departmental energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [119643]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Defra, on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 581W.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European constitution. [124856]

  Mrs. McGuire
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, officials and I have had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. 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.

  Proceeds of Crime
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total value of assets and illegal gains confiscated from criminals is in Scotland since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into effect. [126509]
  604W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The criminal confiscation provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into effect on 24 March 2003. Following from transitional arrangements, cases already being processed have been dealt with under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.

  In the period from 24 March to 30 June 2003, confiscation orders totalling £435,864 were imposed by the courts in Scotland under the 1995 Act. In respect of cases under investigation using the new powers, £793,000 is now under restraint, in anticipation of confiscation orders being made following conviction in a criminal court.

  Scotland Office
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Ministers there were in the Scottish Office and Scotland Office in each year since 1996. [120986]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether ths Scotland Office is a Department of State. [121153]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No. The Scotland Office is a distinct entity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108506]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed by his Department. [106288]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 780W.

  Sustainable Development
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his departmental strategy for sustainable development will be published; and what steps are being taken to take forward the actions outlined. [119644]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office does not intend to publish a strategy for sustainable development.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what remit relating to sustainable development is(a) required 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. [119645]
  605W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office sponsors only one body, the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which has no remit relating to sustainable development.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of the (i) bids made for the different grants awarded by her Department and (ii) bids made for any contracts awarded by his Department; who makes such an assessment; and whether these assessments are published. [119646]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has no provision for awarding grants. Contracts awarded by the Scotland Office are devised in accordance with Government guidelines.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113882]

  Mrs. McGuire
  As stated in the Scotland Office Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5927), it was decided in the 2002 Spending Review that the Scotland Office would no longer require a formal Service Delivery Agreement. The Scotland Office takes account of the United Kingdom's commitments arising from the World Summit on sustainable development.

  Timber
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department's procurement policy covers timber used on and in the construction of departmental building projects; and if he will make a statement. [119647]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has not recently commissioned any major building project involving the use of timber. Its purchasing policy Collows Government guidelines and takes full account of environmental considerations.

TRANSPORT

  Bio fuels
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 928W, on bio-fuels, when he will be consulting stakeholders on (a) indicative targets for the use of bio-fuels and (b) the most appropriate ways of meeting them. [126864]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government intend to consult on the level of indicative targets for both 2005 and 2010 and on the most appropriate ways of meeting them during the first half of next year.

  Buses
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local institutions which 606W
  have (a) made bids, (b) received funding and (c) have bids under consideration under the Urban Bus Challenge. [126333]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Rural and Urban Bus Challenge schemes are annual competitions which have been held since 1998 and 2001 respectively. Local transport authorities are those bodies eligible to make bids. Typically around 50 authorities submit bids to each competition.

  In total over 300 awards have been made under the schemes. Lists of the authorities and projects that have been awarded funding are available in the Libraries of the House.

  No bids are currently under consideration. The closing dates for receipt of bids to this year's competitions are 26 September (Urban Bus Challenge) and 31 October (Rural Bus Challenge).

  Cycling
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London borough authorities to encourage the creation of cycle lanes within their boroughs; and if he will make a statement. [125503]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. The promotion of cycling in London is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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 aero planes in each year since 1997. [123084]

  Mr. McNulty
  The cost of ministerial cars and drivers for the Department 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 Department for Transport came into existence on 29 May 2002 following machinery of Government changes. All travel by officials in the Department for Transport is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the departmental staff handbook. Ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Full detailed information for parts (b), (c), (d) and (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the south-east. [125389]

  Mr. McNulty
  The scope for relocating Government activity is being considered by Sir Michael Lyons. His independent review was announced in the Chancellor's Budget Statement on the 9 April.
  607W
  Details of the review, including the consultation launched on 19 June, can be found on the HM Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. Sir Michael will report his findings on the scope for relocating Departments and other public sector bodies before the end of the year.

  The Department was formed in May 2002. Some 75 per cent. of staff from the central Department and executive agencies are located away from London and the south-east. The most recent relocation activity has involved the Highways Agency that is in the process of relocating some 300 posts away from London to their regional office network by October 2003.

  East London Line
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the East London Line Extensions. [126437]

  Dr. Howells
  We have told the SRA that we agree that they should take the East London Line Extensions project forward, on the basis that their business case confirms that the project offers value for money and that they have the resources to do so. The SRA are developing proposals for the project to be implemented by way of a privately financed special purpose vehicle. Following the conclusion of legal proceedings concerning the Bishops gate Goods yard, preparatory site clearance and demolition work is now under way.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the Departments' policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124713]

  Mr. McNulty
  All of the policies identified in the Department's 10-Year Plan for Transport, published in 2000, have been appraised using an approach that takes account of sustainable development objectives, and builds on our new approach to appraisal which takes full account of environmental impacts. An appraisal summary table is included in the background analysis to the plan. A similar approach will be adopted for the review of the 10-year plan.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126597]
  608W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 8 June 2001, the Department has implemented 29 Directives. These are listed as follows:2002/7—Amending 96/53/EC and laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic
  2001/85—Relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and amending Directives 70/156/ EEC and 97/27/EC.
  2001/105—Amending Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.
  2002/41—Commission Directive adapting to technical progress 95/1/EC on the maximum design speed, maximum torque and maximum net engine power of two or three wheel motor vehicles.
  2002/80—Adapting to technical progress Council Directive 70/220/EEC relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles.
  2002/24—Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the type approval of two or three wheeled motor vehicles and their trailers, amending Directive 70/156/ EEC and repealing Directive 78/548/EEC.
  2002/51—Reduction of the level of pollutant emissions from two and three wheeled motor vehicles and amending Directive 97/54/EC.
  2002/75—Amending Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment.
  2001/11—Relating to roadworthiness tests for vehicles and their trailers.
  2002/35—Setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 meters in length or over.
  2002/78—Adapting to technical progress Directive 71/320/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the braking devices of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers.
  2000/59—Port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues.
  2001/10—Approximation of the laws of the member states on measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles.
  2002/25—Amending 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.
  2001/43—Amending 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and their fitting.
  2001/116—Adapting to technical progress 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.
  2001/92—Adapting to technical progress 92/22/EEC on safety glazing and glazing materials on motor vehicles and their trailers and 70/156/EC relating to the type approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.
  2001/63—Adapting to technical progress 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery.
  1999/95—Concerning the enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers hours of work on board ships calling at Community ports.
  2000/30—Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community.
  2001/09—Adapting to technical progress 96/96/EC on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.
  2001/01—Amending Directive 70/220/EEC concerning measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from vehicles.

  609W
  2000/73—Adapting to technical progress Directive 93/92/EEC on the installation of lighting and light signalling devices on two and three wheeled motor vehicles.
  2000/74—Adapting to technical progress Directive 93/29/EEC concerning the identification of controls, tell-tales and indicators on two and three wheeled motor vehicles.
  2001/26—Amending Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road.
  2001/27—Relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive-ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles.
  2001/31—Adapting to technical progress Directive 70/387/EEC relating to the doors of motor vehicles and their trailers.
  1999/94—Relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars.
  1999/97—Amending 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the member states, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he 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. [124778]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, my Department has had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. 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.

  Helicopter Safety
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the manufacturers provided a report on the on-deck pitch/heave and roll certification of a Super Puma helicopter which rolled over on the West Navion on 10 November 2001; what plans he has to publish the report; and what proposals he has to amend helideck movement criteria. [126524]

  Mr. McNulty
  The manufacturers of the Super Puma have not yet provided the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) with any report on the on-deck pitch/heave and roll limits for the super puma helicopter. I am also still awaiting publication of the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) report into the West Navion Super Puma accident which occurred on 10 November 2001. We are however aware that this specific accident resulted from a ship control malfunction that caused a rapid and unanticipated change to the ship's position and heading.
  610W
  Extensive research by the CAA into operations to moving decks has been undertaken and remains on-going. It is expected that this research will provide the basis for any proposal for changes to helideck movement criteria. There are no plans to require amendment to the current criteria until the research is completed.

  Hybrid Vehicles
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand the scheme of assistance to purchasers of electric-petrol hybrid vehicles to include those private and business motorists leasing vehicles through direct arrangements with the manufacturers. [126919]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that hybrid vehicles can provide useful environmental benefits over conventionally powered vehicles and that hybrid technology may provide a bridge between internal combustion engines and fuel cells.

  The Government support the take-up of hybrid vehicles with Power Shift purchase grants of £1,000. All leasing companies, including leasing companies associated with manufacturers, are eligible for Power Shift grants, which reduce the cost of the vehicle owned by the leasing company and put the leasing company in a position to provide lower priced vehicle leasing to motorists.

  Information Technology
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 he authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125721]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. The information is as follows:

  Central Department (DfT)

  Electronic Service Delivery of Abnormal Loads

  DfT Electronic Systems for Highways

  Next Generation Website

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  E-Community

  Vax Migration Project Phases 2a-2b

  DfT/ODPM Intranet Strategic IT Enhancement

  Windows XP Migration

  Personnel Improving Services and Modernisation

  BS7799

  Data Communications Service

  ETHOS End-to-End Performance Monitoring

  GSI Upgrade

  PC Replacement

  Remote Access Upgrade

  Single Sign On Implementation

  DSA

  DSA Intranet

  DVLA

  Electronic Vehicle Re-Licensing

  Electronic Point of Sale Replacement

  Abandoned Vehicles—Links to Local Authorities

  e-Procurement

  611W

  Highways Agency

  Human Resources Management Information System

  EDRM

  Marine and Coastguard Agency

  EDRM

  Equipment Refresh

  Forms

  Web Enhancement

  The word "authorised" has been interpreted to mean projects with an approved business case.

  Note:

  In some areas of the Department the thresholds for major IT projects are significantly higher than £10,000. Projects below this threshold will have been locally funded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [126195]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 1997, the Department for Transport has signed nine outsourced IT contracts, with a total value of £637 million. These contracts were let with:

  Amey IT Services

  Capita Business Services Ltd.

  Compaq (2)

  EDS Ltd.

  IBM/Fujitsu

  LogicaCMG

  SchlumbergerSema

  Siemens Business Services

  Two of these contracts have been renegotiated; seven are still in place.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 270W, on underground (masks), how many drivers on the London Underground have asthma; what research has been undertaken on the effect of tunnel dust on those drivers who suffer from asthma; and if he will make a statement. [125376]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for London Underground.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental safeguards have been put in place to protect the marine environment from damage due to incidents involving un-crewed ships being transported from the United States to the UK to be broken up; what notification he has received of proposals to bring ships to the UK for this purpose; and what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on this issue. [125803]
  612W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK has had no notification of this proposal but is aware of articles in the press. Officials in the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive have considered the implications but understand, however, that commercial arrangements for this towage have yet to be confirmed.

  If such proposals mature there are conditions that the UK will insist upon to mitigate risks of operations. The passage of such ships under tow would be the object of a risk assessment, with particular regard to the towing vessel suitability and capacity, the type of towage gear and the dimensions and nature of the object to be towed.

  In that event the MCA would insist that international requirements were adhered to. They would include interim conditional load line certification and towage certification, linked to classification society and insurance requirements. All would be a clear requirement on the operator before the tow was allowed into the UK Pollution Control Zone (UKPCZ).

  Such an assessment would include likely risk of significant pollution. Ships or tows with significant risk would not be allowed in a UKPCZ and the UK has powers to restrict or ban such movements, through intervention.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the devolved administrations about concessionary travel schemes; [126517]

  (2) how often he met his counterparts in the devolved administrations in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [126519]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers meet their counterparts from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions(a) he and (b) each of his ministerial colleagues has used (i) the railways and (ii) a ministerial car in association with official ministerial duties since their appointment. [126819]

  Mr. McNulty
  Arrangements for official travel are made in line with guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code and the accompanying guidance document travel by Ministers, using the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  An initial check of the diaries show that Ministers have used (i) the railways 34 times and (ii) ministerial cars 13 times in association with ministerial duties outside London in the period since being appointed.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when(a) he and (b) each of his ministerial colleagues next plan to use the railways in association with official ministerial duties. [126820]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers travel by rail on a regular basis in the course of their official duties and will continue to do so.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124807]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123143]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorway Accidents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 805W, on motorway accidents, how many of these accidents resulted in the death of a driver or passenger. [126931]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of accidents on UK motorways during the hours of darkness which resulted in the death of a driver or passenger in each year since 1997 are shown as follows:

  Number

  1997

  69

  1998

  69

  1999

  76

  2000

  64

  2001

  71

  2002

  72

  Network Rail
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of(a) the revenues and (b) the losses of Network Rail stem from the least used 10 per cent. of the railway network. [125763]

  Dr. Howells
  The revenues and costs of Network Rail are computed on a network-wide basis under a "single till" mechanism. However, as required by the rail regulator, Network Rail's business plan sets out elements of projected expenditure by route. Furthermore, as part of his current interim review of access charges the regulator has requested from Network Rail certain information on a disaggregated basis, with a view to developing greater local accountability and efficient allocation of resources.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment hay been made by the Department of the economic cost of removing the ban on night flights at Heathrow airport, in terms of the 614W
  effect on property values on the flight path; what conclusions have been drawn; and if he will make a statement; [125820]

  (2) what estimate the Department has made of the economic cost each year of continuing the ban on night flights at Heathrow imposed in 2001 in terms of its impact on the airline industry. [125821]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no ban on night flights at Heathrow but, since 1962, various restrictions have been imposed on night flying, in recognition of the disturbance to some people from aircraft noise at night. The restrictions are reviewed from time to time. Details of the present restrictions are given in the consultation paper "Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted" which sets out our proposal to extend those restrictions until October 2005. The consultation closed on 11 July.

  Overseas Trips
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what overseas trips were made by(a) himself, (b) his ministerial team and (c) departmental staff in each month since 1 October 2002, specifying in each case (i) the participating Ministers, (ii) the destination of the trip, (iii) the purpose of the trip and (iv) the cost of the trip. [117529]

  Mr. McNulty
  The detailed information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  All travel booked by civil servants is in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code.

  The Government publishes an annual report of ministerial travel overseas. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the ministerial code.

  US Warships (Disposal)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of towing former US naval ships through the Pentland Firth. [125688]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No application has been received to enter the UK Pollution Control Zone which includes the Pentland Firth. UK agreement to a "passage plan" for the proposed tow is required in advance, and such agreement would depend on satisfactory conclusions following a risk assessment, including that of impact on the local environment.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on proposals to tow former US naval ships through the Pentland Firth en route to Teesside. [125689]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Proposals for such towage require prior UK agreement to enter the UK Pollution Control Zone.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the UK Administration will exercise its power to prevent the towing of former US naval ships thought to contain toxic chemicals through the Pentland Firth under article 19(2)(h) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. [125690]
  615W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Article 19(2)(h) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), refers to acts of "willful and serious pollution" contrary to UNCLOS. It does not limit proposals for commercial towage, for which separate prior UK agreement is required to enter the UK Pollution Control Zone.

  Property Prices (Heathrow Flight Path)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will conduct a review into the economic impact of Heathrow Airport on property prices for residential houses on the flight path; and if he will make a statement. [125824]

  Mr. McNulty
  House prices around Heathrow vary and are affected by many factors, as elsewhere. Both the economic benefits of the airport and the environmental disbenefits will affect property prices in a wider area than under the flight paths. There is already extensive worldwide literature on the effect of aircraft noise on house prices although the literature largely concerns day time noise and it is difficult to isolate aircraft noise (or any other single factor) as a discrete influence on house prices.

  Ragwort
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contractual arrangements there are for the clearing of ragwort from highway land along(a) the A21, (b) the A259 and (c) other trunk roads in the Bexhill and Battle constituency; and what the cost has been in (i) the last financial year and (ii) this financial year to date. [126957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member

  Letter from Richard Bennett to Mr. Gregory Barker, dated 17 July 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the clearance of ragwort along the A21, the A259 and other trunk roads in your constituency.
  The clearance of ragwort on the trunk road network is carried out by the Highways Agency's Managing Agent Contractor as pan of their routine maintenance responsibilities. They carry out daily routine inspections of the network 10 identify general defects on the network including the presence of ragwort. Areas affected by ragwort are sprayed using herbicide during the main growing season and where appropriate cutting or weeding by hand of affected areas is also carried out, usually three times a year. Priority is given to the control of ragwort on highway land which is adjacent to or near agricultural or grazing land.
  The only trunk roads in the Bexhill and Battle areas are the A21 and A259. All other roads in the area are local roads for which East Sussex County Council is responsible as the local highway authority. The removal of ragwort alongside these roads is a matter for the local highway authority to consider
  Ragwort is a growing problem on the truck road network and we have recently issued a press release which sets out how we intend to combat the problem. I enclose a copy of the press release for your information. You will see from the press release we spend in the region of one million annually to control ragwort
  The managing agent for this area changed on 1st June and we have not been able to identify the cost of clearing ragwort on the specific routes you identify. However, expenditure so far this year for the area covered by the contractor (Kent, Surrey, West and East Sussex) is estimated at around £30,000
  I hope this is helpful
  616W
  News release

  Pretty But Poisonous: Highways Agency Tackles Ragwort

  Ragwort's bright yellow flowers are a colourful sight on roadside verges, but the plant has a more sinister side.
  Livestock in Britain are at risk of poisoning from common ragwort, so the Highways Agency is working to reduce ragwort growth on the verges of England's motorways and major trunk roads and to prevent the plant from spreading its seed.
  Ragwort grows through two distinct stages—the rosette stage from germination to the end of May and the stem-flower stage from June onwards. The rosette stage is the early stage of growth where the ragwort is less noticeable but still poisonous with a dense rosette of leaves close to the ground.
  The Highways Agency is using a two-step attack to deal with both stages of growth. The rosettes are being sprayed with an herbicide during May and June, and later, contractors will return to hand pull the older, more mature plants to prevent their seeds being dispersed.
  The Highways Agency's environmental policy advisor Tony Sangwine said:
  "Ragwort is a difficult plant to combat as it is almost impossible to eradicate, at best it can be controlled. The seeds are very robust and can lie dormant in the soil for up to 20 years and so Ragwort grows unexpectedly in many different places. They can be carried for miles in the wind, and so as part of our work to control the problem, we encourage landowners to remove Ragwort from their land to try and prevent reinvasion.
  The Highways Agency takes this perennial problem very seriously as Common Ragwort can pose a serious threat to equines and livestock, and there is no specific treatment once an animal shows symptoms of poisoning."
  The Highways Agency spends in the region of £1 million each year to help control the spread of Ragwort along the 5,841 miles of trunk roads and motorways it operates in England, and supports the British Horse Society's (BHS) annual 'Ragwort Action Week' campaign.

  Notes to Editors

  1. The Highways Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport, which manages, maintains and improves the network of trunk roads and motorways in England on behalf of the Secretary of State. It works closely with other transport operators and with local authorities to integrate the trunk road network with the rest of England's roads and other forms of transport. More information is available at www.highways.gov.uk
  2. Sections of the following route verges will be timetabled for treatment: A27, A249, M20, M23
  3. Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L.) is one of the five injurious weeds specified in the Weeds Act 1959. Landowners have a duty of care to prevent it spreading.
  4. Ragwort is normally a biennial (rosette—spring 1st year; flowering—July/August 2nd year). The rosette stage is the early stage of growth where the ragwort is at its most poisonous and has a dense rosette of leaves close to the ground. In the stem-flower stage, the plant grows between 30cm and 100cm high with clustered bright yellow flowers.
  5. Each plant can produce up to 150,000 seeds with a 70% germination rate. Ragworts seeds can be domant in the soil for up to 20 years.
  6. Equines and bovines are more susceptible to ragwort poisoning than other livestock. Little can be done for the animal once the symptoms appear. Young animals are more susceptible than mature animals.
  7. Ragwort acts as a cumulative poison, eventually destroying the liver. A small intake of ragwort over a long period can be just as damaging as a large intake on a single occasion.
  Issued by Highways Agency's South East Press and PR Office.

  617W
  Media enquiries to:
  Melese Glazer on 01306 878 110 melese.glazer@highways.gsi.gov.uk
  or
  Cosima Duggal on 01306 878 42442 cosima.duggal@highways.gsi.gov.uk

  Rail Freight
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 190W, on freight grants, how much the Track Access Grants with a Scottish element awarded by (a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority were at (i) current prices and (ii) outturn prices for each year since 1996. [125660]

  Mr. McNulty
  The value of Track Access Grants (TAGs) with a Scottish element awarded by either the Department or the Strategic Rail Authority and their value at 2002–03 prices is listed in the table.

  £

  Value of

  TAGs

  TAGs at 2002–03

  1996–97

  355,000

  415,730

  1997–98

  386,954

  440,760

  1998–99

  1,177,560

  1,302,639

  1999–2000

  579,708

  626,496

  2000–01

  —

  —

  2001–02

  1,722,240

  1,775,798

  2002–03

  2,466,176

  2,466,176

  Rail Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role signallers play in minimising delays to fast long distance trains. [126832]

  Dr. Howells
  Network Rail advises that its signallers are responsible for regulating all trains regardless of type, speed or destination to minimise delays where possible.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures will be put in place to prevent train operating companies adopting train crew relief strategies which will stand trains at strategic points along the railway. [126833]

  Dr. Howells
  This is an operational matter for the train operating companies, having regard to their contractual commitments such as the maximum journey time for services specified in their passenger service requirement, the "rules of the plan" which are agreed with Network Rail and which specify station dwell times, and safety rules.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the European rail traffic management system level 2 will be installed on the UK high speed lines; and for what reasons ERTMS level 1 could not be installed on UK high speed lines with a view to future migration to level 2. [126834]

  Dr. Howells
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has identified the Cambrian coast as an ERTMS Level 2 test site. Further work is required before a robust timetable for fitting to high- speed lines can be developed.
  618W
  The SRA advises that implementation of ERTMS Level 1, followed by subsequent migration to Level 2, would reduce network capacity and track worker safety as a result of increased trackside infrastructure and the costs would far outweigh the benefits. The industry recommendation therefore was to focus development and implementation on ERTMS Level 2. This was supported by the work of the Health and Safety Executive that led to the Health and Safety Commission's recommendation which the Secretary of State accepted in February 2003.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the introduction of the train protection and warning system has affected line capacity in congested areas of the network. [126835]

  Dr. Howells
  Network Rail advises that the train protection and warning system (TPWS) has no effect on line capacity.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to improve the reliability of the train protection and warning system, with reference to(a) delays to trains running into terminal stations and (b) drivers needing to apply power between the TPWS and the buffer stops. [126836]

  Dr. Howells
  Network Rail advises that the train protection and warning system (TPWS) has a good record of reliability. TPWS at buffer stops is set to intervene only if trains exceed l0mph. Network Rail is working with the train operators and their drivers to ensure that all trains are controlled to below this trigger point and to enter terminal stations at this low speed. Network Rail works with the train operators to assist drivers in controlling their train speeds into termini.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the average length of(a) journey and (b) time taken for train passengers to travel to and from the rail station. [125749]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers on average travelled on each diesel multiple unit train journey in the last year for which figures are available. [125750]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally.

  Railway Stations
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what station improvements are planned which are funded under(a) the Rail Passenger Partnership, (b) the Incremental Output Statements and (c) the Modern Facilities at Stations Scheme. [125687]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the Strategic Rail Authority's Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme, there are a total of 30 schemes that have been approved for RPP funding, that include station improvements. Under the Strategic Rail Authority's Incremental Output Statement (IOS), Modern Facilities at Stations Scheme (MFAS), there are a further 68 stations that are under consideration by the authority.

  Road Repairs (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people working on road repairs and improvements over each of the last three years have been(a) injured and (b) killed working on (i) motorways, (ii) other trunk roads and (iii) all other roads. [120672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to the answer of 4 July 2003,Official Report, c. 502 W]: The available information on numbers of people injured and killed while working on road repairs and improvements on motorways and other trunk roads in England over the last three years, as reported to the Highways Agency by its contractors, is shown in the table. Information for other roads is not available.

  Reported casualities on motorways and other trunk roads in England: 2002–02

  Year/severity

  Motorway and trunk roads

  Motorway

  Trunk

  2000

  Fatal

  4

  1

  3

  Injured

  55

  n/a

  n/a

  All

  59

  —

  —

  2001

  Fatal

  3

  2

  1

  Injured

  73

  n/a

  n/a

  All

  76

  —

  —

  2002

  Fatal

  5

  1

  4

  Injured

  105

  n/a

  n/a

  All

  110

  —

  —

  Note:

  n/a = not available

  Source:

  Highways Agent

  Road Schemes
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which statutory bodies will be involved in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of(a) route improvements to the A21 between Kippings Cross and Robertsbridge and (b) the building of the A259 Bexhill-Hastings link road. [126426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In designing and evaluating potential road schemes, the Highways Agency works closely with the four statutory environmental bodies: the Environment Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and the Countryside Agency. The Local Transport Plan guidance places a similar requirement on local authorities bringing forward bids for major road and public transport schemes.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received concerning the(a) projected cost and (b) timeframe of building an A259 Bexhill-Hastings link road; [126428]

  (2) what representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) against the building of the A259 Bexhill-Hastings link road. [126427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has received a number of representations from individuals and bodies about this scheme. Among those in favour are the South East of England Regional Assembly, the South East of
  620W
  England Development Agency, East Sussex county council and some business organisations in the area. The four statutory environmental bodies are among those that have expressed concern over the proposal. The representation from the regional assembly asked that all study recommendations should be progressed quickly. The Secretary of State has asked East Sussex county council to progress the scheme in close liaison with the statutory environmental bodies.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the A21 from(a) Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst and (b) Flimwell to Robertsbridge. [126429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  By the closing date (24 March 2003) of the public consultation on these two improvements a total of 905 completed questionnaires and 341 letters had been received. As the questionnaire related to both schemes it is not possible to give figures for the split between the two schemes, however, 327 of the letters related to the Flimwell to Robertsbridge section with 14 related to the Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst section. After the closing date a further 31 letters were received, 24 related to Flimwell to Robertsbridge and seven to the Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst. In addition, a 1,540 signature petition and 159 responses from a questionnaire organised by Hurst Green parish council were also received. Responses were also received from all the local authorities along the route and from statutory and non-statutory environmental bodies.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the expected start date is for road improvements on the A21 from(a) Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst and (b) Flimwell to Robertsbridge. [126432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These schemes are not yet in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI). A public consultation exercise was held recently and a report is expected from the Highways Agency in the autumn. We will make an announcement on these improvements following consideration of the report. If it is decided that either of these schemes should enter the TPI the announcement will include likely start dates.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on progress made by(a) East Sussex county council and (b) statutory environmental bodies in developing the A259 Bexhill-Hastings link road scheme, with particular reference to environmental considerations; [126433]

  (2) what discussions the Department has held with (a) East Sussex county council and (b) statutory environmental bodies on environmental considerations in developing the A259 Bexhill-Hastings link road scheme. [126434]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On the 9 July 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport invited East Sussex county council to develop proposals for Bexhill to Hastings Link Road, working closely with the statutory environmental bodies during the process.

  My officials will be discussing details with East Sussex county council in the near future on how to take this work forward.
  621W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list new road construction schemes in East Sussex which have been allocated for design, build, finance and operate funding; and what the estimated cost of construction is at current prices. [126444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no new road construction schemes in East Sussex which have been allocated for design build finance and operate funding.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the annual expenditure of his Department on public local inquiries in East Sussex was in each of the last 10 years; on what dates each inquiry was held; and what the cost was in each year. [126445]

  Mr. Jamieson
  One public local inquiry into road schemes has been held in East Sussex in the last 10 years. This inquiry was into three separate draft proposals on the A259 between Pevensey and Guestling Thorn including bypasses of Bexhill and Hastings and was held between October 1995 and July 1996. The estimated cost was in the region of £1 million.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements are planned for the A259 over the next three years. [126446]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The section of the A259 between Brenzett and Folkestone will be detrunked in September this year, with responsibility for the identification and implementation of any future improvements being transferred to Kent county council. The remaining sections of the A259 trunk road, east of Hastings to Brenzett and west of Hastings to Pevensey, will remain the responsibility of the Highways Agency. A route management strategy is being prepared for these sections of the route, which will identify future local improvements. Improvements in future years will be dependent on the availability of funding.

  There are seven improvement schemes programmed for the current financial year. These are:

  Safety Schemes
  Barnhorn Gateway, Bexhill—Provision of right turn facility, cycleways and gateway signing
  Winchelsea Signs Review

  Accessibility Schemes
  Bexhill—Provision of controlled crossing as part of Safer Routes to School initiative
  Bexhill Bus Stops—Increase in kerb heights to facilitate disabled access
  De la Warr Road/King Offa Way Junction, Bexhill— Improvements to signals to aid right-turn and pedestrian movements

  Road Renewal Schemes
  Ferry Hill Landslip Remediation, Winchelsea
  Strand Bridge to Harbour Road, Winchelsea to Rye

  In addition to the above works, a number of studies of potential improvements to safety, the environment and integration are also being carried out.

  Roads (Hampshire)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department allocated to Hampshire county council for the maintenance of(a) principal roads and (b) minor roads in Hampshire
  622W
  in (i) 2003, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2000; and what steps he has taken to monitor expenditure by the council in each case. [126378]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process, we have allocated the following funds to Hampshire county council for the capital maintenance of principal roads, bridges and non-principal roads. It is for the Council to decide how best to allocate these resources between different maintenance priorities. The Council also receives revenue funding from the Government, although the amount for road maintenance is not identified separately. Use of these resources is monitored through the Annual Progress Report which all local highway authorities are required to submit to my Department.

  Allocation (£ million)

  2000–01

  4.388

  2001–021

  14.921

  2002–03

  10.524

  2003–04

  13.156

  1 Includes £5.051 allocated in August 2001 for emergency repairs to flood damaged roads.

  Severn Bridges
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tolls are payable when using the Severn Bridges on emergency calls by(a) the Severn Area Rescue Association, (b) HM Coastguards vehicles, (c) Police vehicles, (d) ambulances and (e) Fire Service vehicles. [126393]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Vehicles being used in the discharge of the functions of a fire authority, vehicles being used for police purposes and ambulances are exempt from toll charges for using the Severn Bridges under the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

  Arrangements are also in place to exempt vehicles belonging to the Severn Area Rescue Association and HM Coastguard from toll charges when using the Bridges for emergency purposes.

  South Coast Multi-modal Study
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the projected cost of each recommendation contained in the South Coast multi modal study is; and what funding has been allocated to taking forward each recommendation. [126430]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total estimated cost of the recommendations made by the South Coast multi modal study was £1.1 billion. This sum consists of:Improvements to the trunk road network totalling £594 million, designed to reduce congestion bottlenecks and improve safety black spots;
  Rail improvements totalling £109 million;
  £26 million for bus measures;
  £99 million for urban interventions and other local transport measures;
  £283 million for light rail transit investment.

  In response to these recommendations, the Secretary of State has asked the Highways Agency to take forward a number of road schemes, the costs for which will come from the resources allocated within the 10-year plan.
  623W
  Local authorities are asked to work up a number of schemes and measures for submission via the local transport plan bid process. Where required, provision of funding will depend on the performance of schemes against appraisal criteria. On the rail side a significant programme of rail improvements is being taken forward which will support the objectives of the study. The SRA has also been asked to examine the scope for delivering the study's rail objectives as it develops its future programmes.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which recommendations contained in the South Coast multi modal study(a) have been approved, (b) have not been approved and (c) are still awaiting a final decision. [126431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our response to the South Coast multi-modal study, which was sent to MPs within the south-east as part of an announcement package, set out in detail where we have asked for further work to be undertaken by the respective delivery agencies. This includes where we have asked for schemes to be taken forward, where we have asked for schemes to be considered further or where to look at alternatives. Implementation of all schemes included in the announcement are subject to the successful completion of all necessary consultation and statutory procedures. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126666]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Between that date and 31 March 2003, a departmental special adviser accompanied the Secretary of State to Strasbourg at a cost of £675.31. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and Civil Service Management Code.

  Speed Cameras (M25)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of speed cameras on the M25 are covered with not in use signs, broken down by junction. [126684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Speed cameras have been installed on the M25 in Essex in preparation for major roadworks starting this month. They are covered until the roadworks commence.

  Speed Humps
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the impact of speed humps on the(a) environment,(b) suspension systems of motor vehicles and (c) response times of emergency vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [126514]
  624W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Traffic Management and Air Quality (TRAMAQ) research programme is looking at the impact of traffic management techniques, including road humps, on vehicle emissions and air quality. Further information on this programme is available on the Department's website [http:www.dft.gov.ul/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_508003.hcsp#TopOfPage].

  My Department has a current research project looking into the impact of road humps on vehicles and their occupants. As part of this project the suspension of vehicles will be examined after repeated runs over a range of road humps. The results of this project will be available towards the end of this year.

  The Department has not specifically assessed the impact of road humps on response times for emergency vehicles. However, local authorities are required to consult the emergency services prior to installing road humps to ensure minimal delay to their vehicles.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued to local authorities in respect of the size, height and positioning of speed humps on roads; and whether he plans changes thereto. [126515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "The highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999" cover the dimensions and positioning of road humps. In addition, my Department has issued guidelines on the construction of road humps in the form of the Traffic Advisory Leaflet series; a full list of these is available in TAL 5/01 "Traffic Calming Bibliography" There are no current plans to alter either the regulations or guidance.

  Strategic Rail Plan
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revisions have been made to the 10-year strategic rail plan since January. [125510]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. The next version of the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will be published in January 2004.

  Transport Investment (Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his statement of 9 July, on investment in transport, what projects he intends to announce for(a) North Yorkshire and (b) Vale of York. [125656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State's statement of 9 July concerned the Government's response to a number of multi-modal studies, none of which covered North Yorkshire and the Vale of York. However, new projects for the upgrading of the A1 between Dishforth and Barton and for the dualling of the A66 in North Yorkshire were announced on 25 June 2002 and 22 August 2002 respectively in response to safety studies undertaken on these routes.

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the operating costs of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency were in each of the last
  625W
  five years; and how many staff it employed in each year. [125542]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency was formed on 1 April 2003 following a merger

  2002–03

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Operating costs £000

  100,803

  87,929

  74,614

  64,924

  58,474

  Staff numbers (average)

  2,201

  2,036

  1,902

  1,808

  1,726

  Traffic Area Network

  Operating costs £000

  15,451

  15,504

  12,070

  11,666

  10,572

  Staff numbers (average)

  313

  316

  325

  317

  304

  Walking Strategy
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress he has made against the targets set in the 1997 walking strategy; [126548]

  (2) what recent research he has conducted into the average annual distance walked by a UK (a) adult and (b) child in each of the last six years; [126549]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the walking-related spending in the 10-year transport plan for each year of the plan; and what walking-related spending was allocated in the last six years of local transport plans. [126550]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no walking targets, but the National Travel Survey shows that the average distance walked in Great Britain each year by adults (16 years and over) and children (under 16 years) for the last six periods for which data are available is as follows:

  Miles per person per year

  Adults (16 + )

  Children (under 16)

  1994–96

  197

  208

  1995–97

  193

  200

  1996–98

  191

  201

  1997–99

  189

  198

  1998–2000

  190

  200

  1999–2001

  186

  200

  The National Travel Survey excludes walks of less than 50 yards and those that are away from the public highway unless both the surface is paved or tarred and there is unrestricted access.

  The Government are providing very generous transport investment funds to local authorities—amounting to £19 billion over the 10-year plan period. However, we do not ring-fence funds specifically for walking schemes. The Government believe local authorities should be able take an integrated approach, using investment funds in the way that best suits local circumstances. Our approach to funding reflects this. Decisions about walking-related spending are therefore for local authorities. The Government require local authorities to plan better facilities for walkers, and report what they have delivered. We take this information into account in our decisions on overall funding allocations.
  626W
  between the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency and the Traffic Area Network division of the Department for Transport. Details of operating costs and staff numbers for the former organisations over the last five years are shown in the table.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mir. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional charges Network Rail will make to express train operators for each express train path, following the upgrade of the west coast main line. [125753]

  Dr. Howells
  The rail regulator is currently conducting an interim review of Network Rail's track access charges payable by franchised passenger operators. As part of this he is considering the costs that Network Rail will incur and the scope for efficiency savings both in relation to the west coast route modernisation and the rest of the work that Network Rail has to undertake.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many extra passengers he estimates will be carried each day on the west coast mainline following the upgrade of the route. [125760]

  Dr. Howells
  The Strategic Rail Authority's plan for the west coast main line upgrade, published in June, envisages an increase in passengers of between 15 per cent, and 25 per cent, between London and Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mir. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126616]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the period 29 October 2002 to 15 July 2003, the Department for Transport has made 47 written ministerial statements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules govern the import of live hares for coursing from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland; and what assessment he has made of compliance with the rules in 2002. [123749]

  Mr. Pearson
  Hares are rabies susceptible animals, and as such, are covered by the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977.
  627W
  Under normal circumstances, there are no import restrictions on hares coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland.

  However, there are two exceptions.

  The first exception is the import of a hare from the Republic of Ireland which has previously been brought to the Republic of Ireland from a country other than GB, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Northern Ireland and has not been detained and isolated in quarantine for a period of at least six months before entering Northern Ireland. The second exception is where my Department has reason to believe that there is an outbreak of rabies in the Republic of Ireland.

  In both cases, the importation of a hare is prohibited, except under and in accordance with, the conditions of a licence granted by the Department. The conditions would include the immediate detention and isolation in quarantine for a period of six months.

  Neither of the exceptions arose during 2002.

  Mental Health Review
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Mental Health Review will be(a) completed and (b) published; and if he will make a statement. [124695]

  Angela Smith
  In October 2002, DHSSPS initiated a wide-ranging independent review of the law, policy and service provision affecting people with a mental health problem or a learning disability. The review will involve a comprehensive evaluation of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986, which includes provision for those with a learning disability. It will take into account recent policy and other developments here and in the European Union, and address how best to provide services to people with a mental health problem or a learning disability in accordance with the statutory equality obligations of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with the Human Rights Act 1998, and to promote their social inclusion. The review will also address how to promote positive mental health in society.

  The Mental Health and Learning Disability Review is therefore expected to take until mid-2005 to complete. It may be possible, however, to publish some of the recommendations during 2004.

  North-South Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the names of those serving on each of the north-south bodies set up under the Belfast Agreement, (b) the terms and conditions of their appointments and (c) the rates of pay and allowances for each person. [123805]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The names and details of the terms of office of those currently serving on the Boards of the Trade and Business Development Body, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and the North/South Language Body, together with the Advisory Board of the Food Safety Promotion Board, were placed in the Library on 7 April 2003. The rates 628W
  of remuneration payable to Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and Board Members are detailed in the following table. Travelling expenses are reimbursed for attendance at meetings.

  Rates of remuneration

  £

  Euro

  Chairperson

  6,400

  10,157.90

  Vice-chairperson

  5,200

  8,253.30

  Member

  4,000

  6,348.69

  Note:

  £ = €1.587

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives from the(a) Primary Principals Association of Northern Ireland and (b) Grammar School Principals; and what plans he has to meet each group in the future. [125536]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers have not met with representatives from the Primary Principals Association of Northern Ireland or with Grammar School Principals.

  However, officials from the Department of Education last met with representatives from the Primary Principals Association of Northern Ireland on 25 March 2003. Although there is no officially recognized grouping of Grammar School Principals, the Minister and officials meet regularly with individual principals from grammar schools and with organisations, which include principals of grammar schools such as the Secondary Heads Association.

  There are no plans at present for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to meet with representatives from the Primary Principals Association of Northern Ireland or with Grammar School Principals.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to introduce a doorstep recycling service for every household in Northern Ireland. [125548]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy, published by the Department of the Environment in March 2000, provides a framework for developing waste management practices to increase recycling rates and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. A key element of the Strategy is the preparation of Waste Management Plans by district councils, as required by Article 23 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

  Waste Management Plans covering all of Northern Ireland are now in place, and are currently being implemented. The plans were adopted following extensive public consultation throughout each district council area; they set out the full range of activities and facilities to be put in place to provide a recycling service to the people of Northern Ireland, taking account of the needs and circumstances of individual district councils.
  629W
  The activities and facilities to be put in place include a mix of kerbside collection for individual households and home composting schemes, and the development of new and enhanced civic amenity sites and recycling centres. The plans are geared towards achieving the primary target set out in the Waste Management Strategy of recovering 25 per cent, of household waste by 2005.

  Smoking
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ban smoking in public places in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [125946]

  Angela Smith
  A Five-Year Tobacco Action Plan for Northern Ireland was published on 8 July 2003. The Plan does not propose an outright, ban on smoking in public places; rather it stresses the importance of building on changes in public attitudes towards tobacco use, if the overall aim of creating a tobacco-free society is to be met. With this in mind, the Plan includes a series of actions designed to promote the provision of smoke-free premises and facilities.

  A copy of the Plan has been placed in the House Library.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses he has received to the Five-Year Tobacco Action Plan consultation document; and if he will make a statement on the responses received. [126075]

  Angela Smith
  Ninety-three responses were received. Overall there was broad support for the content of the Plan. A summary of the responses is available on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's website at: www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/2003/tobaccoplanresponses.pdf

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to accelerate the introduction of the tobacco strategy for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [126078]

  Angela Smith
  The Five-Year Tobacco Action Plan contains 24 separate action points, complete with details of the key organisations responsible for their implementation. Each action point incorporates a target date and an Implementation Group will be established shortly to take forward the actions within the specified timescales.

HEALTH

  Notifiable Diseases
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of legislation covering notifiable diseases; what plans he has to propose changes to this legislation; and if he will make a statement. [124792]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We announced in "Getting Ahead of the Curve", the strategy for health protection published by the Chief Medical Officer in January 2002, that we intend to carry out a review of the infectious disease law.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many state-run old people's homes there are in England; what funding they receive; and what contributions pensioners are expected to make. [124054]

  Dr. Ladyman
  At 31 March 2001 there were 1,190 council-run homes for older people in England. This figure includes council-run homes for older mentally ill people.

  Councils do not receive direct funding for care homes that they run themselves. Councils are given a financial provision for the social services they provide or commission through the Formula Spending Share (FSS) and grants. Generally, it is for councils to decide how much of that provision to spend on care homes.

  The National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 sets out how residents' contributions to their cost of their care should be determined. The Regulations apply to adults of all ages. Councils will need to establish in each case what income, savings and capital should be taken into account. Residents with assets in excess on £19,500 should fund their own care costs. Where residents has assets between £19,500 and £12,000 councils provide increasing support until the lower capital limit is reached, at which point councils provide full support. With regard to residents' income, all or most of it is taken into account although each resident should be left with at least a personal expenses allowance of £17.50.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in appraising the drug Memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement. [124980]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The anticipated publication date of guidance by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is May 2005. Details of the anticipated publication date of all NICE guidance can be found on the NICE web site at: www.nice.org.uk

  In the meantime, guidance issued in August 1999 to all National Health Service bodies asked them to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the relevant factors including the available evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the treatment.

  Bush Meat
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisms which are known to exist in imported bushmeat; and what the consequences are of infection in humans. [125188]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Like any raw meat, there is a risk that raw bushmeat may be contaminated with food poisoning micro-organisms, such as E. coli 0157, Campylobacter and Salmonella. Other contaminants of bushmeat: could include parasites, viruses and the bacteria that can cause anthrax, tuberculosis and
  631W
  brucellosis. Although these organisms have the potential to cause human infection, United Kingdom public health bodies involved in the investigation of outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease have not traced any outbreaks of human disease in the UK to the illegal importation of meat. Where local authorities identify bushmeat that has been illegally imported, it must be destroyed.

  Cancer Patient Survey
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to repeat the national cancer patient survey which was published in 2002; and what the planned timetable is. [126159]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The responsibility for carrying out future patient surveys now rests with the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). CHI is looking at a number of factors before deciding when the next cancer patient survey will take place. Further analysis is also being carried out on the last cancer survey data to identify variations within and between trusts on various cancer types. Results of this, along with the analysis commissioned by the Department of Health, will be used to inform plans for a future survey.

  Cancer Treatment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on improving information given to patients following diagnosis of cancer with respect to(a) prognosis, (b) probability of the cancer spreading, (c) treatment options and (d) the genetic implications for other family members. [125027]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Cancer Plan, published in September 2000, acknowledged the importance of ensuring patients have access to appropriate information at each stage of the care pathway and made a commitment to improving the content and availability of patient information.

  Since the publication of the Cancer Plan, we have set up the Coalition for Cancer Information as a result of a recommendation from the Cancer Information Advisory Group. The Coalition, which includes members from key voluntary sector and national health service organisations, is now working to ensure that high quality information is delivered to patients and carers which is appropriate to their particular needs and will enable them to make informed decisions at: each stage.

  In addition, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently preparing guidance for the NHS on supportive and palliative care. The draft guidance includes a chapter on information and recommends that all provider organisations should have a range of different information materials which is accessible and free at the point of delivery and that patients should be offered help to understand the materials they are given. The draft guidance is now out for consultation and can be found on the NICE website at www.nice.orq.uk. The final guidance is expected to be published early next year.

  Cardiology Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times have been in each of the last six years for cardiology appointments; and if he will make a statement. [126006]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The average waiting times for cardiology appointments in each of the last six years is shown in the table.

  Average waiting times (weeks)

  1997–98

  6.77

  1998–99

  7.43

  1999–2000

  7.95

  2000–01

  8.15

  2001–02

  6.83

  2002–03

  6.34

  At Quarter 4 of 2002–03, 81 per cent, of patients were seen within two weeks of referral by their general practitioner or other clinician.

  Chemicals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on human health of textile and leather finishing treatments; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [119084]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply

  No assessment has been made for such treatments.

  In the case of finishing treatments used in workplaces, there are duties placed on employers to carry out assessments of any hazardous substances that may be present in such treatments and to put in place appropriate workplace control measures. HSE has issued a series of information sheets on controlling the hazards from dyes and chemicals in textiles finishing, which includes guidance on the particular risks to employees from reactive dyes and spotting solvents. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available at www.hse.gov.uk/textiles/dvestuffs.htm

  Some of the chemicals that may be used in such treatments have been assessed, or are currently undergoing assessment under the EU Existing Substances Regulation (ESR) or within the OECD Existing Chemicals programme. Risk assessment that have been agreed by all EU member states have been placed in the Library and are made publicly available on the internet, via the website of the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) at http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-chemicals/

  Child Obesity
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between rates of obesity in children and levels of physical activity. [122389]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The effective prevention and management of obesity requires an integrated, cross-government approach, working with a range of partners on programmes to improve diet and increase physical activity levels.
  633W
  In the five years between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of obese children aged six to 15 years rose by 3.5 per cent. Over the same period physical activity levels have fallen due to a combination of factors and four in ten boys and six in 10 girls are not meeting the recommended hour a day of physical activity for children.

  Lower levels of activity in daily life are likely to have contributed to the rise in obesity. Physical activity levels in developed countries appear to have fallen due to a combination of factors—including greater use of cars for short journeys, lower sports participation, and greater access to television and computers and other sedentary activities.

  To ensure that there is a co-ordinated and strategic approach to the planning and delivery of sport and physical activity across a diverse range of sectors—such as transport, countryside management and town planning—a sport and physical activity board (SPAB) has been established. The Board is to be jointly led by the Department of Health and Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

  Another key project in our programme of work are the local exercise action pilots (LEAP) which we jointly fund with Sport England and the Countryside Agency. LEAP will test the effectiveness of primary care trust led interventions to increase access and levels of physical activity in communities based in Neighbourhood Renewal Areas. Activities range from walking, cycling and swimming, to clinical-based programmes that are focusing on diabetes and weight management.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken in Shrewsbury and Atcham to reduce obesity in children in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [126639]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in childhood obesity. The prevention and management of obesity are at the heart of many of the Government's priority areas, as highlighted in the NHS Plan and national service frameworks (NSF) particularly those outlining action on coronary heart disease and diabetes. The forth coming NSF for children will address the health and social care needs of all children and will include the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. A two pronged approach is being taken, addressing both overweight and obesity prevention and management at national, regional and local level.

  Shropshire County Primary Care Trust is involved in a number of initiatives. These include:
  A Family Food Project to promote healthy lifestyles and healthy eating among children;
  The Healthy School Initiative which promotes healthy eating and physical activity in schools;
  The Free Fruit Scheme which involves 82 per cent, of eligible schools; and
  A Walking Bus Pilot Project at Westbury school which is encouraging children to walk to school.

  Clinical Devices (Bacteraemia)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the classes of clinical device which are most closely linked with bacteraemia. [126002]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Voluntary surveillance data1 show that almost two-thirds of bacteraemias of known origin were associated with an intravascular device or device-related infections, such as a catheter associated urinary tract infection.

  Central intravenous catheters were the commonest associated source of hospital acquired bacteraemia.

  1 Public Health Laboratory Service. Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Service.
  Surveillance of hospital acquired bacteraemia in English hospitals. 1997–2002.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of catheter associated urinary tract infection in each of the last three years. [126005]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on the cost to the national health service of catheter associated urinary tract infections are not collected centrally.

  However, a research study1 carried out in one hospital in the 1990s estimated that the cost of a hospital acquired urinary tract infection was, on average, equivalent to an additional £1,327 per patient during the stay in hospital.

  1 R. Plowman, N. Graves, M. Griffin, J. A. Roberts, A. V. Swan, B. Cookson, L. Taylor. The socio-economic burden of hospital acquired infection. Public Health Laboratory Service 1999.

  Clinical Instruments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold an inquiry into the use of single use instruments for tonsillectomies. [126490]

  Mr. Hutton
  In March 2002, the Department of Health and the British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists—Head and Neck Surgeons (BAO-HNS) carried out a comprehensive review of tonsil and adenoid surgery across the country. This followed advice from the Department that, in the interest of the safety of patients, surgeons should not use single use instruments for tonsil and adenoid surgery. The review found that many National Health Service trusts did not collect the data at the time of the operation and that therefore much of it was unreliable.

  To get better information the Department is providing £250,000 to fund the Royal College of Surgeons and the BAO-HNS to carry out a national audit of tonsil and adenoid surgery. As this audit is ongoing, I do not believe that an inquiry is required, but I will keep this under consideration.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 1002W, on the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, what the non staff costs

  635W
  are in (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and what the value of contract for supporting patients forum is for eachprimary care trust. [126324]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health's (CPPIH) budget was discussed at its board meeting on 29 May. The board paper is available at its website at www.cppih.org. It includes a breakdown of staff and non-staff costs for 2003–04. Information relating to the budget breakdown for 2004–05 is not yet available.

  Contracts for supporting patients' forums have not yet been awarded—more information about individual local network providers will be available from the CPPIH in September.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultation documents issued by his 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. [124569]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government recommends that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal consultation documents are one part only 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. The specific information requested is not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, a list of consultation exercises run by the Department of Health since May 2001 is available at www.doh.gov.uk/consultations/.

  Contraception Pill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have taken an emergency contraception pill in the last year. [124105]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Based on results from the Office of National Statistics Omnibus Survey in 2001–02, it is estimated that approximately 900,000 women in England used hormonal emergency contraception at least once in the previous year.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cushion funding is included in the delayed discharge grant for each local authority for 2003–04. [126839]
  636W
  Dr. Ladyman
  All local authorities have been allocated their full share of the £50 million Delayed Discharges Grant. 10 local authorities have received top-up funding totalling £0.8 million in addition to their allocations under the Delayed Discharges Grant 2003–04, so that the total grant is £50.8 million. This means that all local authorities should receive more in grant than they are liable to pay in reimbursement charges, if the level of delayed discharges reduces from the situation recorded in March 2003.

  The extra councils and their individual top-up allocations are shown in the table.

  Top-up allocations

  £ million

  Local authority

  Extra funding

  Hampshire

  0.280

  Surrey

  0.119

  Reading

  0.102

  Darlington

  0.096

  Brighton and Hove

  0.089

  Bracknell Forest

  0.048

  Lambeth

  0.031

  Hillingdon

  0.022

  West Berkshire

  0.011

  Sutton

  0.001

  Total

  0.800

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on delayed discharges. [126489]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest figures on delayed discharge (March 2003), which are available in the Library, show that there were approximately 3,000 patients aged over 75 years experiencing delayed discharge from hospital on any one day in March 2003, compared with 5,673 over 75s in September 2001. This figure has almost halved since the Government made extra funding available to councils to tackle delayed discharges.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [124095]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Detailed information on the impact of the Department's policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "The Government's Expenditure Plans, Departmental Report 2003, Department of Health" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gov.uk/dohreport/report2003/Chaptl.pdf

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Burnley Health Care National Health Service Trust and the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust (PCT).

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT general allocations on behalf of its resident population since 2001 is set out in the table. Prior to the establishment of the PCT in April 2002, Pendle was encompassed within the East Lancashire Health Authority.
  637W

  Allocations since 2001 covering Pendle

  Health Authority/Primary Care Trust

  Year

  Unified allocations (£000)

  Cash increase (£000)

  Cash increase (percentage)

  Real terms increase (£000)

  Real terms increase (percentage)

  East Lancashire HA

  2001–02

  416,738

  34,521

  9.03

  24,357

  6.37

  East Lancashire HA

  2002–03

  461,132

  40,678

  9.74

  29,496

  7.06

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  2003–04

  241,264

  20,080

  9.08

  14,771

  6.68

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  2004–05

  264,963

  23,699

  9.82

  16,857

  7.14

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  2005–06

  289,574

  24,611

  9.29

  16,744

  6.62

  A snapshot of how the Department's policies have impacted on Pendle can be seen as follows. This is by no means a comprehensive list.
  £445,000 for the modernisation of facilities for accident and emergency (A&E) patients and a telemedicine link.

  This was awarded to Burnley General Hospital as part of the national A&E Modernisation programme. The modernisation work (completed in June 2000) has helped to improve patient flow., improve paediatric services and increase privacy and dignity, and the telemedicine link has reduced waiting times through speedier first line treatment.
  Additional repetitive investment £800,000 in mental health services, which exceeds earmarked resources.

  The investment is to support additional consultant psychiatrists, low secure provision, additional prescribing of atypical anti-psychotic drugs and complex packages of care in the independent sector, whilst ensuring the implementation of the national service framework (NSF) for mental health.
  Development of a waiting, booking and choice initiative.

  The Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT is developing a scheme that will enable advance access in primary care, allowing patients to gain access to primary care professionals on the same day.
  The Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT is a second wave local investment finance trust (LIFT) pilot site.

  It is envisaged that over the next three years development will be under way to provide new primary care facilities that are fit to deliver health and social care in innovative ways that meet the needs of the local community.
  Implementation of the NSF for older people.

  The milestones for improved services for strokes, falls and intermediate care are expected to be met by April 2004
  Total investment in excess of £1.1 million for cancer treatment equipment based at Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  The trust received a computed tomography (CT) scanner in October 2001 and they have also been awarded an mirror resonance imaging (MRI) scanner from the New Opportunities Fund Coronary Heart Disease programme, which is expected to be delivered in the very near future.

  Current waiting list information for Burnley Health Care NHS Trust is shown in the tables.
  638W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment: Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  GP written referrals

  Quarter—Q4 2002–03

  Patients seen

  Total

  9,894

  Percentage seen within 13 weeks

  70

  Patients still waiting

  More than 13 weeks

  876

  More than 26 weeks

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Patients waiting for elective admission: Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  Month end—May 2003

  Total waiting list

  4,595

  Patients waiting over nine months

  392

  Patients waiting over 12 months

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH07

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the South East. [125388]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The scope for relocating Government activity is being considered by Sir Michael Lyons. His independent review was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget Statement on 9 April.

  Details of the review, including the consultation launched on 19 June, can be found on the Her Majesty's Treasury's website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Sir Michael will report his findings on the scope for relocating Departments and other public sector bodies before the end of the year.

  Drug Treatment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were referred by their GP for drug addiction treatment in the last two years. [121839]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  24,605 patients were recorded as being referred for drug treatment by general practitioners or psychiatrists in the last two years, to 31 March 2001, for which figures are available. However the actual number may be higher because over the same period the source of referral was not recorded in a further 19,223 cases.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the waiting time targets for(a) in-patient detoxification, (b) community prescribing by specialist,

  639W
  (c) community prescribing by GP, (d) structured counselling, (e) structured day care and (f) residential rehabilitation have been met. [124076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Treatment Agency (NTA)'s April 2003 target of four or six weeks wait, depending on the type of treatment, has been achieved in most areas of the country and for most types of treatment. We are also on target to achieve the April 2004 target of a two or three week wait, again depending on the kind of treatment. However, average waits for in-patient detoxification and residential rehabilitation are both exceeding the national target by one week. Areas which exceed these averages are being targeted by the NTA.

  Drug Reactions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the nurse reporting figures for adverse drug reactions were for each month since the scheme started, broken down by those under the(a) e-yellow card and (b) paper based yellow card scheme. [124563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to medicines are collated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Committee on Safetyof Medicines (CSM) through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme.

  The table shows the number of suspected adverse drug reaction reports which the CSM/MHRA have received each month from nurses since the scheme was launched on 31 October 2002, broken down by:
  electronic Yellow Cards received via the MHRA/CSM internet website
  paper based reports.
  The table shows figures related to the number of reports received. Some reports may contain more than one suspected ADR.

  Month Received

  Total Nurse Reports

  Electronic Yellow Cards

  Paper Based Yellow Cards

  Oct 2002

  5

  0

  5

  Nov 2002

  240

  3

  237

  Dec 2002

  81

  1

  80

  Jan 2003

  54

  2

  52

  Feb 2003

  267

  0

  267

  Mar 2003

  223

  8

  215

  Apr 2003

  113

  2

  111

  May 2003

  102

  6

  96

  Jun 2003

  118

  4

  114

  Total

  1,203

  26

  1,177

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum travelling distance is for patients with anorexia to travel to specialist health care services. [125097]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 16 July. Information is not collected centrally about the travelling distances that may be involved when patients are referred for treatment for this severe condition. However, Professor Louis Appleby, national director for mental health, is 640W
  leading a new programme of work to review provision of specialised services in a number fof areas. Specialised services for people with anorexia are being considered first. Alongside the guideline being developed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, this will be of great benefit to those with responsibility for developing services for this severe condition.

  Entitlement Card Scheme
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [124941]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer Friday 11 July]: There have been discussions between the Department of Health and the Home Office about a number of issues since the publication of the Government's consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud. These have included circumstances where National Health Service staff need to check the identity of patients, strategies for reducing fraud, the current use of the NHS number for NHS purposes, the importance of protecting confidentiality of health information and various technical issues.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 J une 2001. [126598]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has led on the implementation of nine Directives and two Regulations since 8 June 2001. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which deals with issues of food safety, has led with the implementation of 11 Directives since 8 June 2001. The number of Regulations, which FSA are responsible for, and have direct effect in UK law is 19. A full list of these have been placed in the Library.

  EU Medical Research
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what level of priority is given to rheumatoid arthritis under EU Framework Programme 6; [125261]

  (2) if he will list the funding areas for medical research under EU Framework Programme 6, and those proposed for Framework Programme 7; [125262]

  (3) what levels of funding are allocated for research into (a) autoimmune diseases and (b) rheumatoid arthritis under EU Framework Programme 6; and what sums are expected under Framework Programme 7; [125263]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to press for (a) autoimmune disease to be a specific funding area under EU Framework Programme 7, and (b) rheumatoid arthritis to be included as one of the key autoimmune disease. [125264]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The broad priority areas for medical research funded under Framework Programme 6 are described in Specific Programme 1: "Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area" (2002–06).
  641W
  This document is available on the website of the Community Research & Development Information Service at www.cordis.lu. Also available are the work programmes for the first two calls for proposals issued under Thematic Priority 1 (Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health) within Specific Programme 1. Chronic inflammation and autoimmunity are identified as important areas in these work programmes and a number of related topics are listed. The budgets allocated to each work programme are not broken down to the level of individual topics.

  The European Commission is not expected to announce its proposals for Framework Programme 7 (FP7) until 2005. The Government plans to carry out a public consultation on the United Kingdom policy lines for FP7 by early 2004. The Department of Health will seek to ensure that the content of FP7 reflects the research priorities and clinical needs of the UK.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he 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. [124779]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health officials and I have had regular correspondence and meetings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention on the Future of Europe, including legislative competencies We have also been in regular contact with colleagues in member and accession states. Contact is expected to be maintained throughout the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference, expected to begin in October, to ensure that the United Kingdom's key objectives are met.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make fluoridation of the water supply compulsory. [125641]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: The Government has no plans to make fluoridation of the water supply compulsory. No water supply will be fluoridated unless the population that it serves is in favour. Amendments to the Water Bill, agreed on 9 July in Another Place, provide for regulations to be made on the local consultations that strategic health authorities will be required to undertake before making any arrangements with a water undertaker to have their water fluoridated.

  Fraudulent Prescriptions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation has been carried out into the success of financial rewards for the identification of fraudulent prescriptions. [126092]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: The Pharmacy Reward Scheme was introduced in 1999 to reward community pharmacists who detected the attempted fraudulent use of prescription forms. The scheme was revised in February 2003, to provide an
  642W
  increased reward and a simplified claim process. It is expected that there will be an evaluation of the revised scheme in 2004.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to the NHS of fraudulent prescriptions was in each of the last five years in(a) the UK, (b) the West Midlands and (c) Coventry. [126093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: The National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service has an on-going programme of highly accurate risk measurement exercises designed to reveal levels of losses and, through repeated exercises, reduction in such losses. The National Audit Office has audited this process and is satisfied to its accuracy. Phase one of these exercises, examining patient fraud losses, included pharmaceutical patient fraud. The table shows these results.

  Pharmaceutical patient fraud

  £ million

  Year data selected

  Fraud losses

  1998–99

  117

  1999–2000

  69

  A statistically valid sample of those prescriptions prescribed during March 2003 has been taken for a further measurement exercise to be completed. Further fraud reductions are anticipated and the figures will be produced later this year.

  Pharmacies in the West Midlands and Coventry may have been routinely included in the measurement programme but figures were not categorised into specific cities or regions.

  There was no accurate measurement of pharmaceutical patient fraud prior to the commencement of these exercises in 1998–99.

  Point of dispensing checks were introduced in all community pharmacies on 1 April 1999 to help deter this type of fraud. The check requires pharmacists to ask patients who are claiming free prescriptions if they have evidence to support their claim to exemption from prescription charges.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs with Special Interests are working in(a) the UK and (b) South Sefton Primary Care Trust; and how many he estimates will be working in the UK by 2004. [124343]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest published data show that, in March 2002, there were around 650 general practitioners with a special interest in England, including two in the South Sefton Primary Care Trust.figures for march 2003 will be available shortly.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recruit more general practitioners in the London Borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement on GP numbers in the Borough. [122201]
  643W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of general medical practitioners in Havering Primary Care Trust is shown in the table.

  General medical practitioners in Havering Primary Care Trust

  All practitioners1

  2001

  122

  2002

  124

  1 All practitioners include UPEs, restricted principals, GP registrars, assistants, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS others and GP retainers.

  We are committed to increasing the general practitioner (GP) workforce and have introduced a range of measures to improve GP recruitment and retention. These include financial incentives to new and returning GPs and older GPs who delay their retirement from the national health service, a GP returners campaign and the newly launched Flexible Career Scheme which will help to create additional part-time and flexible posts within general practice.

  Havering PCT is working to make Havering a more attractive proposition for GPs to work in. Some of the areas being progressed are the development of specialists GPs and a means of retaining registrars after they qualify. Havering PCT is also fully engaged in the international recruitment campaign for GPs.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health and safety regime in NHS buildings; what plans he has to change the system; and if he will make a statement. [126357]

  Mr. Hutton
  The health and safety of national health service premises is a matter for individual NHS trusts. The Department of Health will be issuing a NHS Occupational Health and Safety Strategy for England in the autumn this year in response to the National Audit Office report, "A Safer Place to Work: Improving the management of health and safety risks to staff in NHS trusts".

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which areas service level agreements are not yet signed to ensure that the central Health Protection Agency is receiving the information it needs to perform its role in public health; and if he will make a statement. [125011]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Health Protection Agency (HPA) is continuing to receive the information it needs to perform its public health role and its public health services are continuing on a "business as usual" basis. The HPA is actively involved in discussions with national health service trusts to finalise Service Level Agreements as a basis for the future needs and development of public health services. There has been no change in the national level of laboratory reporting to the HPA's Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre since the establishment of the HPA.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on coverage of food, water, environmental and microbiology testing for the purposes of public health since the establishment 644W
  of the Health Protection Agency and the consequent transfer of responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [125013]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are not aware of any representations to this Department on the coverage of food, water or environmental microbiology testing for the purposes of public health since the establishment of the Health Protection Agency (HPA). These services are commissioned by the HPA or provided by its own laboratories on the same basis as previously organised by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). The transition from the PHLS to the HPA has been implemented on a 'business as usual' basis.

  Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on ending of the Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System; and what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on this matter. [122478]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The decision to end the Home Accident Surveillance System is a matter for the Department for Trade and Industry.

  However the decision took into account work by the Department of Health on how to improve the local surveillance of accidental injury.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, East of 3 July,Official Report, column 1425W, on hospital infections, (1) how many cases were reported in each year since 1996, broken down by (a) trust and (b) pathogenic organism; [124887]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, East of 3 July, Official Report, column 485W, on hospital infections, when a mandatory surveillance scheme for each health care associated infection will be introduced; and in each case whether it will be collected and published, broken down by Trust. [124899]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: Data on hospital infections by trust are only available for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections. Information from 1996 is not available, as this first phase of the mandatory surveillance system for healthcare associated infection started in2001. Results for the first year of this scheme (April 2001 to March 2002) were published by individual Trust in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly on 20 June 2002. They are available at www.phls.co.uk/ publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf. Results by individual trust for the second year will be published shortly.

  As hospital acquired infections are caused by a variety of micro-organisms and range from the trivial to serious there will not be mandatory reporting for all infections. The national mandatory surveillance scheme was developed on the basis of expert advice and will concentrate on those infections that cause significant serious morbidity such as blood stream infections.
  645W
  The second phase of the mandatory scheme will be introduced this September, when trusts will have to report blood stream infections due to glycopeptide resistant enterococci and serious untoward incidents associated with infection. Reporting of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea will be the third phase and this is scheduled to begin next year.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secreta ry of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the architecture, physical construction and design of hospitals on preventing the spread of micro-organisms between wards and within wards; and if he will make a statement; [124903]

  (2) what research he has recently assessed on the effects of the architecture, physical construction and design of hospitals in preventing the spread of microorganisms between wards and within wards; and if this research has been published. [124904]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Many factors influence infection control. Current standards already require prevention and control of infection to be considered when planning engineering and building works. The Chief Medical Officer is spearheading a new Government drive to tackle healthcare associated infections; especially those acquired in hospitals. A long-term strategy to prevent and reduce infections in the National Health Service will be published in the autumn.

  NHS Estates has funded a number of studies in this area. Those which have been completed are available from the NHS Estates website at www.nhsestates. gov.uk.

  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nosocomial deaths and (b) cases of necrotising fasciitis there were in the NHS in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region in each year since 1997. [125018]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These data are not collected centrally

  Hospitals (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to assess the(a) capital and (b) revenue requirements of hospitals within Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement; [125975]

  (2) what decisions have been taken within the last 12 months to make extra (a) capital and (b) revenue money available to hospitals within Portsmouth; if he will list the (i) projects and (ii) sums of money involved and (iii) start dates; and if he will make a statement. [125976]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The main capital allocations to the national health service were announced on 8 January 2003. Since that date, an additional £240,000 has been allocated to Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust to fund reductions in waiting times for traditionally long-wait specialities. Information on the project timeline is not collected centrally.

  We allocate revenue funding to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to
  646W
  determine each primary care trust's target share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need.

  It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their revenue funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to help ensure that Queen Alexandra hospital, Portsmouth, is able to achieve the status of three-star foundation level within the next four years; and if he will make a statement. [125977]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Health Service Performance Ratings announced on 16 July 2003 reflect a significant improvement in performance made by Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, of which Queen Alexandra hospital is a part. The trust has improved from a zero-star rating to two-stars.

  We are committed to raising performance right across the NHS, bringing all NHS trusts up to the standard of the best, and have therefore put in place an NHS Hospital Improvement Programme to ensure that every NHS hospital improves its performance and is able to become a NHS foundation trust. For 2003–04, the Government have made £1 billion of discretionary funding available to strategic health authorities to support performance improvement.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [126193]

  Mr. Hutton
  All contracts are signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health. Contracts signed since 1997 mainly for use within the Department of Health are:

  Information Management Services (IMS2); and

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  The Infrastructure Management Services contract (IMS2) covers support of the Department of Health's information technology infrastructure, desktop computers, telecommunications and video conferencing facilities and procurement of IT hardware and software. The contract is with the Computer Sciences Corporation. The contract was signed in June 2002 for a period of seven years, and is worth £70 million over the life of the contract.

  The Hospital Episode Statistics contract (HES) covers data input, data management, tabulation and extract functions for the hospital episode data collection system. The contract is with Hays Redfern, and was signed in December 2001 for a period of five years. The contract is worth £7 million over the life of the contract.

  No renegotiations have taken place, as both contracts have been in existence for less than two years.

  Measles and Mumps Vaccines
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the quantity of single(a) measles and (b) mumps vaccines imported by GPs and private healthcare providers in the last year. [120237]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  During the year ending March 2003, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received notifications to import an average of approximately 10,000 doses of measles vaccine per month and approximately 8,000 doses of mumps vaccine per month. Each notification is an intention to import only and does not necessarily reflect the number of doses actually imported. A survey by the MHRA has indicated that only 34 per cent. and 21 per cent. (for measles vaccine and mumps vaccine respectively) of the doses notified were followed through to importation. It is not known how many of these doses were actually given.

  The figures are provided following further examination of the MHRA database of import notifications. This has revealed a serious inaccuracy in the reply provided to the hon. Member on 4 December 2002, Official Report, columns 903–04W.

  The answer stated that the average number of notifications per month received by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) to import all brands of single mumps vaccine during 2002 was 3,014 doses. The answer at that time should have stated that the average number of doses notified per month to the MCA to import all brands of single mumps vaccine was 8,141 doses (for the 10 months ending October 2002).

  This discrepancy stems from the method of estimating the number of doses from the number of notifications of intentions to import unlicensed vaccines. Differences between the pack sizes of products, which had previously been assumed to have been the same as the number of doses, were the cause of these discrepancies. After extensive manual examination of records, these figures have now been corrected and systems have been put in place to prevent their recurrence. I apologise to the hon. Member for this inadvertent error.

  Medical Assessment Units
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about(a) overcrowding, (b) inadequate facilities and (c) mixed sex accommodation and toilet facilities in medical assessment units; and if he will make a statement. [126188]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have received no representations on any of these matters relating to medical assessment units.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of stay in medical assessment units in the NHS in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority has been in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [126157]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on length of stay in medical assessment units (MAUs) is not collected centrally.
  648W
  MAUs have a variety of models of care and therefore it is not appropriate to specify a length of stay. Those which have the role of only initial investigation may have lengths of stay of a few hours. Others may aim to keep patients for up to 48 hours, with the aim of discharging as many patients as possible, up to 40 per cent. in some units, directly to home from the MAU.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is available to the NHS on the provision of senior staff to supervise medical assessment units; what monitoring is undertaken by his Department to ensure that this guidance is adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [126190]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on the staffing and running of emergency assessment units has recently been issued to the national health service by the Department. The Society of Acute Medicine was consulted, along with other professional bodies, in formulating this guidance. A copy of this can be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/emergencycare/emergencyassmentchecklist

  The new system of devolved responsibility in the NHS means that strategic health authorities are now responsible for monitoring the performance of the NHS trusts that it manages. This includes ensuring that department issued guidance, such as that for emergency assessment units is adhered to.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting times for admission to medical assessment units in (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [126189]

  Ms. Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget of the National Care Standards Commission was spent on the inspection of independent boarding schools belonging to the(a) Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and (b) Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference in the last year for which figures are available; and what regulations he has set on the regularity of inspections of (i) HMC and IAPS schools and (ii) other private boarding schools. [125176]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Expenditure by the National Care Standards Commission on the inspection of independent boarding schools belonging to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools (IAPS) or the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference (HHC) is not available as this is not currently separately identifiable from other budgetary information.

  The frequency of inspections of boarding schools is set out in the National Care Standards Commission (Inspection of Schools and Colleges) Directions 2002. These set out the inspection requirements for boarding schools or colleges as a minimum of one inspection in every period of thirty-six months commencing on

  649W
  1 April 2002. No distinction is made about frequency of inspection between those schools who are members of IAPS or HMC or those who are not.

  National Fruit Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the maintained nursery schools in(a) London and (b) the West Midlands so

  LEA maintained nurseries excluded from the National School Fruit Scheme

  Schools participating in the National School Fruit Scheme

  West Midlands

  London

  West Midlands

  London

  Total number

  75

  86

  1,744

  1,557

  Proportion located in most deprived 5 per cent. of wards (%)

  24

  17

  12

  7

  Proportion located in most deprived 10 per cen. of wards (%)

  40

  27

  20

  13

  Proportion located in most deprived 25 per cent. of wards (%)

  83

  51

  40

  30

  Note:

  Deprivation is measured according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

  NHS Patient Rights
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights an NHS patient has to know the professional qualifications of an NHS employee responsible for his care; how a patient can exercise such rights; and if he will make a statement. [125569]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]: Patients need to be able to be confident that every person treating them is qualified to do so. This is a requirement of the regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council, with whom clinicians have to be registered. If a patient wants specific details, the Code of Practice on Openness in the National Health Service makes it possible for them to receive details of a hospital clinician's qualifications, whilst general practitioners must publish their qualifications in their practice leaflet.

  Nosocomial Infections
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the risk of nosocomial infections in medical assessment units; and what guidance has been given to the NHS on this issue. [126156]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No specific guidance on medical assessment units has been issued, but we have set standards to ensure there is a managed environment which minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. Analyses of hospital performance in infection control standards has recently shown an improvement and this contributed to the improved star ratings this year.

  However, more needs to be done and we are continuing to work to improve infection control in hospitals. The Chief Medical Officer is leading a new initiative to produce a longer term strategy to reduce healthcare associated infections.

  Obesity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2003 to the hon.650W
  far excluded from the National School Fruit scheme are located in the most deprived (i) 5 per cent., (ii) 10 per cent. and (iii) 25 per cent. of wards according to the Index of Local Deprivation; and what proportion of primary schools so far included in the scheme are located in the most deprived (A) 5 per cent., (B) 10 per cent. and (C) 25 per cent. of wards. [119996]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), Official Report, columns 529–30W, on childhood obesity, how many prescription items of orlistat were dispensed in the community in England in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many children received the drug in each of those years. [126345]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the total number of prescription items of Orlistat that were dispensed in the community in England from 1998 to 2002. In 2002, out of the 541,400 items dispensed in the community in England an estimated 3,000 prescription items, or 0.5 per cent., of the total, of Orlistat were for children. It is estimated that slightly less than 3,000 items of Orlistat were dispensed to children in 2001.

  Comparable data for items dispensed to children is not available for earlier years. There is no information available on the number of children who received Orlistat.

  Total number of prescription items of Orlistat that were dispensed in the community in England

  Thousand

  1998

  17.9

  1999

  127.8

  2000

  156.3

  2001

  416.0

  2002

  541.4

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the PPA.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes relating to obesity there were in each region in each year since 1997. [126347]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of finished consultant episodes by region in national health service hospitals for the five years since 1997, where obesity is the primary diagnosis, is shown in the table.
  651W

  Region

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  Northern and Yorkshire

  237

  287

  352

  379

  377

  Trent

  117

  144

  147

  151

  95

  Anglia and Oxford (Eastern)

  40

  64

  35

  46

  51

  North Thames (London

  136

  141

  221

  287

  229

  South Thames (South East)

  68

  86

  83

  54

  88

  South West

  77

  115

  53

  58

  75

  West Midlands

  43

  91

  51

  57

  58

  North West

  92

  146

  144

  171

  175

  Total

  810

  1,074

  1,086

  1,203

  1,148

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health, England.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, columns 1013–14W, on older people, if he will place in the Library a copy of the information collated through strategic health authorities concerning the national service framework. [126636]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The reports provided to strategic health authorities (SHAs) by local national health service bodies and councils giving information on the implementation of the single assessment process for older people have been analysed, and issues addressed, at the SHA level. Individual reports were made available to the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) where appropriate. A number of overview reports compiled by SHAs on the localities reporting to them have been copied to the Department of Health for information. Intelligence from these overview reports, allied to discussion with SHA and SSI officials, has helped the Department understand where progress has been made and the challenges lie. As a result a brief working summary of key issues was tabled at the implementation conferences held by the Department in January and February 2003. There are no plans to publish this summary more widely. The Department plans to publish a more formal report on the single assessment process, based on issues arising from the overview reports from 2002, the equivalent reports from 2003 and other intelligence later this year.

  In March 2003, the Department published a report of progress on all aspects of the national service framework for older people, including the single assessment process. The report was titled "National Service Framework for Older People—a report of progress and future challenges, 2003". A copy is available in the Library.

  Overseas Medical Treatment
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the standard waiting period is before being able to use NHS funds to seek medical treatment abroad. [123603]

  Mr. Hutton
  The time a patient waits for treatment under the national health service, whether provided at home or abroad, depends on number of factors including their clinical need and local circumstances. Policy on waiting times in England is set out in the NHS Plan.

  Overseas Patients
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what income the NHS has received from payments from overseas patients that are not eligible for free treatment for each of the years since 1997. [126012]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trust accounts do not identify separately income generated from treatment of chargeable overseas visitors.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of overseas patients who have received free medical treatment for which they have not been eligible in each of the last five years. [126015]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service is first and foremost for the benefit of people who live in the United Kingdom.

  A person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK, but who requires NHS hospital treatment, is subject to the provisions of the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended.

  NHS trusts will take all reasonable measures to recover charges made to overseas visitors. Overseas visitors debt that is unrecoverable is written off and recorded in trust annual accounts. The overseas visitors bad debt written off for the last five years is shown in the table.

  Amount written off (£)

  1997–98

  1.1 million

  1998–99

  854,000

  1999–2000

  1.2 million

  2000–01

  1.8 million

  2001–02

  1.3 million

  Pain Relief
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) whole time equivalent posts and (b) vacancies for (i) consultants, (ii) specialist registrars, (iii) senior house officers, (iv) nurses and (v) professions allied to medicines, specialising in pain relief there were in each year since 1997. [126349]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available on the number of posts or vacancies for staff specialising in pain relief. Pain relief is a sub-specialty of anaesthetics. Information on whole-time equivalent staff in post for consultants, registrars and senior house officers in
  653W
  anaesthetics is shown in the table. Information on the number of whole-time equivalent posts in national health service trusts is not collected centrally.

  Information on vacancies lasting three months or more is collected in the NHS vacancy survey which has been collected in March each year since 1999. Information specifically for the anaesthetics (inc. intensive care) specialty has only been collected since 2000. There is no comparable information on nurses or allied health professionals.

  Between 1997 and 2002, the number of whole-time equivalent consultants working in anaesthetics (inc. intensive care) have increased by 40 per cent., registrars by 10 per cent., and senior house officers by 14 per cent.

  Hospital medical staff within the anaesthetics (inc. intensive care) specialty—England at 30 September 2002

  Whole time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Consultant

  2,658.7

  2,840.4

  3,052.7

  3,172.9

  3,361.4

  3,712.2

  Registrar Group

  1,547.4

  1,583.7

  1,578.3

  1,605.8

  1,636.8

  1,706.1

  Senior House Officer

  1,307.4

  1,267.7

  1,230.5

  1,282.8

  1,369.2

  1,488.7

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey—Vacancies in NHS trusts for consultants in anaesthetics (inc. intensive care) three month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3 for total of each group

  Numbers

  Rates (percentage)

  2001

  60

  1.7

  2002

  80

  2.2

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March each year which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the medical and dental workforce census, (whole time equivalent).

  3 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  2. England totals include staff from Special Health Authorities.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001.

  Papilloma Virus
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the three human papilloma virus implementation pilots now being undertaken; and what progress is being made in the HPV primary screening trial being undertaken in Manchester. [123247]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The pilot of human papilloma virus (HPV) testing for women with mild or borderline cervical screening test results, along with liquid based cytology, began in April 2001 at three sites: Bristol, Newcastle, and Norfolk and Norwich. The independent evaluation report of the HPV arm of the pilot is due to be sent to the Department of Health at the end of September 2003, and will then undergo a peer review process. Implications of the report for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme will be discussed by the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, who originally commissioned the pilot. Publication is expected in early 2004.
  654W
  The ARTISTIC trial (A randomised trial of human papilloma virus testing in primary cervical screening), which is led by Professor Henry Kitchener at Manchester University, is broadly on target to complete patient recruitment by the end of 2003. The main results will not be known until 2007–08, as it will take two years to reach the necessary number of patients and each patient then needs to be followed up for three years in order to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of the test.

  Pathology Laboratories
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his plans are for the future inspection of pathology laboratories. [123753]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently, registration for accreditation of pathology laboratories in the United Kingdom is voluntary, except for cervical cytology laboratories. To improve clinical governance, raise quality standards and improve openness and transparency for patients, we believe that the current voluntary system for laboratory accreditation is no longer acceptable. We have, therefore, decided that all National Health Service pathology laboratories in England should enrol with an appropriate accreditation scheme. Further information will be contained in theDepartment of Health document on modernising pathology services, which will be published shortly.

  Patient Advice and Liaison Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, columns 1041–12W, on the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service, what the methodology was for the recent mapping exercise. [126342]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health undertook a survey of all national health service trusts and primary care trusts to ascertain the provision of patient advice and liaison services (PALS) in England. The survey included a question on whether each NHS trust had a PALS. The survey was carried out through the strategic health authorities and a listing of the trusts reporting that they have an active PALS can be found on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/patientadviceandliaisonservices/.

  Plastic Surgery
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the records which he holds of the number of plastic surgery procedures broken down by category carried out in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [125738]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is committed to improving patient access to plastic surgery, and the quality of care they receive. For these reasons the Modernisation Agency has established the 'Action on Plastic Surgery' programme. This will develop good practice and spread it throughout the national health service.

  We have also increased the number of consultant plastic surgeons. At September 2002, there were 203 plastic surgeons, which is an increase of 31 per cent. since 1997. The Department is also supporting further expansion by increasing training places.
  655W
  Figures for Finished Consultant Episodes broken down by a number of plastic surgical procedures carried out in the NHS for years 1992–93 to 2000–01, have been placed in the Library. Figures have been adjusted for coverage and missing/invalid clinical data. Comparable data prior to 1992–93 are not available, and data for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Professions Allied to Medicine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) occupational therapists, (b) speech and

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Occupational therapists

  958

  1,107

  1,135

  1,173

  1,385

  1,563

  1,692

  Speech and language therapists1

  74

  75

  455

  457

  558

  553

  597

  Physiotherapists

  1,093

  1,204

  1,344

  1,346

  1,473

  1,780

  2,157

  1 Prior to 1998–99, funding for speech and language therapist training was funded by DfES.

  Information on the number of students completing training is not collected centrally. The Health Professions Council holds information on the numbers of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists on their register, a prerequisite for employment in the United Kingdom. This information can be found at http://www.hpc-uk.orq/aboutus/facts_figures_cpsm_reqistrants.htm.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of links between high-dose zinc supplements and prostate cancer in men. [126091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 July 2003]: The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals recently considered the safety of zinc, along with other vitamins and minerals. It found no evidence of an association between zinc and prostate cancer.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of using glycyrrhizin in treating severe acute respiratory syndrome. [122391]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As the United Kingdom has no active cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), it is not feasible for the UK to undertake an assessment of the efficacy of glycyrrhizin in treating SARS.

  Sexual Health
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has developed a model to assess the impact of waiting times on sexual health outcomes; and if he will make a statement. [122740]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are funding the Medical Research Council (MRC) to develop a programme of research to contribute to the evidence base for the Sexual Health and HIV Strategy. Through this programme we are 656W
  language therapists and (c) physiotherapists (i) began and (ii) finished training in each year since 1997. [126532]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists entering training each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Since 1996–97, the number of training places for occupational therapists have been increased by 77 per cent., physiotherapists have increased by 97 per cent., and, since 1998–99, the number of speech and language therapist training places have been increased by 31 per cent.

  supporting research being undertaken by a team from University College London to explore the effects of delayed access to treatment on the transmission dynamics of gonorrhoea, chlamydia and non-specific urethritis. A model will be developed which will quantify the impact of delayed access to services, failed partner notification, and flow to primary care on transmission dynamics. This research, funded by the MRC, will provide us with better evidence of effective interventions to reduce transmission of infection through improved access to services.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome was of the audit of genito-urinary medicine waiting times; and if he will make a statement. [122741]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An audit undertaken by professional bodies in 2002 shows that the median time to first appointment in genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics was 12 days for men and 14 days for women. Accurate data on GUM waiting times is not currently collected centrally and we are therefore funding the Health Protection Agency to roll-out the collection of patient specific data. This is in conjunction with the development of a minimum data set for GUM, which will enable an accurate calculation of waiting times to be made for both individual patients and primary care trusts.

  We are also working with representatives of professional bodies to develop a service review process for GUM. This will involve a multi-disciplinary team visiting each clinic to review data, staffing and working practices including auditing waiting times.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether additional resources are being invested to improve genito-urinary medicine services in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [122742]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has invested a further £8 million in genito-urinary medicine services this year to reduce waiting times and improve capacity. This funding is recurring and is additional to the £5 million we invested last year. Allocations have been made to clinics based on their workload. In addition, we have a further £2 million to
  657W
  invest in around 20 development schemes to pump-prime the establishment of new services or further develop those already in existence. We will be shortly seeking bids from primary care trusts that meet specific criteria.

  Sporting Injuries (Children)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were admitted to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital last year with sporting injuries, broken down by sporting type. [126640]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Stroke Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of stroke patients were under 18 in each year since 1997. [126527]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Finished Consultant Episodes: Count of in year admissions for primary diagnosis stroke (160–164 ICD 10) by age in NHS hospitals in England 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Year

  Under 18

  18 and over

  All ages

  Percentage of under 18

  1997–98

  346

  84,650

  84,996

  0.41

  1998–99

  342

  87,986

  88,328

  0.39

  1999–2000

  340

  86,742

  87,082

  0.39

  2000–01

  311

  82,400

  82,711

  0.38

  2001–02

  297

  83,347

  83,644

  0.36

  Notes:

  1. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  2. 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.

  3. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  4. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of stroke patients were treated in a specialist unit in each strategic health authority, in each year since 1997; [126528]

  (2) how many stroke patients did not receive a swallowing assessment within 24 hours of admission to hospital within the last year; and if he will make a statement; [126534]

  (3) what the (a) average and (b) maximum waiting times for stroke assessment after arrival at hospital were in each region in each year since 1997; [126535]

  (4) how many and what percentage of general hospitals have had a specialist stroke unit in each year since 1997. [126542]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect routinely information on stroke services at the level of detail requested in these questions. The most comprehensive source of information is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the national health 658W
  service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/ strokeaudit0l–02.pdf. The audit contains information covering discharge arrangements, and clinical assessments including swallowing assessments. The 2002 audit shows that 73 per cent. of trusts who participated had a stroke unit, compared to 56 per cent. three years earlier. In addition, 83 per cent. of patients receive brain imaging (—the highest ever level. The audit shows that 80 per cent., of trusts that participated have a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke who is formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. While it is recognised that some services need to increase their capacity, the audit notes that very significant improvements have already been made.

  Our major vehicle for further improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF), which sets specific milestones for improvement by 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts, specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets for the national health service a Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

  We monitor progress against the key milestones in the NSF. From the information gathered so far we know that 83 per cent., of the hospitals which have replied now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Implementation of the NSF for older people is leading to real improvements in stroke services and making a difference to people's lives. The development of better services and improved standards in stroke care requires the right balance between national standards, provided by the NSF, national clinical guidelines and local control. It will be important to ensure that stroke care services are co-ordinated and fully integrated within a full range of other relevant local services.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke physicians there are in hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [126529]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on stroke physicians; a number of specialties are linked with the treatment of patients with strokes.

  The main specialties are geriatric medicine, neurology and rehabilitation medicine but it is not possible to say how many of the physicians within these specialties specialise in the treatment of strokes.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost of strokes to the NHS in each of the last five years. [126533]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Health authorities and primary care trusts receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.
  659W
  The level of funding made available for the drugs, staffing and other costs of providing stroke services are determined locally. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations including those with stroke.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what monitoring is in place to ensure that NHS trusts have reviewed hospital services for stroke using the clinical audit methodology developed by the Royal College of Physicians; [126538]

  (2) what monitoring is in place to ensure that NHS trusts have agreed local priorities for action required to establish an integrated stroke service which is regularly audited with a continuing cycle of improvement; [126539]

  (3) whether every hospital which cares for older people with stroke has established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of the Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for stroke care. [126540]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2001, the Third National Sentinel Audit of Stroke, carried out by the Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and led by the Intercollegiate Working Party for Stroke, gave a detailed picture of the way hospitals provide care for stroke patients. The results of this study were published July 2002.

  In the 2001 audit, 98 per cent. of eligible acute trusts submitted clinical data, demonstrating delivery of the clinical guidelines. The next National Sentinel Audit of Stroke is expected to take place in April 2004.

  The Department of Health will be monitoring formally the overall stroke milestone in April 2004 as this is included as one of the key targets in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. It is now for strategic health authorities to plan, deliver and monitor progress locally on the other stroke milestones in the national service framework.

  Progress on this key target will be monitored through the 2003–04 local delivery plan reporting mechanism and information will be available later in the year.

  Sunbeds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the operation of tanning salons following health education authority guidelines which recommend that nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to use a sunbed; [120086]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential risks to children under the age of 16 of skin cancer from using sunbeds; and if he will make a statement; [120087]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that sunbed salons are regulated to stop children from using salons in a harmful manner; and if he will make a statement. [120088]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government acknowledge the risks to young people of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in all of its forms. On sunbeds specifically, the Health and Safety Executive has 660W
  published guidance for operators and customers of solaria. The advice far people under 16-years-old is that they should not use sunbeds.

  There is no conclusive direct evidence that sunbed exposure causes skin cancer from either of the recent reports on the effects of UVR from the National Radiological Protection Board's and from the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.

  However, by far the greatest source of UVR exposure is from the sun. That is why we have taken measures to ensure that parents are encouraged to protect their children. We have, with key stakeholders, developed the SunSmart campaign, run by Cancer Research UK. The campaign was launched in March and funded by the United Kingdom Health Departments. Campaign leaflets and posters have been sent to all general practitioner surgeries, secondary schools and health promotion units. Officials will discuss with Cancer Research UK the possibility of developing a new element to their campaign warning young people of the dangers of using sunbeds.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124808]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 2001, when the current planning regulations on mobile telecommunications masts came into force, there have been no planning applications or applications for prior approval to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department.

  Toothpaste
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of toothpaste sold in the UK contained fluoride in the last 12 months. [125194]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Tranquillisers/Anti-depressants
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations the UK has made to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency's review of anti-depressant drugs; [125636]

  (2) what steps the UK's representatives to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency's review of anti-depressants have taken to represent the views of pharmaceutical companies; [125637]

  (3) what his policy is on representatives of drug companies sitting o a public bodies which determine and review the safety of drugs for prescription to the public; [125638]

  (4) what representations he has received on the UK members of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency; and whether he was consulted on their appointment. [125639]
  661W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 12 June 2003, the United Kingdom referred the risks and benefits of the antidepressant Seroxat (paroxetine) to the European scientific committee, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) for a Europe-wide evaluation. There are two UK representatives to the CPMP, who are appointed by Ministers, chosen by reason of their role and experience in the evaluation of medicinal products to represent the UK Licensing Authority.

  The Medicines Act 1968 requires one of its advisory bodies, the Medicines Commission, to have at least one member with "wide and recent experience of, and shown capacity in" the pharmaceutical industry. There are currently two serving member; of the Medicines Commission who are employees of pharmaceutical companies. Advisory bodies do not make determinations on drug safety issues but rather advise the Licensing Authority which may, or may not, accept their advice.

  All members of the Medicines Act Advisory committees are required to follow a code of practice relating to declarations of interests in the pharmaceutical industry. The code is rigorously followed at each meeting to ensure the integrity of the advice given to the Licensing Authority by those committees.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) tuberculosis and (b) drug resistant tuberculosis there have been in England in each year since 1997; and how many deaths resulted. [124799]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Notifications of tuberculosis (TB) and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) are made to the Health Protection Agency.

  The total numbers of TB and MDR TB cases and deaths are shown in the table.

  Number of cases

  MDR (%)

  Isoniazid resistant (%)

  Deaths1

  1997

  5,664

  1.4

  5.6

  385

  1998

  5,915

  1.4

  6.3

  392

  1999

  5,938

  0.8

  6.1

  383

  2000

  6,379

  1.1

  6.5

  370

  2001

  6,571

  N/A

  N/A

  375

  2002

  26,627

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1 England and Wales figure (ONS data).

  2 Provisional figure.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken with respect to the discovery in March that chief executives of some hospitals had altered waiting list figures. [123601]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department asked the Audit Commission to carry out a series of spot checks to further improve data quality and to reassure the public that published waiting times statistics remain robust.

  The Department asked all trusts subject to spot checks to report back on the auditor's findings and to confirm that action had been taken to address those
  662W
  findings. In the three trusts identified by the Audit Commission as deliberately misreporting prompt action was taken. This action involved commissioning independent external reviews and taking appropriate disciplinary action taken, which is still ongoing.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 334W, on waiting times, whether anyone waited for more than 24 months for cancer treatment. [118301]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The figures for people waiting over 24 months for heart operations, hip replacements and cancer treatment, which appeared on 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 334W, were incorrectly printed. The Official Report has been notified of the error, which will be corrected in the Bound Volume.

  The correct figures are shown in the table

  Waiting more than 24 months

  Heart operations

  0

  Hip replacements

  9

  Cancer treatment (Neoplasms)

  8

  Social Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the update of the Wanless report announced in the Budget will include a full examination of the long-term trends in social care, as recommended by the original Wanless report. [109238]

  Dr. John Reid
  The update of the Wanless report announced in the Budget will not include a full examination of long-term trends in social care.

  Welfare Food Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the impact of the changes to the Welfare Food Scheme on(a) disadvantaged parents and (b) other client groups. [126177]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The proposed changes to the Welfare Food Scheme were consulted upon in October 2002. The consultation exercise included specific focus groups with beneficiaries of the scheme.

  A summary report on the outcome of the consultation, which demonstrated strong support for reforming the scheme, was published in March 2003. Both documents are available in the Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the implementation of the working time directive on junior hospital doctors. [124430]

  Mr. Hutton
  Implementation of the European Working Time Directive (WTD) requires the hours of work of doctors in training to reduce to 58 hours from August 2004 and to 48 hours by 2009 or 2012 with an extension. While the number of doctors on an individual rota on call will generally have to increase to implement the 2004 requirements, the intention of the
  663W
  Department's guidance—HSC 2003/001 Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training is that Trusts should find ways to reduce the number of resident rotas. It is important to change working practices so that additional staff are used in a way, which not only delivers WTD compliance but also the extra service activity to meet NHS Plan targets. For instance, other staff will need to take on some of the work traditionally undertaken by doctors in training.
  664W
  Using this approach, trusts can plan to meet the WTD within the substantial expansion in staff numbers currently being implemented.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written ministerial statements have been made by the Department since 29 October 2002. [126618]

  Ms. Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health made 51 written ministerial statements between 29 October 2002 and 15 July 2003.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing (Planning)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning(Keith Hill)
  The Communities Plan sets out this Government's vision for sustainable communities where everyone has the opportunity to be decently housed, in a prosperous community, with a good quality of life. This Statement concerns the planning system's role in providing sufficient, and better designed, homes to meet the variety of housing needs in England, and clarifies aspects of the Government's policy for planning new housing set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3). Together with the measures in Budget 2003 which it complements, it is an important part of the process to enhance the flexibility of our housing market and planning system, and thereby help secure the changes which are required to meet the tests for membership of the Euro-zone. The intention is to remove barriers to delivering the housing needed in our communities and ensure the planning system is not a brake on an adequate and continuing supply of sites for housing in sustainable locations.

  Local authorities should:
  enable the provision of sufficient new homes in the right place at the right time and avoid arbitrarily phasing new housing development;
  provide for at least ten years potential supply of housing;
  put unneeded employment sites back into use through actively considering residential development;
  promote sustainable residential environments; be flexible on car parking requirements;
  improve the contribution development makes to securing affordable homes and ensure the size and type of housing better matches the need;
  take responsibility locally for delivery.

  Housing (Planning)

    ENABLING THE PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT NEW HOMES IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME
    Research published today by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows the policy in PPG3 has generally been well-integrated into forward planning and development control processes. But there is evidence that necessary housing development has been delayed in some areas.
    The planning system must enable the provision of new homes in the right place and at the right time, whether through new development or the conversion of existing buildings. This is important not only to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home but also to avoid constraining economic growth and the delivery of quality public services.
    Achieving a better balance between housing availability and the demand for housing is a key priority for this Government. Regional planning bodies should
    54WS
    maintain an up-to-date understanding of the likely housing requirements of their areas, and have regard to Government policy to reduce volatility in the housing market and promote macro-economic stability as part of delivering sustainable development. Regional planning bodies should prepare regional planning guidance, and local planning authorities prepare plans, with the aim of providing sufficient housing opportunities to meet the likely housing requirements of their areas. And in doing so, there should be a choice of sites which are both suitable and available for housebuilding.

    REMOVING BARRIERS: PLANNING FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS POTENTIAL SUPPLY OF HOUSING
    Paragraph 28 of PPG3 requires local and unitary development plans to identify sites for housing and buildings for conversion and re-use sufficient to meet housing requirements, after making an allowance for windfalls, and manage the release of land over the plan period. The duration of a plan should be for a period of 10 years from the plan's forecast adoption date. This means plans should make provision for at least ten years' potential supply of housing.
    Paragraph 34 of PPG3 requires sufficient sites to be shown on the plan's proposal map to accommodate at least the first five years (or the first two phases) of housing development proposed in the plan. This does not mean plans should only have a 5-year time horizon nor is it guidance directed at the determination of planning applications. The purpose is to safeguard against unrealistic windfall allowances. Identifying sites on the proposals map allows allocations to be drawn on expeditiously if the monitoring required by PPG3 demonstrates that windfalls are not being realised as anticipated. If windfalls are being realised as anticipated not all of the sites allocated on the proposals map (which in aggregate provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the first five years or so of housing development) will be needed during the plan's first five years. Managing their release through phasing allows the timely release of sites in support of sustainable development. The aim is to avoid disruption to housing supply, without undermining a plan-led approach to implementing the site search and allocation sequence set out in PPG3.

    REMOVING BARRIERS: STOPPING THE ARBITRARY USE OF PHASING
    The managed release of housing sites should support the planning strategy set out in regional planning guidance and development plans. Phasing should not be arbitrary. It should secure the timely delivery of the agreed housing numbers set out in up-to-date regional planning guidance and:
    reflect the policy objectives set out in PPG3;
    reflect any strategic principles that have been established;
    be based on realistic assumptions;
    be deliverable and cost-effective;
    be transparent, based on clear policies set out in the local plan and not an arbitrary process;
    be dynamic, and capable of regular monitoring and review.

    REMOVING BARRIERS: PUTTING UNNEEDED EMPLOYMENT SITES BACK INTO USE
    PPG3 encourages local planning authorities when reviewing their development plan to consider whether land currently allocated for employment, and other uses, might be better used for housing or mixed-use developments. The Government's experience is that despite this encouragement many authorities continue to reserve an excess supply when it would make sense to consider this for housing. Through the forthcoming revision of planning guidance on commercial development and industry (currently PPG4), local planning authorities will be required to undertake a review of all land currently allocated for industrial or commercial use. Practice guidance will be provided to help establish realistic assessments of likely take-up.
    The Government also propose to add new policy to PPG3 to require the reuse of industrial and commercial land for housing unless a convincing case for retention can be made. This proposal is the subject of consultation which is published today. Local planning authorities are reminded that the policy is as stated in PPG3 but that emerging Government policy, in the form of draft policy guidance, can be regarded as a material consideration, depending on the context.

    REMOVING BARRIERS: TACKLING OBSTACLES TO SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS
    The Government are concerned about obstructions to delivering sustainable residential environments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing research on the difficulties faced by housebuilders in their efforts to integrate well-designed higher density housing with local highway requirements. The Government will look very carefully at the recommendations in the report. Local highway considerations should not without good justification stifle innovative design.

    REMOVING BARRIERS: FLEXIBILITY ON CAR PARKING
    With the right parking policies it is possible to increase densities, reduce pressures on the countryside and produce more sustainable developments. PPG3 advises that car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments. This does not mean the Government expects all dwellings in all new developments to have 1.5 parking spaces. The policy envisages an average over a local authority's area.
    The Government accept that parking needs vary. There will be locations and housing types where significantly lower levels of off-street parking can be sought. But for family housing, and in rural locations where there is heavier reliance on the private car, higher levels of car parking may be appropriate. This is why PPG3 advises that parking polices should be framed with good design in mind, and recognise that car ownership varies with income, age, household type, and the type of housing and its location. To help the development of appropriate standards, the Government
    56WS
    will carry out research to consider how varying levels of car parking can be achieved in ways consistent with their policy on sustainable residential environments.

    PLANNING FOR ALL IN THE COMMUNITY
    The Government believe that it is important to help create mixed and inclusive communities, which offer a choice of housing and lifestyle. The planning system has an important role in creating communities with a better mix of housing, in terms of size, type and affordability. Planning for housing policies in regional planning guidance and local planning authorities' plans should be based on an up-to-date understanding of the housing required in communities and aim to widen the range of housing opportunity. The housing requirements of the whole community should be addressed, including those in need of affordable housing.
    PLANNING FOR ALL IN THE COMMUNITY: DELIVERING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this year that the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing would be updated and supported with practical advice about what works well and where. In particular, he said the Government would consult on allowing local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing today for consultation proposed changes to planning policy for affordable housing. The aim is a policy framework that will secure more affordable housing without affecting the overall supply of housing.
    PLANNING FOR ALL IN THE COMMUNITY: MATCHING SUPPLY WITH NEED
    The Sustainable Communities Plan also highlighted the Government's concern that the houses built do not always adequately reflect a community's needs. The Government are working with local authorities, house-builders and other housing providers to ensure that the size and type of housing better matches need, especially by providing more homes for the increasing number of smaller households. The draft update places more emphasis, than currently in PPG3, on producing a better match between the housing planned and the needs of the community.

    TAKING RESPONSIBILITY LOCALLY
    In conclusion, the Government look to local authorities actively to facilitate the delivery of the housing needed in their communities in the form of well-designed, higher density residential developments. They are consulting on improvements to the policy framework, and copies are available in both Libraries of the House. Additionally, at a future date, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will set out how the Government will take forward the commitment in the Budget report to
    "improve the performance of planning authorities that are not delivering an adequate supply of new housing—including incentives, support, and engagement—followed, where necessary, by intervention".

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidies
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Following public consultation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is about to write to Chief Finance Officers of local housing authorities in England to inform them about changes to the way in which Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy is delivered for Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes.

  The changes reform the HRA subsidy arrangements and will mean that local housing authorities receive a fixed level of annual subsidy, a "PFI allowance" for the duration of the scheme. There will be retrospective arrangements for authorities already receiving HRA PFI subsidy.

  The letter, guidance on the new arrangements and the consultation paper may be found on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http://www.odpm.gov.uk.

  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am today issuing for consultation proposals that are designed to improve the distribution between authorities in England of housing revenue account (HRA) subsidy management and maintenance (M&M) allowances. Copies of the consultation paper and accompanying technical annex are available on the ODPM website and paper copies will be available in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  HRA subsidy provides support to local authorities to manage and maintain their council stock. M&M allowances are a key component of subsidy, and currently total some £3 billion annually. This is shared between authorities on the basis of a formulaic approach that has changed little since it was introduced more than ten years ago. It no longer adequately reflects the circumstances and challenges facing housing authorities, including the drive for decent homes, and the problems of deprivation, anti-social behaviour, and low demand. As part of the move to a modern, fairer and more efficient housing finance system, with rent restructuring bringing coherence to local authority rents, we have made clear the need to look again at the way all resources are allocated. This consultation paper is part of that process.

  Comments on the proposals in the consultation paper have been invited by 15 October.

  Local Planning Authorities
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreement 6 (PSA6) requires all local planning authorities to complete local development frameworks by 2006 and to perform at or above best value targets for development control by 2006 with interim milestones to be agreed in the service delivery agreement. Our approach to achieving this target is based on putting in place a programme of planning reforms which will deliver a step change in the way planning is carried out, and in the performance of the planning system to deliver sustainable development in the right place at the right time. This will be delivered through primary and secondary legislation, through progress in pursuing best value in local authority services, and through a culture change for all stakeholders in planning. The importance 58WS
  of delivering against PSA6 is recognised by both local and central Government. This statement sets out the approach we intend to take and the measures we have put in place to ensure that we can work together with local Government to deliver this.

  At the individual local authority level, we are supporting those who are seeking to improve planning performance by giving additional resources through the planning delivery grant and by providing advice, guidance and help, including through a proposed new planning advisory service. The planning delivery grant is providing £350 million to authorities and regional planning bodies over three years between 2003–04 and 2005–06 and is being distributed to those that demonstrate improvement in their planning services. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, together with other stakeholders including the Planning Officers Society, the Local Government Association and the Improvement and Development Agency, already offer a range of good practice guidance and advice. We shall be reviewing and, where necessary, updating that guidance and advice. The planning advisory service is to be piloted later in 2003.

  Our engagement with councils will be in accordance with the protocol agreed with local government and will be responsive to the outcome of comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) and performance against our best value targets for planning. In particular we will seek to work with councils in the context of their improvement planning to raise the quality of planning services. In line with the expectation that all authorities will meet PSA6, our work will be with any authority.

  For each financial year, we will identify, in consultation with the Government offices for the regions, poorly performing development control authorities. Such judgments will be based on the level of performance the authority has achieved in relation to meeting the PSA6 targets, and the rate or direction of change in the authority's performance. Where necessary, we will set authorities best value performance standards for a financial year. We are already engaged with a number of authorities that have been or are now failing to make adequate progress towards the PSA6 targets and will continue such action with any further authorities in 2003–04 and 2004–05. In relation to the preparation of local development frameworks, subject to the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, we will have regard to the progress against the local development scheme as set out in the annual monitoring report.

  By 2005–06, any authority that is not close to achieving the development control targets or is not making timely progress against its local development scheme or both will be regarded as poorly performing in planning services. The objective is to work with authorities to drive their performance up to meet the PSA6 targets. During the year in which they are subject to standards or when an annual monitoring report shows failure of an authority to adhere to its local development scheme, we will investigate the action authorities are taking to improve their performance and assess the likelihood that they will meet the PSA6 targets.
  59WS
  Where we judge that any authority lacks the commitment or capacity to improve its planning performance, we will consider whether and how to support performance improvement. In arriving at such judgments we will be looking, in the light of the results the authority is achieving, at the adequacy of the processes and managerial systems; the level of professional competence; the level of resource and other inputs to the planning service; and at the political and managerial leadership.

  We will identify mechanisms that will enable us, as far as possible, to work with councils to focus action and support within the authority's regular cycle of improvement planning. Each year, every authority must publish its priorities in its best value performance plan. Those authorities that have been through CPA will also be required to undertake recovery or improvement planning. Where we engage directly with authorities, we will discuss with them what specific areas we will expect them to address in such plans. Among the issues that we will want to explore with authorities in following up improvement planning will be close monitoring of performance and change management; the recruitment and retention of staff and development of skills for members and officers; the adequacy of resourcing and the systems and processes in place; and outsourced delivery. We will work with councils through the Audit Commission relationship manager, where relevant, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister appointed Lead Official, and the Government offices in the Regions,

  Where, in our view, the actions that an authority is taking to improve performance are not adequate to put them on a course to meet the PSA6 targets by 2006–07, we will consider intervention under the powers available to us. We will not seek to intervene until an authority has had an adequate opportunity to put right its own failings and any intervention would be proportionate to the failure. However, where intervention is necessary, we will carry it through with determination and vigour. Powers under the Local Government Act 1999 include the power to direct, which might include directing inspection of or inquiries into planning services, and the tendering or outsourcing of services. Those under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill enable the Secretary of State to direct on aspects of the plan making process, including the local development scheme.

  The use of intervention powers in respect of development control performance would be a last resort, and decisions taken on them would be made in the context of CPA and the protocol. Its objective and content would reflect the need to achieve the PSA6 targets and therefore any authority at risk of not meeting the targets would be liable to intervention. Having regard to the wider context of CPA, the Government will take a different approach in relation to high performing authorities than to poorer performing ones. We will expect excellent authorities to improve their planning performance without support from Government. In weaker authorities we will offer a more intensive model of support and intervention.

  Through our planning reform programme and, where necessary, engagement and intervention, our objective is to work with authorities to develop a culture of
  60WS
  continuous improvement in the delivery of an excellent planning service which produces timely, high quality and sustainable outcomes.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the Local Government Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2002–03.

  The Report was published on 3 July. As required by Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974 copies have been sent to the Local Government Association, as the designated representatives of Local Government, and to the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The Report includes individual reports by the three Local Government Ombudsmen in England and includes information about complaints received during 2002–03, a review of the legislation governing the work of the Ombudsman, and details of the way in which the Ombudsman is working to improve delivery of public services by local authorities.

  The full text of the Report is available on the Commission's website: www.lgo.org.uk.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maghaberry Prison
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I wish to announce that with effect from 31 July 2003, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that part of Maghaberry Prison site is removed from within the boundaries of Maghaberry Prison. The area to be removed is indicated on the site map, which I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses, by the words"area to be removed from the site of Maghaberry Prison".

  North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 May 2003 to 30 June 2003 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited under the terms of the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

  Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 2003–06 and the Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 in the Libraries of both Houses.
  61WS
  The Corporate and Business Plan contains Key Performance Targets I have set for the Service for 2003–04. These are:

  1. 100 per cent. security for top and high risk prisoners.

  2. 99.7 per cent. security for medium and low risk prisoners.

  3. The number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of 5 per 100 prisoners.

  4. The number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of 7.5 per 100 prisoners.

  5. An average of at least 20 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner.

  6. An average of at least 12 hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner.

  7. To ensure 82.5 per cent. of prisoners serving six months or more are working to a resettlement plan and that 95 per cent. of all lifers work to a resettlement plan, including preparation of the plan in the first six months from sentence.

  8. Deliver at least 85 per cent. of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities.

  9. Reduce the average staff sickness days per head over the year to no more than 19 representing approximately a 30 per cent. reduction in sick absence over the year and an end of year figure equivalent to 14 days per annum per member of staff.

  10. Ensure expenditure is within the budget allocated.

  11. Lay the Annual Report and Audited Accounts before Parliament prior to the summer recess.

  The Annual Report details that the Service met 8 out of its 11 key targets and 10 of their 16 development objectives with significant progress made against the other six.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Assets Recovery Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I am pleased to announce that the first annual report of the Assets Recovery Agency will be laid before Parliament on 8 September 2003.

  The report is the first by the agency and covers the financial year 2002–03. The agency became operational on 24 February 2003, and the report covers the setting up of the agency and the first few weeks of its work. The next report will include an assessment of how the agency has carried out its first business plan, which was published on 9 July.

  The agency is already making use of its powers, and has obtained several orders to freeze suspected criminal assets.

  The establishment of the agency, with extensive powers to investigate and recover criminal assets, shows the Government's commitment to taking the profit out of crime.

  Forensic Science Service
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  An independent review of the Forensic Science Service was announced on 23 July 2002 by the Minister of State for Policing and Crime 62WS
  Reduction. The review has been overseen by a steering group which all key stakeholders were invited to join. The review team reported at the beginning of July this year.

  The main thrust of the report focuses on the emergence of a more competitive market for forensic science services and the ability of the FSS to compete effectively in the face of a significantly changing environment. The report makes a number of helpful observations and recommendations aimed at improving FSS performance, but the most fundamental is that it should be transformed from a trading fund into a Government-owned company as a precursor to development into a private sector classified Public Private Partnership (PPP).

  The main risk if the FSS remains as a trading fund is that there would be a sustained and accelerating loss of business. Indeed, some forces are already outsourcing their forensic requirements to alternative suppliers. A cumulative loss of market share could reach a point at which poor trading forced cut-backs in investment, research and development and staffing. I see radical change as the only realistic option to ensure that FSS remains competitive and able to make best use of rapidly advancing science and technology to reduce crime and deliver safer communities.

  The report identifies the inherent risks, but makes a clear case for accepting that PPP offers the best means of protecting the public interest and delivering major benefits to the Criminal Justice System (CJS) by enabling FSS to compete effectively. I endorse this approach and the steering group's overall view that the FSS would prosper in a private sector environment, as it clearly reflects the realities of the situation. At a time when demand for forensic analysis in crime investigation is increasing significantly, FSS performance has been mixed. There have been some notable successes, but we need to take steps to improve the service to the wider CJS in terms of timeliness and cost effectiveness. The emergence of a small but effective and dynamic private sector has resulted in an increasingly competitive market in forensic science services, the level and intensity of which is likely to gather pace.

  I am confident that the proposed change will stimulate and broaden the market, encouraging CJS customers to make even greater use of forensic science in the fight against crime, and generating momentum through improved investment to enable the increasingly effective use of forensic capabilities. This, in turn, will result in forensic science making a substantially greater contribution to crime reduction. A number of significant logistical issues inevitably need to be addressed, but I believe that all of these challenges can be dealt with successfully in a transitional period as a Government-owned company.

  As the report contains commercially sensitive information, a copy of the executive summary has been placed in the Library.

  UK Passport Service
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The UK Passport Service Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  Following a request, in 2002, from the Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator for an increase in the Asylum Support Adjudicators' (ASA) salary scale, we undertook a review in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers. The review found there to be a justifiable linkage between the ASAs' salaries and Group 7 of the judicial scale, which the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) accepts. Therefore, with effect from April 2003, the Home Secretary will consider ASA salaries in the light of that linkage and the annual recommendations of the SSRB.

  Voluntary and Community Sector
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament copies of the Report of the Fourth Annual Meeting to review the Compact on relations between Government and the voluntary and community sector on 28 April 2003.

  The meeting witnessed the momentum achieved in driving the Compact as the framework guiding the relationship between Government and the voluntary and community sector. There was record attendance at this year's meeting. Local Government were represented for the first time, reflecting the need to focus on implementing the Compact at local level. We need to work together with the voluntary and community sector to achieve real change in the way the sector contributes to the delivery of better public services.

  Animal Experiments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I wish to announce that the 2002 statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain will be published as a Command Paper on 18 July. Copies will be placed in the House Library in the usual way.

  The number of scientific procedures licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and started in 2002 was just over 2.73 million, a rise of about 110,000 (4.2 per cent.) on 2001. This increase is not seen as beyond the bounds of normal year-on-year fluctuations, and the Government have no anxieties or concerns arising from the detail of the statistics.

  A familiar pattern is evident. Mice, rats and other rodents were used in the majority of procedures—84 per cent. of the total. Most of the remainder used birds (5 per cent. of all procedures), and fish (7 per cent.). Dogs,
  64WS
  cats, horses and non-human primates, afforded special protection by the Act, were collectively used in fewer than 1 per cent. of the procedures.

  There was a slight decrease in the proportion of procedures using genetically normal animals (65 per cent. as against 67 per cent. in 2001), and a small increase in 'the proportion of procedures using those which had been genetically modified (26 per cent. as against 24 per cent. in 2001). This continues a trend apparent in recent years, though the variations are on this occasion minimal. It is worth recording that only one in three of all the recorded procedures involving genetically modified animals were for purposes other than breeding.

  Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 82 per cent. of those carried out in 2002, with the main areas of use being for immunological studies and pharmaceutical research and development. Of the procedures for toxicological purposes, 61 per cent. were for pharmacological safety and efficacy studies, and most were performed to conform with regulatory requirements.

  About 40 per cent. of all procedures used some form of anaesthesia to alleviate the severity of the interventions. For many of the remaining procedures the use of anaesthesia would have increased the animal welfare cost of the procedure. Over 99 per cent. of procedures carried out on animals listed in Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act involved use of animals acquired from designated sources in the United Kingdom.

  I should point out in relation to the statistics that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, has no control over the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place. We do nevertheless ensure, in carrying out our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work. In particular we always insist in every case upon full application of the 3Rs—replacement of animals where possible, and where they must be used, reduction to a minimum of their numbers and refinement of the procedures to minimise suffering. To that end, all licence applications are carefully assessed by the professional Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, who then closely monitor work in progress to ensure compliance with licence authorities, and with the related codes of practice concerning standards of care and accommodation for the animals.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Advisory Group to the Employer Task Force on Pensions
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am pleased to announce membership for the advisory group to the Employer Task Force on Pensions today, as set out below. The
  65WS
  role of the advisory group is to provide the Employer Task Force with access to experience and expertise from key organisations with an interest in pensions.

  Member

  Organisation

  Sir Peter Davis Chairman of Employer Task Force and Advisory Body

  Employer Task Force Chairman Chief Executive J Sainsburys plc

  Duncan Brown Assistant Director General

  Chartered Institute of Personnel Development

  Kay Carberry Assistant General Secretary

  Trade Union Congress

  George Cox Director General

  Institute of Directors

  John Cridland Deputy Director General

  CBI

  Donald Duval President

  The Society of Pensions Consultants

  Carl Emmerson Programme Director

  Institute of Fiscal Studies

  Christine Famish Chief Executive

  National Association of Pension Funds

  Mick Folger Director, Conduct of Business Standards

  Financial Services Authority

  Mary Francis Director General

  Association of British Insurers

  Tony Hobman Chief Executive

  OPRA

  Ed Mayo Chief Executive

  National Consumer Council

  David Pollard Chairman

  Association of Pension Lawyers

  Gordon Pollock Chairman

  Association of Consulting Actuaries

  Richard Saunders Chief Executive

  Investment Management Association

  Footnote: Additional Members may be invited to join theadvisory group, if appropriate.

  Disabled People
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The New Deal for Disabled People will be extended for a further two years to 31 March 2006. All existing Job Brokers will have the opportunity to participate in this extended programme, but they will be required to meet the new standards of performance and conform to a revised service design that builds on best practice under the existing programme and emerging lessons from the evaluation and experience under other similar programmes including Employment Zones.
  66WS
  Job Brokers will be expected to develop rigorous and appropriate back to work plans to support individual in return for an initial £300 payment for the registration of new customers. We will also be bringing the sustained outcome payments into line with other programmes by making payments after individual have been in work for 13 weeks and not 26 weeks as currently. Job Brokers will still be expected, however to provide ongoing support over at least the first 6 months of employment and we will review the effectiveness of their arrangements through our contract management system and through the evaluation of the programme.

  To participate in this extension Job Brokers will need to demonstrate that they can meet challenging performance targets, in particular in moving people into work. Those Brokers who can demonstrate an ability to meet high levels of performance will have the opportunity to expand their services; and at the same time we will be offering limited, geographically focused opportunities for new providers to enter the programme. Further details about the terms on which extended contracts will be let and upon which no, providers might be able to deliver services will b published in the autumn.

DEFENCE

  Training Group Defence Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Commander-in-Chief, Royal Air Force Personnel and Training Command has set the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency the following targets for Financial Year 2003–04:

  KEY TARGET 1a:

  Training Output—Quantity of Output (Ab Initio Flying Training)

  To train the required number of aircrew of the three Services to standards for entry to Royal Air Force an Royal Navy operational conversion unit training, th Defence Helicopter Flying School and other specialist; flying training courses.

  Fast-Jet Pilots

  67

  Multi-Engine Pilots

  62

  Rotary Wing Pilots

  37

  Fast-Jet Weapons

  Systems Operators

  28

  Multi-Engine Weapons

  Systems Operators

  9

  Rotary Wing Weapons

  Systems Operators

  5

  Non-Commissioned

  Aircrew

  103

  Total

  311

  67WS
  KEY TARGET 1b:

  Training Output—Quantity of Output (Ab Initio Ground Training)

  To train the detailed number of military personnel to the standards required to undertake ground appointments.

  Officer Initial Specialist Training

  339

  Airman Initial Specialist Training

  2,504

  Total

  2,843

  KEY TARGET 2a:

  Training Output—Quantity of Output—Training Places (Flying)

  To train aircrew of the three Services to standards for entry to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy operational conversion unit training, the Defence Helicopter Flying School and other specialist flying training courses, as well as providing training places for international students.

  Flying Training Courses—RN

  202

  Flying Training Courses—Army

  374

  RAF Flying Instructor Courses

  150

  RAF Refresher & Orientation Courses

  170

  RAF Specialist & Operation Courses

  240

  Flying Training (International)

  92

  Total1

  1,228

  KEY TARGET 2b:

  Training Output—Quantity of Output—Training Places (Ground)

  To train military personnel to the standards required to undertake ground
  appointments.

  Pre-Employment Training

  16,029

  Career Development Training

  6,562

  Total

  22,591

  KEY TARGET 3:

  Quality of Output

  To underpin the military effectiveness of the Royal Air Force by the timely provision of military personnel trained to the standards agreed with the Agency's customers.

  KEY TARGET 4:

  Cost Management
  To ensure that the necessary systems are in place to manage the business on an output-cost basis.
  68WS
  KEY TARGET 5:

  Efficiency

  To reduce the average per capita cost of initial training measured as a cumulative improvement on 2000–02 costs.

  Low Flying
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The ability to fly fast and low continues to be an essential skill in our armoury of tactics. Training for aircrew to achieve and maintain these skills is vital.

  The amount of low flying training carried out in the United Kingdom Low Flying System (UKLFS) during the training year April 2002 to March 2003 was the minimum necessary for aircrew to reach and maintain these skills. Hours booked for low flying training in the UKLFS (excluding the Rotary Wing Dedicated User Areas, where different booking arrangements apply) during this period amounted to an overall increase of 2.6 per cent. compared to the previous training year. The increase may be linked to preparations for operations, and an increase in the flying of Apache aircraft in preparation for their introduction into service. Since detailed records of hours booked began in 1995, the annual total has reduced by some 29 per cent.

  The distribution of low-flying training across the UK has not changed significantly over previous years. It is spread as widely as practicable, but for a variety of reasons including population distribution, and geographic and climatic considerations, it is inevitable that some parts of the country will see more low flying than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of low flying training in the UK Low Flying System for the period April 2002 to March 2003.

  Further copies of the report can be obtained from the Vote office or it can be viewed on the MOD's web site: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying

  Service Children's Education
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Chief Executive of Service Children's Education has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04:

  To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 or above at the end of Key Stage 1 in:

  Reading

  91 per cent.

  Writing

  93 per cent.

  Mathematics

  95 per cent.

  To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at the end of Key Stage 2 in:

  Reading

  85 per cent.

  Writing

  69 per cent.

  English

  80 per cent.

  Mathematics

  81 per cent

  Science

  91 per cent.

  69WS
  To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at the end of Key Stage 3 in:

  English

  79 per cent.

  Mathematics

  79 per cent.

  Science

  78 per cent.

  ICT

  68 per cent.

  For Year 11 pupils in SCE to meet the following Key Stage 4 (GCSE) targets:

  Pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE

  96 per cent.

  passes at Grades A*-G

  Pupils achieving 5 or more

  57 per cent.

  GCSE passes at Grades A*-C

  To maintain the following three-year rolling average percentage of achieving 5 or more higher (A*-C) in GCSE of 54 per cent.

  For pupils in SCE to meet the following Key Stage 5 (CA5 Level) targets:

  Subject entries achieving

  100 per cent.

  passes at grades A-E

  Subject entries achieving

  65 per cent.

  passes at grades A-C

  To maintain the following three-year rolling average of subject entries achieving passes at grades A-C at 'A' Level of 65 per cent.

  OfSTED UK LEA performance—to meet the following standards in OfSTED reports of inspections of SCE schools:

  Quality, School Climate, Management & Efficiency—Grade 3 or above.

  100 per cent.

  Standards—Grade 3 or above

  96 per cent.

  School climate—Grade 2 or above

  96 per cent.

  Standards—Grade 2 or above

  65 per cent.

  Quality, Management & Efficiency—Grade 2 or above

  85 per cent.

  To respond in full to customers seeking education advice from SCE (UK) within the following timescales:
  93 per cent. within 10 working days of receipt.
  Remainder within 20 working days of receipt.

  The Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 value added score for SCE will show an index of at least 100.

  Customer Satisfaction:
  To demonstrate customer satisfaction with SCE schools through a result of 69 per cent. or greater satisfaction from the Army Continuous Attitude Surveys.
  To develop customer performance criteria on the efficiency and effectiveness of SCE Headquarters for incorporation as a Key Target for 2004 and beyond.

  Army Training and Recruitment Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruitment Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04.

  1. To meet the Army's requirement from the ATRA for 600 trained mainstream officers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 2 per cent. The 2002–03 performance was an output of 604.

  2. To meet the Army's requirement from the ATRA for 9,400 soldiers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of + 1 to -2 per cent. The 2002–03 performance was an output of 9,264.

  3. To achieve a 98 per cent. first time pass rate to externally endorsed training standards and within course duration for all officers who undergo career or professional development training after meeting entry standards. The 2002–03 performance was a first time pass rate of 93.6 per cent.

  4. To achieve a 96 per cent. first time pass rate to externally endorsed training standards and within course duration for all soldiers who undergo career or professional development training after meeting entry standards. The 2002–03 performance was a first time pass rate of 94.8 per cent.

  5. Subject to realism caveats to reduce the per capita cost of training a successful military recruit to £52.2k by Apr 2006. The 2002–03 performance discounted for the effect of the estate revaluation, was £53.4k against a target of £54k.

  Army Personnel Centre
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre has been set the following Key Targets for 2003–04.To maintain at 94 per cent. the percentage of posts which are manned (excluding posts gapped for less than 28 days and all posts for private soldiers and subaltern officers). The 2002–03 performance was the maintenance of 94 per cent. of posts manned.
  To maintain at 98 per cent. the proportion of personnel posted in-year by the APC whose rank and Service qualifications meet the specifications of the post. The 2002–03 performance was 97.5 per cent. of personnel posted in-year who met the specifications of the post.
  To maintain at 65 per cent. the percentage of in-year postings authorised by the APC where personnel are given at least four months notification. The 2002–03 output was 64.8 per cent. of personnel were given at least four months notification.
  To remain within 0 per cent. to - 1 per cent. of the annual resource allocation whilst achieving targets. The 2002–03 performance was within minus 0.99 per cent. of the annual resource allocation.

  Disposals Process (Review)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  A business review of the disposals process is to be carried out by the Ministry of Defence. The Review will commence shortly and complete in the autumn.

  The aim of the review is to examine the function, operation, funding and organisation of the disposals process, to identify the key objectives, and to determine whether the current arrangements are most appropriate for future needs.
  71WS
  The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including MOD and Single Service sponsors, TUs, other Government Departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions by 31 July 2003 to:

  The Disposals Process Business Review Team

  Ministry of Defence

  2nd Floor

  St Giles Court

  1–13 St Giles High Street

  London WC2H 8LD

  Or by email to:

  dgmo-dmcs2@defence.mod.uk

  Armoured Vehicles
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  We regularly re-visit existing plans for capability enhancements to ensure they remain tailored to the security environment in which we need to operate. As such, we judge that the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) is not ideally suited to the type of operations envisaged under the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter and other developing policy work. This, coupled with recent operational experience in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and latterly Iraq, has demonstrated the need for rapid deployability in expeditionary operations. MRAV is not considered able to meet this capability requirement which will be pursued through the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES). FRES will be a very significant component of the long-term transformation of the land battle through its contribution to network-enabled capability. We have written to the German and Dutch Governments to inform them of our decision to withdraw from the MRAV collaborative project.

  In parallel with our decision to withdraw from the MRAV programme, we are pleased to announce the results of the competition for the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV). The Alvis Vickers Limited Multirole Light Vehicle has been selected to deliver the solution to the Army's requirement for enhanced speed, reliability, flexibility and protection for a wide range of users in combat or peacekeeping operations: FCLV will also provide support for the RAF Regiment. It will play a key role in the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces by providing versatile, airtransportable vehicles, which will be among the first deployed in a crisis and will spearhead the way for troops in combat or peacekeeping operations. FCLV will replace a mixed fleet of ageing vehicles which were acquired as a stopgap following the withdrawal of the Ferret Scout Car. This contract is worth over £200 million and is a good result for the United Kingdom AFV industry.

  Iraq Commemoration
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  As the House is aware, we have been considering the precise form in which we should commemorate and mark the operations undertaken in Iraq this year.
  72WS
  I can announce that we have decided that there will be a national service of remembrance and thanksgiving for the campaign in Iraq. This will be held in St Paul's Cathedral on 10 October 2003. The Dean of St Paul's will lead the service and the Archbishop of Canterbury will give the sermon. The service will give thanks for the role UK forces played in ending tyranny in Iraq. It will also give thanks to those personnel, including those that lost their lives, who took part—recognising their professionalism and their achievements.

  Members of the Royal Family, the Prime Minister and members of the Government will attend along with Service Chiefs. Representatives of our coalition allies and members of the Opposition will also be invited to the ceremony, along with, importantly, the families of those who so tragically lost their lives over the course of the operation. The majority of the congregation will, though, be personnel who took part in the campaign.

  We have given careful thought to the calls made for a parade to mark this event. In accordance with the wishes of the armed forces, we have decided that the most appropriate form of commemoration at the national level would be a service of thanksgiving, but without a parade. At the regional and local level, there will be opportunities for local communities to arrange events for their local units to mark their involvement in, and return from, the operation.

HEALTH

  Commission for Health Improvement
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The Commission for Health Improvement's 2002–03 annual report, entitled "Delivering Improvement", has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Patient Advocacy Services
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  Section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (2001) places a legal duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to provide independent advocacy services to assist individuals making complaints against the National Health Service. We intend to commence this section on 1 September 2003.

  Our intention is to deliver arrangements for a national independent complaints advocacy service (ICAS). These intentions were set out in written answers given to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 March 2003, Official Report, columns 849–51W. The new service will be provided by four contractors who will deliver ICAS across England from the 1 September 2003 on a one year contract. These contractors are The Carers Federation Ltd, POhWER, South East Advocacy Projects and the Citizens Advice.

  Delivering ICAS through these contracts will allow primary care trust patients' forums, who will in due course have delegated power to commission or provide ICAS under the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002, time to establish their networks and capacity.
  73WS
  Learning from the experience of community health councils and ICAS pilot projects this will be a completely new service that will provide consistent support to patients with complaints about the NHS across England. ICAS will be provided to standards piloted across the country. The commission for patient and public involvement in health (CPPIH) will, as indicated in its functions in the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002, monitor ICAS services against the standards.

  We have worked with the CPPIH to set in place arrangements for them to act as the Department's agents to manage these interim contracts on our behalf. We intend shortly to lay amendments to the CPPIH regulations to reflect this additional function.

  The new ICAS providers will begin recruiting staff and preparing publicity for patients, and others, during July and August for the commencement of the service on 1 September 2003. We will be notifying our partners in the NHS about the new arrangements so that they can offer the contractors full co-operation before, and during, the contracts and help direct patients to the new service.

  Retail Pharmacy Services
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The Government's response to the Fifth Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, on the control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK, Cm 5896, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The 2002–03 report and accounts of the National Health Service Pensions 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.

  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I am today publishing the executive summary of the Quinquennial Review of the NHS Pensions Agency.

  I have accepted all of its recommendations including a change of status for the Agency. From 1 April 2004, the NHS Pensions Agency will become a special health authority.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Magistrates Courts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  I am pleased to be able to announce that today I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the annual report relating to the 2002–03 business returns provided by magistrates' courts in England and Wales. This is the first time that this report has been published and it heralds a new era in the development of the 42 separate Magistrates' Courts Committee (MCC) areas towards 74WS
  the planned unification with each other and with the Court Service Agency. One key matter in the report relates to the enforcement of fines that have been in the full control of magistrates' courts since April 2001. I addressed the matter of the poor collection rates in a written ministerial statement that I made on 25 June 2003, Official Report, column 40WS and I set out the seven point action plan that I am pursuing vigorously in order to improve upon the current performance that has been achieved by magistrates' courts and their agents.

  In other areas the magistrates courts have maintained a high level of service during a demanding year. They have supported and participated in a number of criminal justice initiatives, including the street crime initiative in the largest ten areas, extended court sitting hours pilots in London and Manchester and full involvement in the development of the local criminal justice boards. This was during a period when there were considerable additional demands on them. These included the rollout of new computer hardware, new data demands from across the Government service and the MCCs' full involvement in the work being undertaken to facilitate the new planned agency. The latter will bring together the 42 currently independent Magistrates' Courts Committee areas and the Court Service agency into one unified courts administration and considerable work is being done by all involved to ensure a successful outcome.

  Particular successes have been in supporting the achievement of the persistent young offender timeliness target of 71 days, reducing it from 142 days and achieving a national average for 2002–03 of 69 days. The active use of courts has also increased from 62.6 per cent. to 67.3 per cent. in 2002–03, which in part reflects the continuing cross-agency approach which means that magistrates courts are being used by other agencies such as the Crown Court and tribunals.

  In particular, the Department is leading an initiative, the Case Preparation Project, which involves the other agencies in the Criminal Justice System and which is part of the work looking at what can be done to reduce the number of ineffective trials and improve the service to victims and witnesses.

  Overall, there have been a number of successes, but the work that has been announced in relation to the enforcement of fines is particularly important to ensure that there is confidence in the criminal justice system and proper implementation of judicial decisions.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) has laid before Parliament its Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03. Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  The Crown Prosecution Service annual report 2002–2003 has today been published and laid before Parliament.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Junior Counsel to the Crown
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  The Attorney-General's Report of the Review of current Panels of Junior Counsel to the Crown has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy has also been placed on the website of the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, which can be found at www.lslo.gov.uk.

  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) maintains (by means of an open advertisement and application process) four panels of junior Counsel to undertake civil and EC work for all Government Departments. He has three London panels (an A panel for senior juniors, a B panel for middle juniors and a C panel for junior juniors) and a provincial panel.

  The current Panel system for Junior Counsel to the Crown was introduced in 1999, following approval by the then Attorney-General (John Morris QC) of the recommendations arising from a review undertaken by a working party chaired by the then Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer QC) in 1998.

  In March 2002, Lord Goldsmith established the Panel Counsel Review Group to review the operation of the current system. The membership consisted of lawyers from within the Government Legal Service and Counsel from the independent Bar. The Review recommends a number of measures to improve the current working of the Panel System. Lord Goldsmith accepts the recommendations, with the following two additional points:
  The issue of dual membership in London and the Provinces ought to be revisited and considered in a separate small working group, as suggested in recommendation 14 of the Report; and
  With regard to recommendation 10, Lord Goldsmith will review whether an appointment of an external Chair in future selection boards is feasible.
  Lord Goldsmith believes that this will satisfy his objective of choosing Counsel of the highest quality to advise and represent Government in a fair, open and transparent way and ensure a fair allocation of this important work across suitable candidates.

  Lord Goldsmith is grateful to all those on the Panel Counsel Review Group for their time and expertise in contributing to this review.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  European Capital of Culture
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Further to the Prime Minister's response to the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on 476WS
  June, my Ministerial colleagues and I have now visited or met all the cities that were shortlisted in the bidding process for the title of European Capital of Culture 2008 and discussed their plans with them. I want to build on the momentum generated by the capital of culture process and it is clear there is considerable interest in the cities in doing so. Yesterday, I discussed ideas with representatives of all twelve cities that took part in the bidding. I had hoped to make a Ministerial statement on detailed proposals before the summer recess but the cities indicated that they would like more time and I will now make the statement in the autumn.

TREASURY

  UK Debt Management Office
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The UK Debt Management Office's annual report and administrative accounts for 2002–03, the Debt Management Account report and accounts for 2002–03 and the National Investment and Loan Office's resource accounts are being laid before the House of Commons and published today.

  Office for National Statistics
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The annual report and accounts for 2002–03 of the Office for National Statistics are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2002–03. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Community Pharmacies
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  On 17 January 2003 the OFT published its report"The control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK". On 20 March I told the House that we welcomed the OFT report which is a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry rules on pharmacy provision on consumers and competition. I strongly support the OFT's role in conducting analyses of this kind, which are useful in considering the economic effects of government regulations.

  We empowered the OFT and other economic regulators under the Enterprise Act 2002 to advise where laws and regulations may create barriers to entry and competition or channel markets in a particular direction, thereby holding back innovation and progress. Recently we accepted the broad conclusions of similar OFT and Competition Commission investigations into the markets for private dentistry and prescription-only veterinary medicines.

  In responding to this report for pharmacy provision in England, the Government must take into account wider NHS policy objectives, and the impact of changes

  77WS
  in regulations on NHS services and patients. That was not part of the OFT's remit but its recommendation must be seen within that broader picture.

  Community pharmacies play a vital role, particularly in rural and poorer areas. Pharmacists are trained clinicians and not simply shopkeepers. Eighty per cent. of their income comes from NHS prescriptions whose price is fixed by government. As well as increased competition and choice we want to improve the services provided, and patient access to those services, as part of our wider programme of improvements to the NHS.

  Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is publishing a new vision for NHS pharmacy—"A Vision for Pharmacy in the New NHS"— which builds upon the foundations laid in "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan".

  We want to maintain and improve access to pharmacists in all our communities while continuing to raise standards. We want to encourage innovation and excellence in pharmacy provision and to reward pharmacists that provide the fullest possible range of services, including to our most vulnerable communities.

  We do not believe that simple deregulation is the best way to achieve our aims. The OFT made a strong case that the current control of entry rules impede competition and reduce benefits for consumers. But given the current shortage of pharmacists, which will persist for some years until measures which we as a government are taking increase supply, and the Government's desire to see pharmacies given a new and strong role in the modern NHS, the Government does not believe that this is the time to move to a fully deregulated system. It therefore intends to move cautiously in the direction recommended by the OFT.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is today publishing a statement reporting progress on the proposed new national contractual framework for community pharmacy. The current contract is based on an agreement put in place in 1987 and needs updating. The proposed framework will provide a better basis to promote and reward high quality services for consumers. The aim is to introduce the new framework from April 2004.

  In addition we will ensure that when considering applications from new pharmacies, or pharmacies wishing to extend service provision, Primary Care Trusts will seek to promote consumer choice and harness the benefits of increased competition. This can be achieved through secondary legislation by incorporating these new criteria for a "necessary or desirable" pharmacy. A potential entrant to the market will, as now, be able to appeal against a Primary Care Trust's decision and the procedures for doing so will be simplified.

  We want pharmaceutical services to improve further their accessibility and convenience to consumers. So we will also make it easier for pharmacies to locate in areas where consumers already go, namely large shopping developments. But in doing so we must not undermine the market available to smaller community pharmacies. So only pharmacies wishing to locate in shopping developments over 15,000 square metres in size will be exempt from the control of entry requirements. And, in
  78WS
  order to prevent cherry picking of the most profitable areas of pharmacy business, an exemption will only be available to pharmacies providing a full and prescribed range of services, appropriate to local needs determined by the Primary Care Trust. We will consult on our proposal.

  Similar arrangements and conditions will apply to pharmacies that intend to open for more than 100 hours a week, and to those that are part of a consortium to establish one of the new one-stop primary care centres proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Some patients prefer to get their medication through internet or mail-order based pharmacy services. For that reason we will now implement the provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, subject to the range of services we want such companies to provide being agreed within the proposed new national contractual framework.

  Our aim in all of these cases is to put the needs of patients first.

  We will also reform and modernise the control of entry regulations to make them more business-friendly, to provide more certainty and reliability for companies who depend upon them and to make the process less time-consuming. This will include ensuring that decisions on applications are taken quickly by the Primary Care Trusts and that there is ready access to a sound appeals mechanism. Consistent with our approach to devolution within the NHS we will as soon as possible—assuming the pilots continue to demonstrate effectiveness—simplify the Local Pharmaceutical Services scheme by removing the need for Primary Care Trusts to obtain approval from the Department of Health.

  We expect this package—including the new contractual framework—to improve the already high quality of pharmacy provision in England.

  However, should problems of access or convenience arise in particular areas, the Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme will continue to be available, to ensure patients can access the pharmacy services they need.

  We will consult on how these changes will be implemented, and expect to publish our consultation document at the end of August, giving a full 12-week consultation period for comment.

  We will also form an Advisory Group, drawing on expertise from the pharmacy and medical world, the NHS, patient, consumer and competition interests, as well as those with a track record on regulatory reform, to advise on the details of implementation.

  We will review progress in mid-2006, involving the OFT in this review, and publish our findings.

  Taken together, we believe the measures that we propose today comprise a balanced package that will continue to raise standards for patients, will support the needs of small businesses, and will do so without jeopardising the vital role played by community pharmacies, particularly in poorer and rural areas.

  Fur Trade (Domestic Animals)
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Government promised to report back to both Houses before the end of the Parliamentary session on investigations into the alleged import of domestic cat and dog fur into the UK.

  The Government understand the ethical abhorrence felt about this issue. Our first concern was to try to establish the facts about the extent of this trade and the level of imports of these furs entering the UK. Unfortunately, UK import statistics do not give a clear indication of whether any of these furs are being imported into the UK.

  We have faced repeated denials that these furs are entering the UK, whilst evidence that imports have come in has so far failed to show that this is happening on any significant scale, if at all. Clearly, there is a trade in such furs in some other countries. We need better evidence that it is a problem in the UK. We have been examining the options for reliable scientific tests for any products alleged to contain such furs, to ascertain reliably what animal the fur used in a particular product has come from. Such a test will be crucial in enabling Trading Standards officers to address any allegations of mislabelling that may arise under the existing Trade Descriptions Act, where manufacturers choose to label products containing fur. A reliable test of fur, to establish whether it is domestic cat or dog, would also enable the Government to determine more accurately the extent to which these products are entering the UK market.

  We have asked scientific experts at the former Laboratory of the Government Chemist, LGC Ltd., to determine what testing methods are available. We have confirmed that DNA testing is subject to a number of uncertainties that make it unreliable as a testing method for these purposes (a paper has been made available in the Library of the House detailing these uncertainties). However, we have now identified a testing method based on "mass spectrometry" that we are more optimistic can be relied upon. LGC Ltd. is working on behalf of the Government to confirm the reliability of this method. We anticipate this work ought to be complete in the Autumn of 2003.

  The Government has met interested parties to learn more about the facts of and concerns surrounding this trade. We have met Respect for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States to hear the details of their investigations into this trade. They have provided us with some anecdotal evidence of the situation regarding this trade, and have impressed on us their concern that action is taken to protect consumers, preferably at EU level. At this stage, our view is that we need more evidence of the extent of the problem, and we anticipate that these groups will shortly seek to provide that.

  We have also met the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA), the Giftware Association, the British Apparel and Textiles Association and the British Retail Confederation to explore with them what their members know about this trade. All have said that their members are not knowingly importing or selling products containing domestic cat and dog fur at this time.
  80WS
  The British Fur Trade Association have also provided us with details of a voluntary labelling scheme that they will be introducing from 1 September 2003, in parallel with their counterpart organisations in the 14 other members of the EU and in Norway and Switzerland. The scheme will be available not only to BFTA members, who are importers of a comprehensive range of fur pelts, but also to companies that are not members. BFTA has written to all known companies selling fur garments and garments with fur trim in the UK with details of the fur labelling scheme and will actively promote its introduction. While I welcome this development, I recognise that because this scheme is voluntary in nature, it may not fully address public concerns on the specific issue of imports of domestic eat and dog fur.

  The UK has also spoken to officials in several other countries where the possible trade in domestic cat and dog fur is a cause of concern. We have learnt from the US Government about the process that led to their introduction of a ban on these furs in 2000, and their experience in enforcing this ban. We have also discussed this issue with the Italian, Swedish and Danish Governments, and with the European Commission to learn from their approaches and to share the information we have gathered on this subject. Our inquiries show that hard evidence about the extent of the trade is difficult to come by.

  Nonetheless we have a better picture of the issues surrounding this problem and the level of public concern it provokes, and the Government are prepared to take practical and proportionate action. Given the Single Market, any action on this issue will be most effective if taken at EU level. The European Commission has stated that Member States can take action at the national level.

  I am therefore asking interested parties to try in the next six months to produce hard evidence of the extent of this problem in the UK and I am prepared, if such evidence can be produced, to support a ban on the import of domestic cat and dog furs. If, after six months, interested parties have not been able to produce hard evidence of the extent of this problem, the Government will say that it will not legislate until such evidence is forthcoming. In the meantime the Government will work to develop a test to enable enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act where manufacturers choose to label a fur product and for use if we are able to legislate further.

  Nuclear Materials
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  The Department will be placing the figures for the United Kingdom's stocks of civil plutonium and uranium as at 31 December 2002 in the Library of the House. In accordance with our commitment under the "Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium", we will also be sending the figures to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who will circulate them to member states in due course. The figures will be available on the Department's and the IAEA's websites.
  81WS
  The figures show that stocks of unirradiated plutonium in the UK totalled 90.8 tonnes at the end of 2002. Major changes from the corresponding figures for 2001 are a consequence of continuing reactor and reprocessing operations (e.g. as reflected in the increased quantity of "unirradiated separated plutonium in product stores at reprocessing plants". Other, smaller, changes are because of the return of MOX fuel from Japan and a review of reporting categories for some of the plutonium inventories concerned. The latter has resulted in plutonium present as "work in progress" at reprocessing plants being split so that separated material in the plutonium finishing lines is reported in the category "unirradiated separated plutonium held elsewhere" along with small quantities of plutonium in material forms for which current plans envisage re-cycle via reprocessing but which is not in the form of spent fuel.

  International Accounting Standards
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  On 26 November 2002 the consultation period on the possible extension of the European Regulation on the application of International Accounting Standards ("the Regulation") ended. The Regulation requires EU companies whose securities are admitted to trading on EU regulated markets to prepare their consolidated accounts on the basis of International Accounting Standards (as adopted by the European Commission) from 2005. The Regulation includes Member State options to extend its application to any other class or classes of company, and to the individual accounts of publicly traded companies, on either a permissive or a mandatory basis.

  Having considered the responses to the consultation, I am announcing today that the Regulation will be extended by permitting publicly traded companies to use adopted International Accounting Standards in their annual accounts. All other companies will also be permitted to use adopted International Accounting Standards, in both their annual and consolidated accounts. Limited Liability Partnerships will be treated in the same way.

  This approach is consistent with the UK's long held support of the idea of common, internationally accepted standards. Companies will be able to switch to International Accounting Standards based on their own circumstances, when the benefits outweigh the costs. No additional burden will be imposed; burdens on publicly traded groups may be reduced, as they will be able to use the same standards in both their consolidated and subsidiary accounts.

  I have decided against mandatory extension for the time being, mainly because it would impose burdens. In particular, International Accounting Standards do not as yet offer a simplified regime for smaller companies comparable to that provided by the UK system. Also, International Accounting Standards are in a state of transition and their impact on companies' profits (and tax liabilities) is therefore uncertain at present.

  None-the-less, it is clearly preferable that all UK companies use the same standards in due course. I therefore propose to review the impact of the Regulation around 2008 and decide if the time is right
  82WS
  to move to mandatory use of International Accounting Standards. Time is needed for International Accounting Standards to become settled and established, for the development of a regime for smaller companies, and for companies and auditors to become more familiar with these standards.

  My Department will consult by early next year on draft regulations to make necessary amendments to the Companies Act 1985.

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  The Annual Reports and Accounts for 2002–03 for the eight RDAs outside London have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. These cover the period immediately following the introduction of the single Budget in April 2002. The Government welcome the achievements of the RDAs during the year.

  Council of Science and Technology
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The Office of Science and Technology undertook a quinquennial review of the Council for Science and Technology in 2002. I received the final report of the review in December 2002.

  The Government broadly accept the recommendations of the review. Further work was however needed to decide how it should be followed up. That work is now complete. Copies of the final report of the review, together with details of the Government's plans for CST's future have today been laid in the Library of the House and published on OST's website www. ost.gov. uk.

  Amongst other things, the Government have revised CST's terms of reference to make clearer the broad, cross-cutting nature of its remit. CST's new terms of reference are:
  To advise the Prime Minister1 on the strategic policies and framework for:
  sustaining and developing science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK, and promoting international co-operation in SET;
  fostering the practice and perception of science, engineering and technology as an integral part of the culture of the UK;
  promoting excellence in SET education;
  making more effective use of research and scientific advice in the development and delivery of policy and public services across Government; and
  promoting SET-based innovation in business and the public services to promote the sustainable development of the UK economy, the health and quality of life of UK citizens, and global sustainable development.
  The Council will work on cross-cutting issues of strategic importance. taking a medium to longer term approach. In developing its advice it will take into account the cultural, economic, environmental, ethical and social context of developments in SET.
  1And possibly the First Ministers of the Devolved Administrations, depending on the outcome of discussions with those Administrations.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Development (Government Estate)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Government intend to publish, the fourth part of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate on Biodiversity at the end of July or early August. This will be available from the Sustainable Development in Government website. Copies of the website, on CD-Rom, will be paced in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Biodiversity section of the Framework breaks new ground as this is the first time that cross-Government targets have been set covering issues such as the condition of Government owned SSSIs, and a requirement for new building and refurbishment contracts to take account of biodiversity.

  Our ongoing work on the Framework defines a set of cross-Government targets for Sustainable development, and outlines the mechanisms by which Departments will be expected to achieve them. These challenging targets give a clear indication of the Government's continued determination to take a lead in the practical implementation and achievement of Sustainable development.

  The Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate can be viewed at www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/sdig/improving/index.htm

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Select Committee Chairmen (Pay)
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)
  Following the debate in the House on 14 May 2002 on the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, HC 224-I, Session 2001–02, relating to Select Committees, the House resolved"That, in the opinion of this House, the Review Body on Senior Salaries should be invited to consider what additional remuneration is appropriate for Chairmen of Select Committees".
  The Review Body have now reported and I have today laid before the House a copy of their report entitled Pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons (Cm 5673). Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of the House.

  I would like to put on record my thanks to the SSRB's Chairman (John Baker CBE) and its members for its analysis on the matter.

  The SSRB has recommended an extra payment of £12,500 per annum to the Chairmen of departmental and externally focused "cross-departmental" select committees, stating that the final decision on which committees to include should be determined by the House itself.
  84WS
  The SSRB has also recommended that payment should not be implemented until the House has decided its approach to the issue of Chairmen's outside interests. I have asked the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges whether his Committee would look into the matter and report its findings to the House in the autumn.

  Members will now have the summer recess to consider the report's recommendations. I intend to discuss the matter widely and reflect on Members' views before deciding on the terms of the motion to be put before the House in the autumn.

WALES

  Student Support and Higher Education Funding
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)
  Following a request from the Welsh Assembly Government, the Government propose, subject to Parliamentary approval, to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales the remaining elements of higher education funding in Wales, namely:responsibility for student funding for higher and further education students domiciled in Wales, which is currently the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills on an England-and-Wales basis; and
  full responsibility for the tuition fee regime, including powers over new policy as regards variable fees.
  This means that the National Assembly for Wales will take on responsibility for providing financial support to students domiciled in Wales, regardless of where in the UK they undertake their higher or further education. In addition, the National Assembly will take on responsibility for determining the level of fees to be charged in Welsh institutions.

  This will have the effect of ending the anomaly whereby the National Assembly for Wales has responsibility for higher education institutions but not higher education students. As we move to a situation where students increasingly contribute to the funding of institutions, this will become even more anomalous.

  Powers to collect repayments of student loans from graduates through the tax system will continue to remain a UK Government responsibility, in common with the devolution system for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Most functions affecting higher education in Wales, including the funding of Welsh institutions, are already the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. One exception is the student support system for higher education students, which is currently administered by the Department for Education and Skills both for England and Wales. Transferring these remaining functions in respect of Wales will therefore rationalise the existing split of responsibilities for higher education in Wales.

  Student support is already devolved responsibility in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. Once the transfer of functions takes effect, Wales, like Northern Ireland

  85WS
  and Scotland, will have policy responsibility for determining the level of fees and their own student support packages.

  I have been in detailed discussions with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning on the principles underpinning this transfer and on the means for achieving it. The Government has already announced its intention to bring forward legislation to implement a number of the proposals in the recent White Papers, The Future of Higher Education and Widening Participation in Higher Education. The intention is to bring forward legislation which will provide the National Assembly with new powers over the fees charged for higher education and over the support provided in higher education.

  We have already announced our intention, subject to Parliamentary approval, for the relevant proposals in the Higher Education White Paper such as allowing Universities to set their own fees for individual courses and removing the barrier of students having to pay fees up front—to take effect from the 2006–07 academic year. We would envisage that the National Assembly for Wales should receive the necessary powers over the tuition fee regime in time for this. We also believe that September 2006 would also be the earliest admissions round for which it would be practical to transfer the student support system to Wales.

  Our officials will continue to work on taking forward the detail of these proposals and reporting back when further details are available.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Volcanic Activity (Montserrat)
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Major volcanic activity took place on Montserrat between 12 and 14 July. This included a substantial collapse of the volcano dome, with associated pyroclastic flows and a number of explosions. Most of the volcanic flows have been to the evacuated eastern part of the island and out to sea. However, there has been heavy ash fall, and fall of rock fragments over all the inhabited parts of Montserrat. There are no reports of casualties or injuries. However, the ash fall has resulted in some damage to infrastructure plus substantial damage to crops and Montserrat's ecology. The ash has also affected other nearby islands and there has been some disruption to air traffic. The scientists monitoring the volcano advise that further activity, e.g. small explosions, can be expected in the next few days.

  DFID is continuing to work closely with the Montserrat authorities. The Government of Montserrat is managing and co-ordinating a major ash cleaning programme. We will be assisting this, and are liaising with the Government and regional donor partners to assess immediate needs and provide appropriate responses. We will continue to keep the situation under close review.

  DFID has prov ded substantial emergency and development assistance for Montserrat— over £180 million—since the start of the volcanic crisis in 1995, with a further £45.6 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06. We will continue to work with the Government of Montserrat to help achieve its ultimate goal of returning to self-sufficiency.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Communications Act.

Guantanamo Bay Detainees
11.5 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many representations they have made to the United States Government concerning Guantanamo Bay and its detained "unlawful combatants", as they are described by the United States Administration; and what was the outcome of their representations.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, from the outset, the Government have urged the United States Government to resolve the position of the detainees. The Government are currently making vigorous representations to the United States Government about the future of the UK detainees at Guantanamo Bay. These representations cover a range of issues, including the need for any trials of UK detainees to be fair and to accord with international law, as well as the possible return of the detainees to the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will raise this matter with the President of the United States in the course of his imminent visit to Washington.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the Prime Minister is resolute and unequivocal on this matter, he will certainly have the backing of the entire nation? Does she also agree that, important as the British subjects obviously are—still waiting, with their families, to learn the nature of the charges—the matter is much greater than those British subjects? It is the whole issue of human rights and the international rule of law. Does she agree that the whole purpose of the stand against global terrorism is to preserve human rights and the international rule of law? Does she further agree that that stand is certainly not so that the powerful can unilaterally rewrite international law and their interpretation of the applicability of human rights? Finally, does she agree that the danger in this
966
situation is that it is proving to be a very effective recruiting agent, through disillusion, dismay and even anger, for the extremist terrorists?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the last occasion that we discussed this issue in your Lordships' House, when I repeated a Statement, very similar points were made about the wider implications of what is happening in relation to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I believe I said then that I felt that the issues did go wider, as did the one concerning the British nationals, and that it was in the United States Government's own interests to resolve them along the lines of the norms of international law. Were they not to do so, they would themselves find that there would be those who felt that the United States Government had not lived up to their own high standards.
However, I should say to my noble friend that our first issue must be that of our own nationals. The matter on which many people in the United Kingdom are focused concerns the two British individuals among the group of six originally designated by the United States. Of course my right honourable friend will be concentrating on those British nationals in the first instance. However, I take my noble friend's broader points, and I believe that they are widely recognised by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it probably does not make much legal sense to think in terms of the repatriation of these two accused individuals, but that that makes it all the more important to insist, as has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on due process, proper trial proceedings, proper representation and clear charges? Does she accept that while noble Lords on these Benches recognise all the legal problems of trying to bring the two individuals back to this country, we think that the principles of due process are absolutely essential and should be pressed with the utmost vigour?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, the issue of the possible return of the detainees to the United Kingdom is still a matter under discussion, although, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, it is not possible for the United Kingdom Government to give any guarantees even about a trial taking place because of the separation of powers—rightly—between the Government in the form of Government Ministers and the Crown Prosecution Service as the body which would decide whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.
However, the noble Lord is quite right to remark that the issues adduced by him of due process and the right to a fair trial still arise. Further, there are widely recognised international norms covering the various elements that constitute a fair trial which my right honourable friend will be addressing with the President of the United States.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in the course of his discussions on this topic, will the Prime Minister impress upon Mr Bush the point that if he thinks that

967
the procedures of the military commissions are fair, then the presence of international observers at the hearings, in particular in relation to the British nationals, may promote confidence in the fairness and integrity of those proceedings? If they are not fair, the constructive criticism that would result may at the very least help the authorities to modify those procedures or, it is hoped, cause them to abandon such procedures altogether.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord may be premature at this stage; we are still discussing what those procedures should be. If the trials as originally formulated by the United States authorities do go ahead, I think that there would be grave difficulties as regards any observers feeling that those trials would be fair on the basis that we have already discussed. There is no secret about this issue. The United Kingdom Government have very strong reservations about what is being proposed at the moment. However, to take the point that were some of those issues to be resolved and the trials to go ahead, I can agree with the noble Lord that the presence of international observers would provide something of a confidence boost to the international community. As my noble friend Lord Judd pointed out, this is a question not just for the United Kingdom but also for the international community.
However, we must recognise that some of the issues which may be brought up at those trials may have to be dealt with in camera, for very obvious security reasons.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the conditions under which these individuals are being held in Guantanamo Bay would be unacceptable within the British prison system or, indeed, within the prison system in the United States? Given that those conditions have been oppressive, many of us seek assurances that, if the individuals are brought to trial, it should not happen in circumstances where they have been, so to speak, coerced and oppressed into possibly pleading guilty and are not able to speak up for themselves after the period that they have been held in detention. Enormous concerns will be raised about the way in which such trials will be conducted, given the circumstances surrounding the detention of these people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two issues. We have made representations to the United States Government in regard to the physical conditions under which the individuals are held—for example, the inadequate facilities for exercise and the inadequate facilities for contact with their families. Representatives of the International Red Cross have visited Guantanamo Bay and are giving their advice to the United States Government.
968
The more difficult issue pinpointed by my noble friend concerns coercion. It might be argued that a system of plea-bargaining where the alternative to admitting to charges is to face the death penalty is a coercive and difficult line of pre-trial cross-examination.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the issue of coercion, is it correct that these men are denied access to an advocate of their own choice? If it could be agreed with America that the men could choose their own advocates—and there are some very fine ones in America—that would perhaps go some way.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the United States proposes that individuals should be given an advocate chosen from a panel of military lawyers. If an individual does not want to go along with such an arrangement, there may be an opportunity for him to go to an alternative lawyer, but that lawyer will still be drawn from a panel of lawyers who have been vetted by the United States for security purposes. I understand that those are the proposals currently under discussion.
These matters are still under discussion with the United States. As I indicated when we last debated this issue, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is dealing with these matters with his opposite number, Colin Powell. He has raised the serious concerns that we have over the kind of issues raised by the noble Lord and they have agreed that discussions on them will continue.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am sorry, we have already drifted well over time.

Olympic Games 2012
11.15 a.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made to secure a successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, Barbara Cassani has been selected as the leader for the London bid and is actively recruiting a high quality team. Work is well advanced on the preparation of a development strategy for the Olympics zone in the Lower Lea Valley that will also meet local regeneration aspirations and be of lasting value to the community. Work is also under way on the development of a robust transport solution for the games. Government, the Mayor and

969
the British Olympic Association are fully committed to supporting the London hid team in the preparation of a top-class winning bid.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, we warmly welcome the Government's strong support for the London bid, which we share. I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister is on record as saying that he will,
"back the bid to the hilt",
which of course means that it is inconceivable that we will lose. So why are the Government, alone among all the competing bids, to preside over cuts in the world-class performance programmes to support our young elite sportsmen and women on whom our hopes of medal success depend? And why, when the Government are introducing a welcome Olympics lottery game, are they considering taxing the proceeds and not reinvesting the tax take into the Olympics bid?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, there are two aspects to encouraging sport. First, there is the aspect of elite sport, which concerns those who will be competing soon. We have allocated £58 million to elite sport in the past financial year. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly in the longer term, there is the money spent on sport in schools and clubs and on coaching and so on. On this aspect we have allocated £1.2 billion for the period 2002–06.
As to funding and lottery money, it is estimated by Ove Arup that the total cost of holding the games would be £3.6 billion, of which £2.5 billion would be met from revenue, with the remainder coming from a funding package from the Government and the Mayor including £1.5 billion. As the funding package amounts to £2.4 billion, it can be seen that there is ample provision for any revenue shortfall.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the case for the bid would be immeasurably strengthened if Crossrail could be completed by 2012? This would undoubtedly represent an important part of the robust transport solution to which he referred in his Answer. Why is it not possible for the hybrid legislation to be brought forward and introduced in April so that the necessary planning can be undertaken for the line to be up and running by the time the games start?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the bid is being prepared on the basis that Crossrail will not be available by 2012. Indeed, Transport for London, the Mayor's organisation, has stated that it does not expect it to be available until 2013–14. That is why the bid has to be prepared without Crossrail. However, the Olympics zone in the Lower Lea Valley is served by no fewer than six rail lines, in addition to the motorway-standard part of the A12.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the development of grass roots sports will be of absolutely no use to the Olympics bid if those athletes are not prepared properly for international competition? We
970
must make sure that the connection between the two is seamless. Can the Minister assure the House that the Paralympics are seen as a partner in the process and not simply as a tag-on? Even if they are a junior partner, they should be seen to be integrated from the very beginning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord as regards his first question. That is why, in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I referred to both elite sports and grass roots sports. As to the Paralympics, the International Olympic Committee sees the Olympics and the Paralympics together. No bid which devalues the Paralympics will have any hope of success, and we recognise that in the way in which we are preparing our bid.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a resident in Greater London, may I ask the Minister how much of the cost of staging the Olympics here will fall on the council tax payers of London and how long it will take to be discharged?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, sharing that interest, I understand that the Mayor proposes that there should be an addition to the council tax, which would start only if and when the bid is successful, roughly for a period of 10 years. It would be approximately £20 on band D of the council tax for each of those years.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, if the bid were to be unsuccessful, what would he the cost?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, £17 million.

Smoking in Government and Parliamentary Buildings
11.20 a.m.
Baroness Gale Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the statement of the Chief Medical Officer in his Annual Report 2002 that the public sector, particularly central government departments and the health service, should take a lead and this year set dates by which their premises should become entirely smoke-free; and whether this should apply to the Parliamentary Estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government are studying carefully all the recommendations made by the Chief Medical Officer. We shall consider how they can be taken forward with all government departments, including the health service. Smoking policies within the Parliamentary Estate are, of course, the responsibility of the parliamentary authorities.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply but, once again, I have to say how disappointed I am with his response. Does he agree that there is now overwhelming evidence to show that

971
passive smoking causes ill health in adults, and especially in children, who suffer from asthma and other chest complaints? Does he further agree that the Chief Medical Officer's strong recommendation should not be ignored, and that every employee should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment, especially those who work on the Parliamentary Estate? May I say, in the nicest possible way, that I wish the Government would stop dragging their feet on this issue and implement these recommendations as soon as possible?
Lord Warner: My Lords, let me reassure my noble friend that the last thing we are going to do is ignore the Chief Medical Officer's advice. We agree that there is overwhelming evidence of the damage to health caused by second-hand smoke to both adults and children. We agree that smoke-free places are the ideal, and good progress has been made in this area. We will be following a strategy to encourage this improvement.
The recent publication by the Office for National Statistics shows that, for the first time, 50 per cent of workplaces do not allow smoking at all. That is up from 40 per cent in 1996. It confirms that most people want restrictions on smoking in restaurants and pubs. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Department of Health has set a good example by making all its buildings smoke-free since April.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister does not detect some underlying frustration in the CMO's report at the failure of the Department of Health to come to an agreement with the DTI on the introduction of the code of practice on workplace smoking. Is it not high time that the Department of Health got the DTI to agree to the ACOP and introduced it?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer recommends that very serious consideration should be given to introducing a ban on smoking in public places. This issue is still being considered within government and I have nothing to add since earlier discussions.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as always, I declare an interest, as a member of the Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club. While acknowledging the perseverance of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on this subject, is it not getting rather close to an abuse of Question Time in that she asked a virtually identical question in this House on 1st July? Does the Minister agree with the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—who is not in his place—when he said on that occasion,
"do the Government accept that it should be a principle of liberal democracy that government should interfere with people's lives as little as possible, and that further bans should be very carefully justified before the detail of government regulations extend into every aspect of our private lives?"?—[Official Report, 1/7/03; col. 721.]
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is not for me to comment, other than to say that I am always pleased to answer Questions from my noble friend on this subject.
972
As regards the quote that the noble Lord read out, I do not think that we can duck out of the fact that smoking, as the Government's Chief Medical Officer has said, is a great danger to health. That is an inescapable fact and it would be an irresponsible government who were not taking forward a range of programmes to make the public aware of these dangers and to deal with issues around tobacco advertising. I do not think that the Government feel in any way repentant about that particular issue. We are aware of some of the issues surrounding a ban, but we think that increasing public awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke exposure is a significant way forward.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the chemicals to which people are exposed through second-hand smoke include arsenic, DDT, formaldehyde—which they say is used as a preservative for dead bodies—hydrogen cyanide—which is referred to as a gas chamber poison—Polonium 210, which is a radioactive compound, and toluene, which is an industrial solvent? If these facts were more widely known, would people not give up of their own accord?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I bow to my noble friend's knowledge in this area. He is of course right that cigarettes carry very dangerous compounds and we know that smoking kills over 120,000 people in the UK each year. The good news is that there has been a rise in the number of people quitting since 1999, and about 270,000 people have quit.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I take the Minister back to the reply he gave when the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, asked when the Government were going to give their official position on the ACOP. I remind the Minister that the Health and Safety Executive finished consultation in 1999 and we have still not had the Government's official position on the implementation or acceptance of the ACOP. When will he tell us?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are still carefully considering this report. As I have already said, work is in hand on a large number of other initiatives which are tackling the problems of smoking.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Will the Minister inform us whether the contractors working in government departments and on the Parliamentary Estate are being advised that smoking is not acceptable, given the dangers to themselves, quite apart from the dangers of passive smoking to other people working in government areas?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I recall, matters for the Parliamentary Estate are for the parliamentary authorities, not for the department. On the wider issue

973
it is, of course, the responsibility of employers to make sure that their employees are not exposed to unnecessary dangers.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister not surprised, following all the gloomy information which has been imparted to us, that there are so many old people still surviving in this Chamber?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it has been suggested that the formaldehyde might play a part in this.

NHS: Working Time Directive
11.28 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the impact on the National Health Service of the coming into force of the European Working Time Directive in August 2004.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we move seamlessly from smoking to the Working Time Directive. The directive already applies to all NHS staff except doctors in training, to whom it will he extended from August 2004. The Department of Health is actively working with the NHS and the medical profession to implement this change in ways which will benefit both patients and staff. Solutions will vary from NHS trust to NHS trust, but will include using staff differently by, for example, creating night teams to staff hospitals out of hours.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. If I were of a suspicious frame of mind, I would wonder whether I had left my prepared supplementary lying around in the Library. The Minister's honourable friend, Mr Hutton, stated in a press release today:
"Further measures were announced today by the Department of Health to ensure that the NHS complies with its obligations".
The directive goes on to say much of what the Minister has already said. This, very sensibly, involves talking to the strategic health authorities. Is the Minister aware that the department has only seven months before the eagle eye of the Commission will be directed at this country on that particular matter? At the end of that time, he will have run out of time to use the derogation for extending the time limit beyond August next year for another two years.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have not seen the noble Lord's prepared supplementary, but I reassure him that we have not been sitting idly by. He may not be aware that some time ago we set up a Working Time Directive expert group, which had on it people from the Royal Colleges, the JCCs, the NHS Confederation and other key stakeholders, who have been working together on the issue. There are 19 Working Time
974
Directive pilots that have been going on for some time, which are working out new ways of working locally that will help to deal with the implementation. A great deal of action is taking place in that area, and we have been putting aside money for the pilot sites and to help trusts to implement the Working Time Directive when it comes into force.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister talks about actions being taken, pilots, discussions and so on and so forth. Is it not the fact that the NHS is not yet ready for the introduction of the Working Time Directive in the particular area identified? Why does he not accept the suggestion of the Royal College of Physicians that the introduction of the Working Time Directive be delayed?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are not convinced that the Working Time Directive does need to be delayed. I can certainly write to the noble Lord. I shall not bore noble Lords with all the details, but I can refer to the 19 pilot sites, where some very interesting work is going on about the way in which pressure can be taken off senior house officers, for example. We can reorganise the work so that out-of-hours services are producing benefits for patients as well as coping with the Working Time Directive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how he can reconcile his remarks that he is quite confident that everything will be all right in 2004 with the press reports which indicate that many accident and emergency wards might have to close because there will simply not be enough junior trainee doctors to handle the work?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness a happy birthday. As part of her birthday gift, I assure her that we do not accept that services will close as a result of implementing the Working Time Directive. I draw the House's attention to the fact that we have implemented the Working Time Directive for other NHS staff—for a much larger group of people. That came into force in 1998.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what the cost of the introduction will be, and whether it is already included in the public expenditure forecasts in the Red Book?
Lord Warner: My Lords, what I can say is that we know that the Government have committed themselves to increasing NHS funding by on average 7.4 per cent in real terms in England over the next five years. That includes provision for the impact of the Working Time Directive. We have also set aside £46 million over the next three years to help trusts to implement the directive. More than £5 million has already been dispersed so far this year to the 19 Working Time Directive pilot sites that are trialing new and better ways in which to work.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister inform us what action the Government are taking to manage the tension between the local delivery of services and the need for a critical mass of specialists to manage very sick patients on a 24x7 basis?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have already put in place a large increase of well over 1,000 extra specialist registrars. They will be concentrating the allocation of those posts in the trusts that might have the greatest difficulty in tackling the problems around the Working Time Directive.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Working Time Directive also applies to railway workers. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury recently told the industry, through this House, that it had known about that since 1999 and should have been fully prepared. Presumably my noble friend the Minister has taken that advice himself, and will be fully prepared for the extra year that the medical workers have been given, beyond those on the railways, so that everything will be in order by next August.
Lord Warner: My Lords, you will be astonished to know that I am not briefed on the question of railway workers. That subject is a little wide of the Question.
Lord Chan: My Lords, in the matter of the long-term solution, surely we need to ensure that our medical students are being trained in sufficient numbers. Will the Minister give us information about that, and tell us whether in any way the changes will mean that we still have to recruit people from developing countries?
Lord Warner: I assure the noble Lord that we have made significant investments in training postgraduate doctors. By 2005–06, we will be spending £1.4 billion on postgraduate medical and dental training. That is a 22 per cent increase over three years.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we have run out of time.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
11.35 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 9th September to allow the Motion in the name of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
11.36 a.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.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 78 [Statutory revaluation cycle]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 71:
Leave out Clause 78.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the requirement for a statutory revaluation cycle from the Bill. We have two objections to a statutory revaluation cycle. First, we question why revaluation is necessary at all. Secondly, we question why it should be undertaken on the basis of a statutory cycle rather than in accordance with perceived need.
We had a long debate about revaluation in the Grand Committee. We queried why the Government had opted for a 10-year cycle. There is, it turns out, no particular magic about a 10-year cycle—it is simply what appears to be a convenient administrative period.
Statutory revaluations will take council tax further towards being solely a property tax, which is not what it was intended to be. Council tax was originally devised as a tax which was part property based and part service based. As the Minister is aware, wholly property-based taxation has proved unpopular in the past. Moving back towards the rates is not the way to go. Given that council tax is part property tax and part service tax, logically we might argue that there should also be a statutory valuation cycle for the costs of providing public services in each local authority area. Inflation in the costs of providing services has also risen differentially over the past 10 years across the country and had a huge impact on local authorities, especially those around London.
If the Government suggest that that is taken into consideration through the operation of the financial formulas, then we could point to the way in which grant was distributed last year, which clearly demonstrates that the Government can load the council tax burden differentially on different parts of the country in accordance with their own policy dictates. That is, in fact, precisely the effect of revaluation. It is clear that house prices have risen much faster in London and other parts of the South of the country than they have elsewhere. Since 1991, house prices in some parts of London have gone up by 175 per cent, compared to an average rise across the country of 90 per cent. The effect of that will be that council tax payers in these parts of the country will see their council tax bills rise dramatically as their houses move up one or even two council tax bands.
Let us remember that there is very little correlation between the differential rise in property value and the rise in average incomes—a fact recognised by the Government in their White Paper. So ability to pay

977
becomes a significant issue. Then there is of course the double whammy effect. Not only will council tax payers have to pay more because they have moved up a band or two but, precisely because of that movement, large amounts of grant will be shifted away from London, the South West, the South East and the East of the country to the Midlands and the North. That is likely to create further upward pressure on council tax bills.
The net effect of the measure is that people in the parts of the country that the Government do not favour will pay much more council tax than those elsewhere. For example, the New Policy Institute calculates that following a revaluation, 75 per cent of people living in London will pay more council tax than 90 per cent of people in the North of the country. It is simply not the case that 75 per cent of Londoners are better off than 90 per cent of people living in the North. That is unfair and the effects will lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction around the country.
Let me now turn to the question of a fixed revaluation cycle. As my noble friend Lord Caithness explained in Committee, the original decision to set property bands was an attempt to avoid the expense and time-consuming process of revaluation. Revaluation is undoubtedly an expensive and time-consuming operation. We certainly would not wish to see a revaluation carried out unnecessarily.
What, then, is the purpose of a fixed time period? No one says, "It has been a few years since we last had a valuation; let us have another one". The purpose of a revaluation is to correct grossly disproportionate movements in the housing market. It may be that over a 10-year period those movements are negligible, as they were for much of the 1950s and 1960s, and that going through the expense of a revaluation cycle is unnecessary. However, it may be that house prices are so volatile that it would make sense, so far as this Government are concerned, to have revaluations much more frequently than that. Why, then, do the Government not move away from the concept of a fixed time period for revaluations and instead consider fixing revaluation to the actual movement of house prices in the market?
If that is, indeed, what the Government are seeking to address, why do they not fix in statute that once the divergence in house prices across the regions has reached a certain level, a revaluation has to take place within the next two years? It seems to me that the Government's approach lacks imagination, is old-fashioned and is unfair, particularly to people in the East, the South East and London. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord identifies the problem but the solution is entirely wrong. Let us scrap council tax. That is all I need to say.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I wish it were that simple. In essence property taxes ought to be simple to administer and collect. They certainly were
978
when we had rates. We are trying to reach the happy position of transparency and clarity in the way in which the tax works.
Clause 78 inserts a new Section 22B into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 creating a statutory cycle for council tax revaluation in England and Wales. We think that is a wise course of action. We think that it is necessary and that is why we have the clauses in the Bill and why we intend to press ahead and seek parliamentary approval for the clauses.
We have not done this without giving the matter thought. Neither have we done it without talking to people. We have consulted extensively on the issue of revaluation. We have had a Green Paper, a White Paper and finally last summer a draft Bill and then a Bill brought before your Lordships' House after going through another place. Perhaps it would make sense if I quoted some of the reactions to the draft Bill to help focus minds.
The Society of County Treasurers said that it,
"generally welcomes the proposed changes to council tax, including the revaluation of property values every 10 years".
The Local Government Association, in which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is a major participant,
"welcomed the proposed changes to the council tax"
and went on to say that,
"we support the intention to hold a revaluation in 2005 … and regular revaluations at least every ten years thereafter".
The LGA has repeated its support for revaluation in its briefing on the Bill dated 4th July.
There were also responses from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups at the LGA. The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, said,
"fixed cycles for revaluation arc helpful",
while the Conservative Group leader, Councillor Gordon Keymer, wrote in June 2002 that:
"We support the intention to hold a new revaluation in 2005 and regular revaluations thereafter".
I wonder which Conservative Party I am talking to. Is it the one of which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is a member, or is it that of Councillor Gordon Keymer, a leading Conservative LGA spokesman so far as I can recall?
The Government have a clear position on statutory revaluation. Judging from the kind of reactions we have had from experts in local government, I find it rather surprising that noble Lords opposite want to remove the clause creating a statutory revaluation cycle. There will be some difficulties with it and no doubt there will have to be some very careful thought given to the way in which it works but it is clear and transparent and people understand the process. Property values shift over time and as we are in the business of having a property tax, there are swings and roundabouts in that process. However, we believe that this is the right course of action and that it is right to make it plain within the Bill. Having said all of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, I wish to draw his attention again to the survey that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield mentioned, which has been carried out for the Association of London Government. I declare an interest as a member of a London authority.
It is abundantly clear from the survey that what is important is how a revaluation is conducted—the amendment we are discussing ensures that we debate this matter—and what its effect is. The survey's findings are absolute dynamite with regard to London. Property values will inevitably go up substantially but the shift of resources in terms of the revenue support grant between London and the South East—
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether this is an intervention or a speech and remind her that this is Report stage?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am making a short intervention which I shall now finish. Does the Minister appreciate that there would be a vast shift of resources between the South East and the North West if the revaluation was carried out?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that brief intervention which sounded more like a speech to me. Perhaps it was a brief intervention.
I believe that only this week we received the ALG survey. We recognise it simply as a useful contribution to the debate. Knowing the veracity with which the ALG approaches these matters, and knowing its chief official very well, as does the noble Baroness, I am sure that this is its opening shot in a campaign. One respects it for that. We shall obviously study the survey closely and reflect upon it. As I say, it is a useful contribution to the debate but it does not undermine the case for having revaluation and revaluation cycles.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. Before I was a member of this House—I am wearing my LGA hat—I remember meeting the then Minister of State for local government, Hilary Armstrong, and talking about revaluation. I agree that the LGA as a body has talked about revaluation. Hilary Armstrong said that no way would the Labour Government make the same mistake as the Conservative government and have a revaluation as that led to the community charge/poll tax as a result of the tremendous variation and changes after revaluation.
I also remember the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, saying in Grand Committee that he did not want to make the same mistakes as the Conservative government. Here the government are falling into the biggest trap of all with revaluation. Having begun to assess what a revaluation means, having seen Sir Robin Wales, the leader of the ALG, this week, and having done more work ourselves on the effects of revaluation on great chunks of the country, we feel
980
that much more thought needs to go into this before we agree to a blanket revaluation. Therefore, we feel that we should test the opinion of the House.
11.50 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kingsland, L.

Attlee, E.

Luke, L.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L

Bowness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Coe, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fowler, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharpies, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Higgins, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Chester, Bp.

Addington, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Alderdice, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Amos, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Andrews, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dholakia, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dixon, L.

Blood, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Ezra, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Falkland, V.

Carter, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

981

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L

Filkin, L.

Morgan, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gavron, L.

Orme, L.

Golding, B.

Paul, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rennard, L.

Greengross, B.

Richard, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rooker, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Haskel, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sewel, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sheldon, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Hughes of Woodside, L

Taverne, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jones, L.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Turnberg, L

King of West Bromwich, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

Lipsey, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Livsey of Talgarth. L.

Whitaker, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wigoder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

McNally, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Noon
Clause 79 [Power to change number of valuation bands]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 42, line 27, at end insert ", provided that such change does not alter the ratio between the top and bottom band.
() The power under subsection (4A) shall not be used to alter the ratio between the top and bottom bands set out in subsection (1).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 72, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The amendment would ensure a measure of protection to homeowners from steep increases in council tax, along the lines discussed in the previous amendment. For the first time, council tax levels have now breached an average of £1,000. We have reached a situation in which steep, year-on-year rises in council tax are becoming unacceptable.
I sincerely believe that, on top of the sleep rises we have seen this year, there is a danger that the whole system could be brought into disrepute by changing the structure of the council tax substantially. I appreciate that the amendments would move beyond
982
the original 1992 legislation by imposing a limit on the band-ratio differentiation. I shall explain why we are proposing the safeguard.
As I pointed out in our discussion on the previous amendment, when it was established, council tax was part property tax, part tax on services. There was a great deal of debate about that in Committee, but council tax was introduced on that basis, and the structure of discounts built into the system indicates the tax's double aspect.
It would therefore not be right, or in conformity with the principles under which council tax was established, simply to replicate in the council tax ratios the difference in banded house prices. The fact that the council tax pays, in part, for services must act as a drag on the growth of bands or on the increase in ratios between them. That is only logical and I think we can all sign up to it.
We all know that council tax is regressive. Its impact on people on a low income is greater than its impact on people on a high income. I accept that as a fact. What I dispute, and it is an extremely dangerous assumption, is the supposition that those people living in more expensive properties are necessarily those with the highest levels of disposable income.
In many parts of my own county, and I am sure in other places across the country, it is the elderly. who have worked hard all their lives to buy a nice house, who occupy some of the largest properties. However, they are also the group with the lowest levels of disposable income in the county.
We have to be careful, therefore, about assuming that the unfair, regressive nature of the tax can be remedied by increasing the amount paid by people living in large properties. It was also suggested in Grand Committee that people in the South East were benefiting unfairly from the current council tax structure. Let us not forget that although we have a common structure of council tax bands, the amount that people pay in each band varies across the country.
Across the South East last year, there were huge council tax rises—17 per cent in Essex; 18 per cent in Surrey; 18.3 per cent in Suffolk; 19 per cent in Hertfordshire and over 20 per cent in East Sussex. As we know, even higher rises were seen in parts of London. The Government have already made clear their intention to shift the tax burden on to homeowners in the South East through their adjustments to the grant distribution mechanism. Our amendment would achieve some measure of protection to prevent the further penalisation of those homeowners.
We should also bear in mind that we live in an age when mortgage companies seem to be prepared to lend more and more money against smaller incomes. It may be that people living in large houses are actually carrying relatively high levels of debt. The value of property seems, from a number of angles, to be an unsafe proxy for the ability to pay and we should therefore be cautious about changing the structure of the tax system.
As I have said on previous occasions, I am not fully wedded to the existing ratio. However, it would be helpful if the Government were to introduce a ceiling ratio mechanism. At the same time, when there is already so much unrest about the levels of council tax, it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure people that there will be no move to increase the existing band ratios. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall return briefly to the survey. I know that the Minister has not seen it, but it is extremely important. One issue that it addresses is the impact of the introduction of more bands. It has been suggested in the debate that if there were higher bands that would be more helpful to those in lower bands. However, it has now been pointed out that that would not be helpful at all and would not soften the blow for anybody. In London the average council tax bill would go up and the potential loss of grant would be very substantial indeed. It is estimated that London could lose more than £400 million to the North and the North West and that the impact of the increase in council tax could be very serious. There needs to be a careful review of the number of bands and the ratio between them. One of the points that we have made is that the ratio should remain at the same level as it is now.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is like an all-us-southerners-stick-together day. It is an unfair way to introduce the Government's response to the amendment, but, first, I am not here to speak for London and, secondly, I know nothing about the survey. I have not seen any of its results. I am here to speak for fairness for council tax payers. The present system is not completely fair, as we all know. I agree with very much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said.
It would seem simple merely to change the ratio, but if that is predicated on the assumption that people who live in big houses have big incomes, that is wrong and it would blow up in one's face. The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is no correlation between disposable income and the size and value of one's property, for the very reason that he gave; namely, that elderly people have invested their life savings and income in property, knowing that they would live on a lower income. Making the changes can appear seductive, but one makes them at one's peril if one ignores those kind of circumstances.
However, the amendment would remove the powers to change the three-to-one ratio. Most council tax payers do not have a clue what we are on about. They may know what band they are in; they may see six or seven bands on their council tax bill and they may know they are in the lower band. However, by and large, they do not see anyone else's council tax bill and, in general, most of their neighbours will be paying the same kind of figure. Houses do vary in a street, but, by and large, the same kind of figure is being paid. It will never cross their minds that the person who is living in a property that is worth £300,000 will not ever pay more than three times the council tax that the person in the lowest property band—up to £40,000—is paying.
984
They will say, "Hang on a minute. There is a big difference between £300,000 and £40,000. It's rather more than three to one, for a start". The ratio is artificial.
It reminds me of the metaphorical ghost of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He was quite unabashed when he introduced the council tax. It was the great fix, at the end of the poll tax under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. He was charged with coming up with a solution to the poll tax. He came in waving his papers like "peace in our time". He was quite unabashed about the reason for the three-to-one ratio, and that was that he did not want the rich to pay too much. I paraphrase what he said, but he was quite open about the reason for the capping. It is not a capping to help poor people; it is a capping to help, by and large, those in bigger houses, notwithstanding the point that there is no direct correlation with disposable income.
We discussed the matter in Committee and I do not want to go into further details. However, there would he a problem if we were to accept the amendment. We would not be able to change the ratio to reflect more closely the relative values of bands and we will not know what they will be until a revaluation takes place.
We have not yet decided whether we will change the ratio, but it does not make sense to limit our powers in this area, especially as we know that the existing ratio does not reflect the relative spread of values. Obviously, when a revaluation takes place, the differential changes that have occurred in the country will result in different figures.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 would mean that the Government could not make significant reforms to the banding scheme. They would limit the way in which we could operate the bands to prevent the creation of new bands at the top end. I understand that noble Lords are concerned about the exercise of these powers, but constraining them in this way is not a sensible way to proceed.
Any change to the banding schemes, whether this be in revaluing the bands, adding new bands or changing the ratio to the bands, must be made by an order that is subject to the affirmative resolution in the House of Commons. That will provide the proper parliamentary scrutiny for a change in the local taxation system.
Amendment No. 73 seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce sub-national differences in council tax bands. As we have said on a number of occasions in this House and in another place, we already have sufficient powers in the existing Local Government Finance Act 1992 to introduce regional banding if we choose. The powers to change council tax bands, or the proportions between them, are exercised by an order under Section 5 of that Act.
Section 113(1) of that Act makes it clear that powers to make orders under the provisions of that Act, including Section 5, may be so exercised as to make different provision for different cases, or different descriptions of case, including different provisions to different areas or for different authorities. Therefore, potentially massive change could take place under the

985
legislation and I presume that the provisions in the 1992 Act were originally made in that Act and have not arrived as a result of later amendments.
The facility to make changes was therefore built into that Act, but the changes were not made because it was early days. I fully accept that the council tax was new. It was a quick-fix solution for disposing of the poll tax without returning to the rating system. There would be considerable difficulties and restrictions if we were to accept the amendments, but we have no plans to change the ratio of 3:1 and any such changes would be contemplated only after examining the relative changes following revaluation and the necessary research. In that I include social research, economic research and, I suspect, political research.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. His final comment about political research was a wise one. I remember as a young councillor going to a meeting addressed by Margaret Thatcher and attended by about 1,000 people. People were virtually screaming against the rates because they had become such an unpopular tax. We talk now about the unpopularity of the poll tax/community charge, but we forget that the rates were extremely unpopular with a great bulk of the population. That is why the Government came up with that idea.
I believe that we are coming to the end of the council tax. There is a growing group of retired people—it is called "Support the Retired"—which is spreading like wildfire across the South and the East. I have been summoned to a large meeting in eastern England in two or three weeks' time to defend the outrageous levels of council tax. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, might like to come with me.
We are moving this series of amendments because careful thought must be given to an alternative to the council tax. Nick Raynsford, the Minister for local government, has instituted work on the different systems of revenue for councils, but that is not for today. We shall return to the subject on Third Reading, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
"COUNCIL TAX APPEALS

(1) Schedule 11 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) (tribunals) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 11(1)(a) there is inserted—

"(aa) an appeal which includes an issue of valuation arising out of a decision or order which is given or made by a tribunal on an appeal under section 23 above, shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal:"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Caithness tabled a probing amendment which sought to correct an unfair
986
anomaly that exists to frustrate any council tax payer from appealing against council tax assessment on anything other than a point of law.
Currently, once an appeal has been made to the valuation tribunal, a council tax payer is prevented by Schedule 11 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 from appealing against a decision of the tribunal on anything other than a point of law to the High Court. Valuation tribunals are not "expert" tribunals. They are composed mainly of lay members and do not have valuation experts. Although the lay members perform the same role as do magistrates in that they are experts on their own, it means that a council tax payer cannot put his case to someone who is a professional in council tax.
It is proposed that instead the council tax payer should have the opportunity to appeal to the Lands Tribunal on valuation grounds. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 seeks to provide an appeal route for decisions that have been made by a valuation tribunal in respect of council tax. This matter was expertly raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He kindly wrote to my noble friend Lord Rooker about it and we give notice that following today's considerations we will be replying in full to that correspondence.
There is a difference between council tax and non-domestic rates when it comes to appeals on decision by valuation tribunals. I appreciate that this lacks symmetry, but that was a conscious decision on the part of the previous administration at the time the council tax was introduced. We consider that the distinction is still valid.
It might aid our debate if I quote what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said on the matter on 27th January 1992, when the Bill, which became the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was then in Committee. While discussing the equivalent provisions for Scotland, he said that,
"valuation appeals under the council tax will essentially be very simple, relating as they will only to questions of capital value. That is a very different matter from some of the arcane and complex rating issues which are the special responsibility of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. We do not, in other words, envisage that the specialist knowledge and experience of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court will be required in order to determine council tax valuation appeals".—[Official Report, 27/1/92; col. 1154.]
That was how the previous administration saw the position.
While Amendment No. 76 does not seek to provide for an appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, which is a Scottish court, similar principles apply. The Lands Tribunal in England, like the Land Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland, has specialist expertise in matters of land valuation.
The key point here is that council tax does not require the detailed specialist valuation expertise of the Lands Tribunal. Council tax valuations are to bands of valuations and are capital values, not rental values. There is a big difference. We agree that there needs to be a mechanism for appeals on points of law, hut this is properly to the High Court, and we have that

987
mechanism. We are not convinced that there need to be any other grounds for appeal of a valuation tribunal decision to another body.
Perhaps in taking on board those comments, the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It dealt with the kernel of the problem but still leaves a question. The kernel of the problem is that the only appeal that a council tax payer who has a problem with the valuation tribunal decision can make is to the High Court on a matter of law. That seems to be eminently inequitable. A person will probably find it enormously difficult to find a position of law in relation to capital value. Therefore, I do not agree with the Minister that there is no need to find a better appeals system. However, for today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 76A:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—
"AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 6 OF THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ACT 1999

(1) Schedule 6 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (procedure for determining the authority's consolidated budget requirement) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 8(4) (approval of mayor's final draft budget by the assembly), for the words "at least two-thirds" there is substituted "a majority

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is different. We did not deal with this matter in Committee and I am sure that your Lordships will feel far more cheerful about considering some completely new material.
The purpose of the amendment is to correct a curious imbalance in the powers of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly on the crucially important matter of the final approval of the budget for London. It is true that the mayor is elected, but so are the members of the Greater London Assembly. Their role as the elected representatives of the various parts of London is to scrutinise the work of the mayor and to hold him to account—not least on behalf of some of the many areas of London that the mayor rarely visits.
The assembly is a democratic body with a democratic mandate and a democratic responsibility. Yet Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act allows the mayor, in effect, to bypass the Greater London Assembly and impose an unamended budget with the support of only one-third of the members of the GLA. Although the assembly can propose amendments at an earlier stage, Schedule 6 requires a two-thirds majority to amend the final budget.
I cannot conceive that the House of Commons would agree to a situation where a budget could be secured with the support of only 220 out of 659 Members of Parliament. Both the House and the
988
country would regard that as ridiculous, yet, as I understand it, that is what happens with regard to the mayor's powers in the Greater London Assembly. With the support of a minority of assembly members—nine out of the 25—in only one party out of four represented, the mayor can impose a budget. That is an odd sort of democracy, especially in a system that is supposed to be partly proportional.
The problem associated with that is that the mayor has not used that freedom terribly wisely. He has taken many opportunities to increase spending, and the precept has become a major part of Londoners' lives. Spending has increased enormously since the Greater London Assembly was set up, and 17.6 per cent of each council tax bill in London now goes to the mayor. There is nothing that Londoners or the people they have elected to represent them, either in local boroughs or, more relevant to this amendment, in the GLA, can do about that so long as the mayor has the support of just nine assembly members.
I believe there is a strong case for removing this anomaly and for giving the assembly greater power to control the mayor and to force him to carry support from at least half the elected members. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again, I declare my interests as a member of the Greater London Assembly and also as the current chair of the budget committee, which today is having to meet without me, although I am sure that it is scrutinising thoroughly what the mayor has been doing.
I am aware that the Conservative Party's candidate for the mayoral election next year announced that he would end the proportional voting system for members of the assembly. However, it seems to me that having that system in place provides a very good check and balance and a good mix, as it were, for the job that members of the assembly must do.
However—I may surprise the noble Baroness here—I agree that with regard to the budget it would be better to have the proportion that she proposes rather than the two-thirds/one-third mix, which is in place at present. The mayor's budget is the only matter on which the assembly has, in effect, a veto, and I believe that it would be preferable for the mayor to have to persuade rather more than one-third of the members of the assembly of the rightness of his proposals for each budget. Therefore, I support the noble Baroness on that issue.
However, I do not support the manner in which the noble Baroness presented the personalisation of the issue. Perhaps that is not really part of the argument; I do not know. She talked about the current mayor as though he will always be mayor. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, not to encourage him—he will not be mayor for ever! However, as I said in debate on an earlier amendment, the solutions of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the Labour Party are not the same. But on the issue of a 51 per cent vote, I support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I should first say a few words about the Greater London Assembly's budget-setting process so that we can better understand the amendment and put it in context.
Section 87 of, and Schedule 6, to the Greater London Authority Act establish the roles of the mayor and assembly in deciding budget requirements for the GLA and all its functional bodies. The GLA's budget must be finalised by the end of February each year. The first stage is for the mayor, having consulted the assembly and the functional bodies about their relevant component budgets, to draw up a draft consolidated budget. The mayor then consults the assembly about the draft budget before presenting it to the assembly at a public meeting on or before 1st February. The assembly may approve the draft, or amend it, by simple majority vote before returning it to the mayor.
The mayor then prepares a final draft budget and presents it to the assembly at a public meeting before the end of February. If the final draft does not include amendments that the assembly made to the first draft, the mayor must give reasons. The assembly will then either approve the final draft by simple majority, or amend it by a two-thirds majority. The budget, as amended, will then be the authority's budget for the coming year.
The separation of powers between mayor and assembly is central to the GLA's budget-setting process. The budget-setting procedures are intended to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the assembly's need to play a part in the formulation of policy and the determination of the mayor's priorities. They also allow the assembly to influence the levels of expenditure on the different functions and, hence, to influence the level of the council tax precept. But, because the budget is the principal tool for delivering the mayor's strategies, it is important that the procedures do not provide the assembly with unreasonable powers to amend the progress of the budget.
It is clear that the amendment would fundamentally alter the balance of power between mayor and assembly envisaged in the GLA Act, making it much easier for the assembly to override the mayor's budget. In practice, the existing arrangements have allowed the assembly to exert effective influence by causing the mayor to reduce his initial budget proposals. In any case, the Government's view is that, only three years into the GLA's existence and before the first mayoral term is complete, it is much too early to consider making fundamental changes to the new governance arrangements in London. Moreover, I believe that it could be argued that it would be wrong to make piecemeal changes to the statutory arrangements without considering the bigger picture.
The balance of power between mayor and assembly was proposed after much careful research into the working of mayoral systems in other countries. In particular, because the mayor is elected as the executive by the people of London, it is right that he or she should be in the driving seat. However, the mayor should not have the ultimate power to determine the budget against a two-thirds majority. That is the balance under the Act, and we believe that it remains a sensible one.
990
I appreciate that we are probably moving into a period of campaigning on these issues. I can see the value, particularly for noble Lords opposite, in bringing this amendment as part of their campaign for a change next year. However, we need to look longer term and think about the structures and how they work. My simple appeal today is to give this longer. Let us see how it works over time and learn from the experience of it. We should also benefit and reflect on the experience that this structure has brought, having learned from other mayoral systems in other countries.
We are happy with the current position. We appreciate that this causes difficulties for some. The balance of power has to be right—and it is right at the moment—to enable the mayor to drive through his strategies. It may change in future years. But, in electing the mayor, these strategies have been by and large endorsed by the people of London.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not think that the Local Government Bill was brought forward at this stage as part of a campaign. But it is the only measure where one can raise the question of the tensions against the mayor's overweening control. It was certainly not as part of a campaign that this amendment was tabled. It was an opportune moment to re-examine what is in the Greater London Act and the powers associated with the mayor.
One of the difficulties has always been—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to some extent agreed—that the Assembly's scrutiny position over the mayor is not as strong as perhaps other people would wish it was. One thing that has become apparent over the years since this new system was introduced is that there probably is not enough tension against the mayor by those who are providing a scrutiny role. It is very difficult for the London boroughs to affect what the mayor does. The mayor's budget is imposed on London boroughs. Therefore, it would seem to be far more sensible to have more tension against the mayor's budget proposals which are, after all, probably the only proposals over which anyone can hold him to account.
I want to reiterate my point that this was not a campaigning point. It has nothing to do with that; the Bill was a vehicle to move the amendment. If the Local Government Bill had not been here, there would be no question of this amendment or this matter being raised. But it has been for the purposes today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Vacant dwellings: use of information obtained for council tax purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
Clause 88 [Housing strategies and statements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 46, line 38, at end insert—
"() In carrying out their functions under this Part, the appropriate person and the local housing authority must have particular regard to the provisions of sections 1 to 3 of the Homelessness Act 2002 (c. 7)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 79 amends Clause 88, which deals with housing and homelessness strategies. It is a probing amendment. I hope that the Government will be able to use it as a basis for giving assurances about the priority that should be given to homelessness by local authorities, and particularly the development of effective homelessness strategies.
I am grateful to Shelter for its assistance with the amendment and, indeed, for bringing the matter to our attention. Sections 1 to 3 of the Homelessness Act 2002 require local housing authorities to carry out a review of homelessness in their area and to develop a strategy for tackling it. They must publish the strategies by July of this year.
The statutory requirements place a strong emphasis on partnership and multi-agency working, with specific duties on social services departments to assist local housing authorities in developing the strategy.
Clause 88 puts local housing strategies on a statutory basis. In practice, these requirements are similar to those that local housing authorities are already carrying out on a non-statutory basis. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make it clear that the local housing strategy document will in future form the overarching framework within which the authority should consider other policies on more specific housing issues.
There are obviously benefits in rationalising the number of strategies and allowing them to be merged in a single statement. What concerns Shelter—I ask the Minister to respond to this—is that the provisions in the Bill should not be seen as a signal that homelessness, and in particular the development of effective homelessness strategies, should be given less priority.
I hope the Minister can give us a number of assurances. First, perhaps he will make it clear that the Government continue to believe that a strategic response to homelessness remains a key priority for local authorities and that the proposals in the Bill will not detract from their statutory responsibility under the Homelessness Act.
Secondly, there is the emphasis on prevention and support. Traditionally, there has been a focus on bricks and mortar issues. But prevention and support must not be lost. I hope that the Minister will provide assurances that that is certainly where one of the focuses of homelessness strategies will be.
Thirdly, the strategy process also stresses the importance of joint working between local authority departments and in particular with social services. I understand from Shelter that local authorities have responded well to the 2002 Act and are engaging positively in the strategy process. However, there is some concern about the extent to which housing authorities and social services are working effectively together. Shelter has carried out a survey of local housing authorities. More than three-quarters said that improvements were needed in the way that they work with social services.
The Minister may feel that it is appropriate to take up the matter with colleagues in the Department of Health. I hope, as I say, that this morning provides a basis for assurances along the lines which I seek. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall make a brief response to an important issue. I make it absolutely clear that we have some sympathy with Amendment No. 79. However, we believe that we have already taken account of what it seeks to achieve.
The amendment, as the noble Baroness said, would impose an additional duty on the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, when exercising their powers under Clause 88, to require local authorities to have housing strategies. The amendment would require us and authorities to have particular regard to authorities' strategic homelessness functions.
It is of vital importance that housing and homelessness strategies support and reinforce one another. The existing guidance stresses the need for robust links between housing and homelessness strategies. We believe that the importance of this approach can be emphasised through further guidance. Therefore, there is no need to include this level of detail in statutory legislation on the face of the Bill.
I hope the noble Baroness will welcome our proposals set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill to give local authorities the option of rationalising their housing strategy, homelessness strategy and home energy conservation reports into one document. We envisage that this would improve the necessary links between the documents by reducing the overlap. It would also reduce the burden on local authorities.
However, we continue to believe that a strategic response to homelessness remains a key priority for local authorities. Clause 88 does not change the provisions in the Homelessness Act 2002. Therefore, if an authority chooses to incorporate the homelessness strategy in the broader housing strategy, the duties under the Homelessness Act still apply.
The noble Baroness is quite right: it is new legislation. It is being embraced by local authorities. We are doing everything we can within the homelessness directorates of the department to assist local authorities. We have targets for local authorities on some aspects, about which it is important that people understand—particularly in terms of those in bed and breakfasts and rough sleepers. We have an active involvement in those areas through the government offices of the regions.
Even in recent times—not in any way that is negative or chastising—I have met local authorities either at my office or when I have gone on visits and my ministerial colleague, Yvette Cooper, has done the same with about a dozen authorities where we needed to be reassured that action is in hand with a hands-on approach now to ensure that targets that are important to us, especially that for families with children in bed-and-breakfasts, are achieved next March. We are not waiting until February to find out

993
whether we are on course for that. So we are taking the matter extremely seriously—we know that local authorities are as well; there is no division between us on that.
As I said, if we need extra provision, we can provide it through guidance; we are absolutely confident of that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. I would say through her to Shelter that although everything in the garden is not rosy, we are on the case and do not see the need to write the provision into the Bill. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course, my Lords. I hope that the Minister will take further opportunities to stress the joint working that is needed between different parts of local authorities. That is never that easy—that is in no way inconsistent with what I have been saying about centralisation in debates on earlier parts of the Bill—hut further ministerial comment about the value of that would be helpful. I am grateful for the Minister's remarks and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 122 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 74, line 39, at end insert—
"() Such power to make transitional provision shall be applied to ensure that any arrangements previously lawfully made pursuant to the provisions listed in section 101(2) shall not he made unlawful."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns us to the issue of retrospection, which I raised in Grand Committee. I then said that what the Minister had said deserved rereading quietly. I have done that. Among other things, the Minister said that he agreed with the thrust of my concern, but felt that the issue could be dealt with through secondary legislation. I was having difficulty working out what secondary legislation would enable the Secretary of State to deal with my concerns. The Minister said:
"Leave it with me. I shall take further advice and, if need be, I shall write to the noble Baroness".—[Official Report, 17/6/03: GC 271.]
The Minister may have felt that to be unnecessary, but the need was mine rather than his.
I hope that in response to the amendment, he will explain how the matter can be dealt with through secondary legislation. If he would rather leave that for a letter during the recess, that would be fine, but I should like to understand. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to send a letter. I have here a statement on which is printed in bold at the top of the page, "Read in full". So there will be no deviation. I apologise to the House for taking the few minutes necessary to put this on the record. It is a small amendment but a rather large statement so, as I have been warned by my advisers, I shall stick to the text.
994
Amendment No. 80 is in our view unnecessary. Clause 122, to which the amendment refers, sets out a number of general provisions in relation to orders and regulations made under the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that any power to make orders or regulations under the Act includes power, first, to make different provision for different cases or areas, and, secondly, to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional provision or savings, including amending or repealing any enactment or instrument made under any enactment.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to add to that a requirement that such power to make transitional provision shall he applied to ensure that any arrangements previously lawfully made under the provisions in Clause 101(2), which is entitled.
"Exercise of powers by reference to authorities' performance categories",
shall not be made unlawful. Clause 101 covers the exercise of various powers that allow the Secretary of State to remove regulatory controls on authorities or to grant additional powers to them. The powers mentioned include the power to modify legislation that prevents or obstructs compliance with best value or the promotion of well-being and the power to remove requirements to produce plans or strategies. They also include powers to specify: performance indicators and standards; frequency and content of best value reviews and performance plans; and non-commercial considerations for local authorities entering into contracts.
The amendment relates to Clause 122. That means that it would cover only those transitional provisions where the power to make them is in the Bill rather than another Act. The provision would affect only orders made under Clauses 96 to 98, affecting trading, and Clause 119, affecting the use of penalties front dog fouling. It would not attach to orders made under Section 70 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Local Government Act 1999, the Local Government Act 2000 or the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, as the powers allowing transitional provisions in such orders are in the Acts, not in the Bill. Transitional powers may be attached to these provisions—for example, Section 16(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1999 already makes provision for any order under the section to include,
"consequential, incidental and transitional provision".
During Grand Committee, the noble Baroness asked questions about the trading provisions in the Bill. My understanding was that the particular issue with which she was concerned related to transitional arrangements following reassessment under the comprehensive performance assessment—in particular, that arrangements entered into lawfully should not be made unlawful. The concern was about an authority slipping down a category and thereby losing a freedom—particularly one that involved an agreement with a third party—and the effect that the re-categorisation would have on that authority in relation to that freedom.

995
The amendment addresses the question of what happens to existing freedoms and flexibilities—for example, trading powers—if an English local authority undergoes re-categorisation and is no longer able to exercise the power to trade by virtue of falling into a lower performance category. As I said in the debate, we agree with the thrust of the concern but that issue can be dealt with through secondary legislation.
It may be helpful if I take a few more minutes to explain how we believe that that issue can be adequately covered by the transitional provisions in the Bill and those already in the enabling powers that will be used to grant freedoms and flexibilities. I have already written to the noble Baroness about that, but this will allow me to place our view on the record.
Clause 101 covers the exercise of various powers that allow the Secretary of State to remove regulatory controls on authorities or to grant additional powers to them. In particular, subsection (1) makes it clear that the powers mentioned in subsection (2) may be exercised for the purpose of making provision that relates to authorities that are for the time being in a particular performance category under Clause 100. Where provision of that kind is made and an authority undergoes re-categorisation, the result will be that the provision relating to the authority's old category will no longer apply to it and, instead, the authority will be subject to the provision that applies to its new category. The powers mentioned in subsection (2) include the powers to make orders under Clauses 96 to 98—those affect the power to trade and the power to modify enactments in connection with charging or trading.
Clause 122(1)(b) in particular makes provision for transitional arrangements to form part of any orders made under the Bill. An order made under the trading powers in Clause 96 will be framed by reference to descriptions of authority which by virtue of an order under Clause 100(4) are of a particular category. I can confirm that Clause 122 enables provision to be made in any Clause 96 order for transitional arrangements, where an authority undergoes performance re-categorisation and is no longer able to exercise the power to trade by virtue of falling into a lower performance category—that is, under a comprehensive performance assessment of being weak or poor. It is intended that the transitional provisions would be drafted so as to ensure that trading arrangements already entered into by an authority while it was exercising those powers could continue subject to certain time limitations, which we are to consider further.
Existing powers therefore enable us to make provision for transitional arrangements following re-categorisation. The amendment is in effect attempting to limit the Secretary of State's discretion. The Secretary of State could decide that, in exercising the power to make transitional provisions, an authority should—for good reason—lose the trading power. He will exercise the power reasonably and is able to preserve a freedom, but we do not want him to have to preserve a freedom once it is granted. It will be for the authorities to ensure that their arrangements are consistent with that. The transitional provisions are likely to ensure continuity but there may be
996
circumstances where that is inappropriate and, therefore, the Secretary of State's discretion should not be limited in the way suggested.
In view of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. God bless us all.
Baroness Hamwee: And all who sail in her, my Lords. I apologise for suggesting that the noble Lord has not written the promised letter. I am not aware that I have received it. I certainly would not have suggested that he had not written the letter had I received it. Clearly, that is another answer that will repay re-reading. I would not fancy trying to explain to colleagues why I was calling a Division if I did so—it would take more than eight minutes.
Although I understand the Minister's point about the Secretary of State's discretion, I note that the department is still considering how long it should last and for how long decisions and actions taken under it should be valid if an authority drops a category. In practical terms, that is a very important issue. I am grateful to the Minister for that detail and to his officials for spelling it out so carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 102, line 34, at end insert—
"Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)

(1) In Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (control of sex establishments), in paragraph 2 after "sex cinema" there is inserted ", adult cabaret club".

(2) In Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, "adult cabaret club" means any premises, vehicle or stall used to a significant degree for—

(a) any exhibition, performance or dance of any type where such exhibition, performance, or dance involves a person who is unclothed or in such costume, attire, or clothing as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, or wearing any device or covering exposed to view which simulates the appearance of any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, or human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered; or

(b) any exhibition, performance or dance of any type where such exhibition, performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant emphasis on the depiction, description or simulation of—

(i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;

(ii) acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;

(iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breast; or

997

(c) any exhibition, performance or dance which is intended to sexually stimulate any member of the public and which is conducted on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the adult cabaret club's activity and includes, but is not limited to, any such exhibition, performance or dance performed for, arranged with or engaged in with fewer than all members of the public on the premises at that time, with separate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly, for such performance, exhibition or dance and which is commonly referred to as table dancing, couch dancing, taxi dancing, lap dancing, private dancing or straddle dancing."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. this amendment would amend the meaning of "sex establishment" as contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. In Grand Committee, my noble friend Lady Blatch moved a similar amendment to this on my behalf. It was one of those occasions where I had amendments on the Floor of the House on one Bill and in Grand Committee on the other. It was not an easy task to juggle, but it kept one fit running between the two places. On that occasion, the amendment had very different wording; it referred to "lap-dancing clubs" rather than "adult cabaret clubs". The amendment was rejected by the Government on the basis that the definition was not clear.
Whatever else is said about this successor amendment that charge cannot be levelled at it now. I must admit that I got huge help in drafting the amendment in pursuit of the aim of total clarity. At present, a sex establishment, within the 1982 Act, includes a sex cinema or a sex shop. The amendment would add adult cabaret clubs to that definition and therefore bring the licensing of such establishments within the provisions of Schedule 3 to that Act.
The reasoning behind the amendment is straightforward. At present, the licensing of adult cabaret clubs, popularly known as lap-dancing clubs, is dealt with by way of application for an entertainment licence under the provisions of the 1982 Act. Part I of and Schedule 1 to that Act relate to the licensing of public entertainment, and Part II and Schedule 3 relate to sex establishments.
The introduction of the amendment has been prompted by the recent rapid growth in so-called lap-dancing clubs, which are now presented as executive entertainment, but are in fact no more than high-class strip joints. I must confess that I have never been in a lap-dancing club, and, when I first heard of the term, I thought that it related in some way to lap-tops. However, my innocence was soon shattered when I discussed the Bill with friends, particularly as it is related to the licensing of sex shops—art amendment that I moved in Grand Committee, when the Government kindly indicated that they had sympathy with the amendment and would look further at it.
These clubs are a menace, at best, and, at worst, an encouragement of depravity. That is not hyperbole, but rather the sentiments of an acquaintance involved in entertaining corporate clients. In his experience, one
998
visit to such an establishment was not only demeaning, leaving him feeling pretty well besmirched, but also lightened his wallet to the tune of £600 within one hour.
The entertainment at these clubs is provided by women who dance on stage or individually for a particular client and progressively remove their clothing. Some licensing authorities have applied special conditions to entertainment licences to the effect that only partial nudity is allowed, but that provision is becoming increasingly rare. I understand that there are also conditions that are sometimes applied relating to the distance to be kept between dancers and clients, and to restrict the touching of any of the dancers by the clients.
I am convinced that, when the 1982 Act was passed, Members of this House did not envisage that entertainment licences would be granted for such explicitly sexual entertainment. In addition, there have been recent media reports to the effect that the local vice squad had investigated a particular lap-dancing club on Tottenham Court Road as there was a suspicion that it was being used as a front for prostitution activity.
In addition, I understand that, when members of the public wish to object to the granting of a licence for a lap-dancing club, they find themselves restricted by the usual "planning criteria" that are applied to other applications. They relate to whether or not there will be a noise disturbance to residents from the premises, parking difficulties or an increased risk of liter or public order offences. Clearly, the issues that lead local residents to object to a lap-dancing club very seldom relate to these specific grounds. They are much more likely to centre around the considerations that can be given by a local authority when an application is made for a sex shop licence; that is to say, the character of the relevant locality and the use to which other premises in the vicinity are put.
Just last week, on Friday 11th July, an item in The Times read:
"Southwark Cathedral, a relative shrine of sexual liberalism compared with bishoprics, is embroiled in a row with its neighbour, the aptly named Club Wicked. The cathedral … is mortified at the prospect of live sex shows taking place next door. Cathedral officials have complained to the local council that the club is 'into bondage and sado-masochism' that 'cause outrage to clergy and cathedral by reason of our Christian faith'. A council spokesman said: 'We are treading on unusual ground for a local authority. There have been many complaints about this application for live sex shows—.
It would therefore seem eminently sensible to bring the licensing of adult cabaret clubs within the remit of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This simple amendment would achieve that legitimate aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I was very pleased to substitute—rather inadequately—for my noble friend in Committee. I was disappointed by the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but I promised to reflect on it. As my noble friend pointed out, there was a query about

999
definition, but it was more a case of government opposition to the substance of what my noble friend was projecting. My noble friend has worked very hard and sought help to address the points about which the Government were concerned. I believe that this time she has got it right.
The measure is already enjoyed by a local authority. It seems entirely harmless to give all other local authorities the opportunity to have some control over a form of entertainment that now appears to be getting out of control in some areas. It would protect the community. The particular example given by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain was Southwark. The amendment would give the local authorities the opportunity to respond to concerns in their own communities and to do something to about cleaning up the neighbourhood if what is going on in these places is offensive. It is widely known that the parameters of what is going on in these clubs are becoming wider and wider, and there appears to be no effective control in law. This is a modest, enabling amendment, which, for the sake of decency in our communities, should be supported.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, we on these Benches support the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Blatch. I give my full support to this amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on bringing back what she described as a simple amendment. I do not think that it is simple—I was impressed by the complexity and the coverage that the amendment attempts to secure. There is little doubt that it addresses a matter of very considerable concern to people in many areas where lap dancing clubs and other similar clubs have opened in recent years.
My first experience of this matter as a politician was when, as leader of a council, I was appalled by the proposition of having a lap dancing club in Hove, which seemed an altogether inappropriate place. Many people in that part of the city were deeply offended by the suggestion that such a club should be located there.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, put her finger on the point, as it were, when she said that the planning criteria that were available to consider the application were not fit for the purpose, which made it difficult for decency to prevail.
We accept that the matter is important—all our political experience tells us that local authorities should have adequate powers to regulate such establishments. However, as I said earlier, the amendment demonstrates the complexity of drafting to cover the types of dancing and performance that may take place in such clubs. I have heard of many of the types of dancing described in the amendment, but I have not come across taxi dancing before. I am looking forward to somebody telling me exactly what that is.
1000
I can see that much thought has gone into the drafting of this amendment. The problem with it. however, is that it would catch a far broader range of clubs than those at which it is aimed—by reason of including dancing in clothing that reveals a portion of the buttocks, for example. That is not only a matter of drafting; it raises very significant questions about the extent to which entertainment should be controlled.
I am concerned that this is a matter on which there is a need for wider consultation than is possible within the time scale of the Bill. I appreciate that that is similar to the response given in Committee, and I anticipate the disappointment of the noble Baroness in hearing those words. However, the proposal has implications for local government and they and other interested parties would need to be consulted extensively. It is a regulatory matter on which there would need to be a regulatory impact assessment. There are enforcement issues that would need to be taken very carefully into account. There is a need for more generalised consultation within local government and other interested groups and I am sure that the police, who would get involved in some aspects of enforcement, would also need to be consulted.
The Government are more than happy to pursue the issue and undertake consultation. However, given the time frame of this legislation—the new financial regime must be ready to kick in by a certain time next year—we cannot proceed on the basis of this amendment, crafted cannily and extensively as it undoubtedly is. We cannot support this amendment for this Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will take up our offer of further discussions so that we can try to perfect something for a later time and another government Bill that covers local government matters. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said yesterday, "There's always another one coming along shortly afterwards".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady O'Cathain decides what to do about her amendment, the Minister talked about complexity, but all legalese is complex: that is a given. We know that lay readers find such matters difficult to work their way through. However, the Minister has enormous back-up from parliamentary counsel and officials in the department. Is he really saying that he admits that there is a problem and that local authorities have inadequate measures to deal with it and that some of these clubs are offensive to the communities, but is not taking a heaven-sent opportunity to do something about the problem? He has not explained why my noble friend's amendment is unacceptable.
The amendment would be widely welcomed. If, over time, it is seen not to be suitable for the purpose, it is within the Government's powers, with our support, to perfect it at a later date. I see nothing wrong with my noble friend's amendment and nothing that the Minister has said tells us why the amendment is defective.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I need not tell you how very disappointed I am about this. It is quite unfair because we will not now protect the people who live around the areas and those who are seduced into going into these clubs. There is a chipping away at the moral fabric of this country that is going on relentlessly. We have an ideal opportunity—and I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch most sincerely for her support.
Somebody in this country has to stand up to stop these clubs. It is not good enough to say—and I use the Minister's words back at him—that it is "a matter of very considerable concern". If that is the case, why can we not do something about it? There is no earthly reason why not. The Minister said that we need a full regulatory impact assessment and that the police must be consulted. Those are fine words, but that is all that they are. The Minister has not said when the consultation would take place, what sort of time scale would be involved, or how long these adult entertainment or lap dancing clubs will be permitted to rampage throughout the country. That is what they are doing.
There are people who are caught by such clubs on the basis of corporate entertainment, as I explained. One place is even next door to a Christian cathedral. It is not good enough. On the basis of the Minister's reply, I am not satisfied and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
1.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brightman, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Palmer, L.

Chan, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Chester, Bp.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Colwyn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L

Rees, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dixon-Smith, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fowler, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hanham, B.

Sharpies, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Slim, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jopling, L.

Strange, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Tebbit, L.

1002

Vivian, L.

Wilcox, B.

Weatherill, L.

Williamson of Horton, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey. L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David B

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L

Orme, L.

Elder, L

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside L

Prys-Davies, L.

Radice, L.

Evans of Temple Guiung, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rea, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gilbert, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thornton, B.

Goudie, B.

Turnberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warner, L.

Greengross, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Hayman, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 108, line 16, at end insert—
"41A In section 13(3) (reduced amounts), after "section 1 I" there is inserted ", 11A"."
Page 109, line 13, at end insert ", and
(b) for "12(1)" there is substituted "12"."
Page 109, line 15, at end insert ", and
(b) for "12(1)" there is substituted "12"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 115, line 10, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In section 53(4A), paragraph (b) and the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this part of Schedule 7 cross references to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This paragraph ceases to have effect as a consequence of Clause 70 of this Bill, which is the removal of the power to prescribe rateable values. This is a technical amendment and has no effect apart from tidying up the Bill. While I have the opportunity, briefly, I would like to make clear our approach to Clause 70 to which the technical amendment relates.
It is the Government's intention to end the practice of prescribing the rateable values of certain industries from 1st April 2005, following the next non-domestic rates revaluation. Clause 70 removes the Secretary of State's power to prescribe rateable values. That is a major change in valuation policy and there are inevitably risks. Indeed, a number of questions were raised in Committee on the Bill in another place. Although there was agreement to the principle of ending prescribed valuations, there was some concern that ordinary ratepayers would have to foot the bill if there were a significant number of appeals. There was also concern that the Valuation Office Agency and the rating system in general might be under some pressure.
It was suggested that a reserve power might be needed in case the valuation system could not cope with the ending of prescribed rating. We have considered those points in forming our position on the matter. We must be sure that all valuations are robust and defensible otherwise there is a risk of successful challenge of those values. The consequences of such action would likely be costly and burdensome for both ratepayers and the Valuation Office Agency. Were there to be a significant loss to rates yield following such a challenge, the Secretary of State would have to decide whether to pass on the loss by increasing the multiplier for everyone. He would have to consider the instability that that may cause to the rating system.
The Valuation Office Agency is keen to try to agree beforehand the assessments of properties occupied by those industries wherever possible as that will create certainty for ratepayers and reduce the prospect of extensive litigation. But, at this stage, it is not possible to determine whether such an agreement will be achieved. We intend therefore to proceed cautiously. We will take advice from the Valuation Office Agency on whether proposed valuations for individual industries are robust and defensible. We hope that that will be the case for all industries. But the Valuation Office Agency may not be confident of the valuations in some cases because, for example, there is insufficient information available on which to base their valuations. If we judge this to be the case, the Government may decide not to end prescription in certain cases at that time.
In such cases, the Government may choose not to commence Clause 70 in a wholesale manner. Instead we may decide to take a phased approach and commence Clause 70 at different times for different industries. We hope that that will not be necessary, but we think it would be rash to rule out at this stage a phased introduction. This will not require a change to the Bill, but none the less we thought it right to explain to the House, while the Bill was still being considered, how the power might be operated. I hope that noble Lords agree that this is a sensible and cautious approach, while still remaining committed to ending prescribed rating. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 115, line 43, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In section 11(3), the words "and section 12 below"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Commencement]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 76, line 22, leave out "120,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 86, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90, which is the main force of the discussion. It brings us back to a debate in Committee on the Fire Services Bill. I raised what seemed to he a potential conflict in the terms of the Fire Services Bill which, as noble Lords will know, gives the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State powers to intervene—under what is a short-term Bill—to make decisions that affect not only firemen's pay but also conditions of service.
Conditions of service include matters such as the closure of fire stations and the rearrangement of fire services within a local authority area. Those powers fall to local authorities under Clause 120 in this Bill. We also now have the White Paper which will be effective, presumably, in the not too distant future when the proposed fire services Bill is brought forward. In Committee on the Fire Services Bill, the Minister said that if he could think of anything to say on the subject on Report that was better than anything he said in Committee, he would; and that it would be put on the record.
In the interim, we have had the compendium of responses on that matter and others, which were raised in Committee on the Local Government Bill. It briefly refers to that particular issue. But I would prefer the Minister to justify today why these two clauses are necessary and why they will not overlap and conflict with each other. I suspect that they will.
Amendment No. 90 proposes that the provisions in the Local Government Bill are not invoked until the "Fire Services Act" has effectively passed out of existence, because it has a sunset clause of two years. At the end of the two years, the clauses in the Local Government Bill would be introduced straightforwardly. Otherwise, potentially, there would be a conflict if the

1005
Fire Services Bill had to be used, although I accept that the legislation is intended for an emergency situation. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I referred back to see what the Minister said in Grand Committee on the Fire Services Bill on this issue. I shall quote one sentence only.
"One is almost in parallel worlds".—[Official Report, 7/7/03; col. GC 49.]
Indeed, it is that sense of being in a parallel universe which has prompted the noble Baroness.
However, we do not think that it would be right to support these amendments. The provisions in this Bill are very desirable. Those are the ones that we want to see in effect. It is the Fire Services Bill which is, to us, so offensive. That is the one we want to see the back of, not the ending of the Secretary of State's powers as provided by Clause 120. The noble Baroness is right to try to obtain clarity on the issue, but I hope that she will not pursue the matter to its logical conclusion—which to us would be illogical.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I remember using the term "parallel worlds" in response to a particular amendment, but I think that the 11 hours in Grand Committee on the Fire Services Bill was actually a parallel world. It was certainly another world to that which I have been used to since I have been in this House. I think that I can satisfy the noble Baroness about the apparent conflict. I have been giving the matter more thought anyway.
Clause 120 removes the requirement for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making a reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of fire-fighting posts or before the closure of a fire station or, indeed, the withdrawal of a fire appliance. The Bain review recommended that Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 be amended or repealed as soon as possible to remove obstacles to introduce new and more flexible fire cover arrangements. The Government fully support this view and I believe there is a degree of political consensus that, in a modern fire service, operational decisions of this kind should be taken locally.
Noble Lords have expressed concern at a perceived conflict between the greater operational flexibility that the repeal of Section 19 will give fire brigades and the powers of direction on the use or disposal of property contained in the Fire Services Bill. We do not believe that there will be any such conflict. As I said during our debate in Grand Committee on the Fire Services Bill, the Government consider it prudent to take these powers to deal with particular circumstances if they arise, but we hope that they will never need to be used. It is our avowed desire that the Fire Services Bill is never operated during the two years that it will lie on the statute book.
The powers in the Fire Services Bill are concerned only with the recent dispute and its immediate aftermath. They would allow the Secretary of State to
1006
ensure that fire authority assets—paid for by the public—are available to those providing emergency fire cover in the event of further strikes. The powers would also allow the Secretary of State to ensure that some limited modernisation of the service could take place if it was being blocked, but I repeat that it is our strong preference for us not to have to use these powers. Noble Lords will of course be aware that the powers will lapse after two years after enactment of the Fire Services Bill; the sunset clause is quite unambiguous. By contrast, the introduction of integrated risk management planning, the repeal of Section 19 of the 1947 Act and the proposals set out in the White Paper are all measures for the longer term.
The move to integrated risk management in the UK fire service is a very positive step forward. It puts the emphasis firmly on outputs and outcomes in terms of lives saved and injuries prevented, accelerates the move from intervention to prevention and is more responsive to locally identified risks and needs. By delaying the repeal of Section 19, a repeal which enjoyed cross-party support in the other place, this amendment would deny fire authorities the flexibility they need to introduce a risk-based approach to the provision of fire cover. I cannot see the reason for that. The potential consequences of doing so and thus continuing with the existing inflexible and overly centralised fire cover arrangements are, I believe, self-evident. It is ludicrous beyond belief that at present the moving of appliances between fire stations has to be agreed by the Secretary of State. The current operating system is incredibly detailed and anachronistic.
The guidance on the introduction of integrated risk management planning, which I hope noble Lords have had an opportunity to consider since Committee, makes clear our continuing expectation that it is essential for local communities to be consulted about significant changes in fire cover. Fire authorities also have a general duty under best value legislation to consult about the way in which they exercise their functions.
There are a number of safeguards in place to ensure consistency of approach without inhibiting local flexibility and decision making. Integrated risk management plans will be drawn up within a framework of national guidance and fire authorities will be expected to maintain current fire cover arrangements until they have produced an integrated risk management plan and consulted local communities on any changes proposed. The performance of fire brigades in providing effective and efficient fire cover will continue to be monitored.
I hope that those explanations set the context. However, we have three elements to consider here. We have, first, the Fire Services Bill, a measure directly related to the dispute which has just ended but which has not been finally and completely settled because of all the dates that have to be met under the agreement. To that extent we now enjoy peace and tranquillity, but there is still work to be done as a direct result of the signed agreement. So the Fire Services Bill has been designed to cover that.
Secondly, we have a clause in the Bill before the House which seeks to abolish Section 19, as recommended by the Bain review and which we want

1007
to implement straightaway. Thirdly, in the meantime, the Government have produced their long-term considered response to Bain in the form of the White Paper, which obviously indicates that in the future there will be a major piece of legislation. All three elements can be taken together or separately.
In September we shall consider on Report the Fire Services Bill. I understand that tickets are being offered at a hot rate based on the performance of the parallel universe in the Grand Committee proceedings. However, noble Lords need to bear in mind the crucial point that the Government hope that the Bill will never be operated. It is our hope that it will lie on the statute book and never actually be used. Given that, it is easy to contemplate the abolition of Section 19, the introduction of integrated risk management plans and, it is hoped, a better life for fire service personnel and better performance for the public.
With those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment. Bearing in mind that this is the last occasion on which I shall speak at this stage of the Bill, I want to put on the record a different but related matter. If I did not do so, I would be rightly chastised.
Before we conclude our proceedings on Report, it is right to tell noble Lords that the Statement on education funding to be made in the next hour or two will include a proposal relevant to this Bill, involving a minor amendment to education legislation. Obviously I cannot pre-empt the Statement being made now in the other place, but it is only right to alert noble Lords to the amendment. I shall write to noble Lords on both Front Benches shortly—or, it is hoped, immediately—to explain the proposals in detail. A government amendment to this Bill will be brought forward at Third Reading in September. However, it is only right that I mention this now because reference will be made to this Bill in the forthcoming education Statement to be made shortly.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister on three counts. First, for giving us the information that we should hang around during the afternoon to make sure that we hear the education Statement; secondly, that we should hang around during the late evening of Wednesday, 10th September, to ensure that we can take up our hot tickets for the front seats in the show for the Fire Services Bill, which I note will begin only after the conclusion of all other business on that day, so we may be in for a long night; and, thirdly, for his explanation in response to my amendment. However, I am bound to say that I still have some difficulty with it.
The Minister knows that the only reason I tabled the amendment was to seek some clarity about the overlap between the Bills. I was not particularly interested in the integrated risk management planning process. We are all agreed on that and it forms a part of this Bill. However, if the Fire Services Bill ever had to be deployed—I understand all the "ifs" and "buts"—then some of the provisions in that Bill would relate to the reorganisation of fire services within local authority areas. I do not refer to the moving of equipment and so forth, rather to the reorganisational aspects.
1008
If that were to happen then one Bill is going to have to be superior to the other. I understand that, in those circumstances, the Secretary of State or the Deputy Prime Minister would be able to impose a solution. but under the terms of the Local Government Bill he would already have passed that responsibility over to the local authorities. I do not think that the Minister has yet resolved the conflict about which of the two Bills would be paramount.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is no doubt about that. The Bill which would be paramount would be the Fire Services Act, as it will become. If the forthcoming Fire Services Act had to be operated, that would take place only under the circumstances of an emergency and the failure of the parties—the employers, the Fire Brigades Union and everyone else—to agree. We would have a disaster on our hands. The two-clause Fire Services Act would give the Deputy Prime Minister the power to impose solutions, settlements, changes to contracts of employment and the moving or using of equipment. A dispute which the parties had failed to resolve themselves through their own procedures and their own arbitration, so that it was then necessary to operate the Fire Services Act, would amount to an emergency and the Fire Services Act would take precedence. That would be necessary in those circumstances in order to protect the public.
I do not need to take advice; in my mind I am absolutely clear on the point. The Fire Services Act would be paramount at such a time, but obviously for the shortest period possible because the circumstances would be those of a breakdown in negotiations and the need to impose a settlement so as to draw a line under the dispute. We have learnt the lessons of the past 12 months and that is why the Fire Services Bill has been brought before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall not rehearse the problems that we have with the Fire Services Bill, one of which is whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to do anything that he wants to under the Bill because there are no parameters in it. But that is not a matter for today. I thank the Minister for his robust reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 76, line 38, leave out "section" and insert "sections 76(2) to (5) and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 76, line 40, leave out "to 49" and insert ", 41A to 47, 48(a), 49(a)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 77, line 31, after "(9)" insert ", 76(2) to (5)"
Page 77, line 38, after "(3)," insert "48(b), 49(b),"
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
1.41 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 57 [Prosecution right of appeal against certain rulings]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 132J:
Page 39, line 31, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: We move now to Part 9 of the Bill dealing with prosecution appeals. I should say at the outset that we do not have any objection in principle to prosecution appeals for preliminary rulings. However, a little caution needs to be exercised because a great deal of judicial time can be wasted. During the last experience I had of appealing a preliminary hearing from the defence point of view, we spent some time in the Court of Appeal, where eventually the defendant lost on the preliminary hearing but was acquitted. Although it was very interesting, it did not have a great deal of effect.
I am very hopeful that the amendment will be accepted by the Government because Clause 57(8) refers to a trial conducted without a jury in the Crown Court, and trials conducted without a jury will not exist after Part 7 disappeared from the Bill the other day. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would not want an inconsistent Bill sent to the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may deal first with the amendment and then take the opportunity to deal more generally with this part of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, it is the first time that we have touched on it.
The purpose of Amendment No. 132J is to delete subsection (8) consequential upon the deletion of Part 7 of the Bill. The noble Lord used the word "disappearance" in relation to that part of the Bill; the Government's view is that that disappearance is temporary. We oppose the removal of Part 7 and will restore it in another place. Having said that, as matters stand at the moment it would not be reasonable for me to resist the amendment. That could possibly delay the Committee's consideration of other important parts of
1010
the Bill. The fact that I do so obviously does not imply any acceptance of the removal of Part 7, to which we remain firmly opposed.
If Part 7 is restored to the Bill, it will be necessary to bring forward consequential amendments. I give notice of that now because it will necessarily add to any amendments that may come back from another place.
There are a number of other consequential provisions in the Bill which may not be as straightforward as this one and which may require different handling. We will give further consideration to those but, on this occasion, I can accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Let me take a moment to say something further about this part of the Bill in order to avoid saying it at a later stage in Committee. This part of the Bill creates a new right of appeal for the prosecutor against any ruling made by a Crown Court judge, either at a pre-trial hearing or during a trial, that terminates the trial early before the jury has been asked to consider the evidence.
At present, the defence has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence at the end of a trial but the prosecution has no equivalent right to challenge judges' rulings that bring cases to an end prematurely before the jury has been asked to consider the evidence. The purpose of these appeal provisions is to remedy that imbalance. This will assist in improving the consistency of judicial decision-taking. Where the Court of Appeal disagrees with a judge's ruling it will enable cases that otherwise would have been lost to be determined by the jury.
The provisions will enable the prosecution to appeal two kinds of rulings. The first category concerns rulings that are terminating in themselves, such as a stay of proceedings or a ruling of no case to answer. The second category concerns rulings that are so damaging to the prosecution case that at present the prosecutor is forced to offer no evidence, or no further evidence, such as a ruling to exclude a key piece of prosecution evidence or an order to disclose sensitive material to the defence.
In a letter I have sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and copied to other noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—I have attached examples of the kinds of cases to which this can apply. I have also placed a copy in the Library. Should any Members of the Committee wish to refer to the letter but do not have it with them, I have copies available in the Chamber. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is asking for a copy and one will he provided to him.
As the letter indicates, the Government hope to bring forward a series of amendments at Report stage. There will be two kinds of significant changes to the structure of the existing clauses. The first change will refine and clarify the existing provisions. This will include provision for essentially two matters. First, it will extend the time during which a prosecution appeal may be made to include the whole trial up to the start of the summing up. This is because a judge may withdraw a case from the jury at any time during the

1011
trial and, although there are likely to be very few such rulings after the close of the prosecution case, it is more rational to provide for a right of appeal against any terminating ruling regardless of when it is made. Secondly, there will be an amalgamation of the terminating and other rulings to clarify the provisions in Clauses 58 and 59. So those are the first kind of amendments that we intend to bring forward.
The second kind of amendment will introduce a right of appeal against certain non-terminating evidential rulings. The purpose of this will be to deal with evidential rulings or a series of rulings that significantly weaken the prosecution case but fall short of being fatal to it and therefore qualifying as terminating rulings. The difference between this right of appeal and the right of appeal against other rulings in the Bill in Clause 59 is that the trial will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal will not be required to acquit if the appeal is unsuccessful and the prosecution will not be required to accept that if leave to appeal is not obtained or the appeal is abandoned the defendant should be acquitted.
In Committee in another place, my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General, in response to a point raised by Mr Humfrey Malins, indicated that the Government were considering extending the right of appeal to such rulings, which she described as rulings that were very damaging but could not be predicted to be fatal. I mention that now simply to give added notice that that is there; plainly it is not for debate in this Committee, but I was anxious that noble Lords and others who read these debates would know what we intend. That is an extremely long response, given that I am accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Appeals against terminating rulings]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 132K:
Page 40, line 4, after "adjournment" insert "for no more than seven days"
The noble Lord said: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his exposition of what he has set out in a letter which, I regret to say, has not come to my attention. Whether that is my fault or somebody else's, I do not know. It being the case that the Government propose to amend these provisions radically, as it seems from what the noble and learned Lord said, I shall be brief going through these amendments.
I am concerned to tighten, not to extend, the sort of appeals that can be brought by the prosecution. The noble and learned Lord referred to the distinction between terminating rulings and other rulings. Terminating rulings mean, without any question, an acquittal. If a person is acquitted on a particular charge, he is entitled to be discharged and that is the end of it. If the prosecution is to challenge that terminating ruling, when, in effect, a person has been acquitted, it should be within very strict parameters.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 132K, 132L and 133A—the latter refers to the other sort of rulings—is to limit the right of an adjournment to consider an appeal to seven days and also to make it quite clear, so that there should be no question about it, that there will be no application to extend that time by the prosecution. It is "make your mind up time" as far as they are concerned, and if they do not make their mind up within the seven days, the acquittal of the defendant should stand, as would any ordinary acquittal. This is the introduction of a new principle into the criminal justice system. At the very least, that sort of limitation should be introduced.
I shall be saying more about tightening up these clauses when we come to later amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: We have amendments in groups 3 and 4 which would have the same effect as those of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. For reasons of economy of time, I would like, respectfully, to adopt the arguments that the noble Lord has deployed in support of his own amendments in support of ours.
I was most grateful to the Attorney-General for his opening remarks, putting Part 9 in the context of the whole Bill. Will he indulge me by allowing me, in turn, to ask him some general questions about the philosophy that lies behind Part 9? I assure him that I shall be extremely brief in my observations and questions.
My first question is, what is the mischief that the Government are aiming at in Part 9? Is there a suspicion in their mind that judges on the criminal circuit are, in some way or other, pro-defendant? Or is there some other reason for wanting to introduce these proposals? I ask that question not only on its own merits but because the proposals in Part 9 have significant implications for the resources of the Court of Criminal Appeal. If there is no real mischief, what on earth is the point of making it even more difficult to get a case in front of the Court of Criminal Appeal than it is already? I understand that the delays in court for normal appeals run to about 15 to 18 months.
It is also quite clear that these new provisions will not only involve delay in themselves but will imply delay in the hearing of other totally unrelated criminal appeals. My supplementary question, in essence, is: if the Government really think there is a mischief, is solving it worth the cost that the criminal appeal system will have to bear?
My next question arises out of the remarks the noble and learned Lord made to your Lordships' House a little earlier about prosecution appeals against non-terminating decisions by judges. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for writing to me in the way that he did; it was enormously useful in helping me to prepare for today's proceedings. But one issue that continues to lie fallow, following his letter, is whether or not there should be reciprocal rights for the defendant. If the prosecution can appeal against a non-terminating decision by a criminal judge, why cannot the defendant have the same rights of appeal?

1013
That, surely, is the principle that lies behind the notion of equality of arms, about which so much is spoken these days by human rights lawyers.
It also seems to me to be an issue of fundamental fairness in the conduct of criminal trials. If the prosecution can appeal, why cannot the defendant? I know the noble and learned Lord is still considering these matters, as he prepares his amendments for Report. He may already have this issue well in mind. But I thought it only fair that I should draw his attention to the point at this juncture so that he can reflect on the matter, if he feels it is worth while, over the summer adjournment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I, too, am very interested in what the noble and learned Lord had to say in respect of his proposed amendments to Part 9, which seem to raise all sorts of rather different questions from those that I thought would be raised. I hoped that I might be, as it were, cut in on anything going on these amendments, along with all those who took part in the Second Reading debate—even those who would have taken part if they had not happened to lose their voice on the occasion in question.
Lord Goldsmith: I paused before rising simply because I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord .Ackner, in his place. Amendment No. 133, which is in this grouping, is in his name, and I did not know whether the noble and learned Lord planned to speak to it. If he did, this might be an appropriate moment for him to do so, before I respond.
Lord Ackner: As your Lordships see, the amendment, on the face of it, would merely change "must" to "may". That sounds an innocent amendment and, indeed, coming from me, it is, as your Lordships would expect, an innocent amendment. But for once, I do not have to ask your Lordships to rely on what I say because this is what is to be found in the memorandum deposited by the Lord Chief Justice which has the imprimatur of not only the Lord Chief Justice but all the other senior Lords Justices who deal with crime. Their point is: why should the judiciary not have discretion? All this vaunted underlining of the independence of the judiciary looks a little odd when you suddenly find "must" where, clearly, there should be judicial discretion. That is the limited and simple nature of my amendment, and I hope it will commend itself to the Attorney-General.
2 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I plan to respond briefly first to the general questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That may assist in understanding the nature of the provision we are discussing. The noble Lord asked what was the mischief at which the Government aim. Is there a suspicion that Crown Court judges are pro defendant? I unhesitatingly answer that latter question by saying, "Certainly not". But that does not mean that on occasion they may not make an error in the judgments that they reach, particularly errors of law in certain circumstances.
1014
I sent a letter to the noble Lord, and I believe that a copy has now been received in the Chamber at least by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I hope that the other copy will be discovered in his Chambers or at some other address. A copy is in any event in the Library but I shall also ensure that copies are sent individually to all Members of the Committee who participate in today's debate. That identifies by way of examples the kind of case where the measure we are discussing may apply. I wish to take a few moments to identify one or two of them without going through the detail just to give an idea of the circumstances in which the matter can arise.
There will be cases where a judge will make a ruling that there must be an acquittal and so directs the jury, or he grants a stay of the proceedings which is in effect final, or where the ruling is so damaging to the prosecution's case that they cannot continue. That case will come to an end at that stage without the matter ever going, as it were, on its merits to the jury to decide. If he makes an error in his ruling against the defendant, the defendant will have the opportunity to appeal, should the jury convict him, after the trial. But the prosecution has no such right. There is no way of testing whether or not that ruling was correct.
I give an example, referring to Case 2 in the list. Several defendants were acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud on a large scale. There was then a further prosecution of a further conspiracy to defraud. That had been severed from the original conspiracy quite deliberately by the court because it thought that dealing with all of the cases together would be too much for the jury. As I say, the further prosecution was deliberately severed so that it could be tried later. When it came to be tried, the trial judge ruled that it should not be allowed to go ahead on the grounds that it was an abuse of the process. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted on those counts. There was no possibility for the prosecution to test that ruling by the learned judge in another court.
I give another example, Case 9, where a man charged with attempted murder of an hotelier was found with the victim's blood on his boots and trousers. He admitted being at the scene. But at the close of the prosecution case the trial judge invited the defence to make a submission of no case to answer and then upheld it.
Some of these cases are cases where there has been what is known as an Attorney-General's reference; that is, a reference by the Attorney-General on a point of law to the Court of Appeal where the Court of Appeal has actually said that the judge below was wrong. But as it stands at the moment, such a ruling has no effect upon the acquittal that has taken place. One such case—Case 11—was a detailed case of a man charged with attempted rape. The evidence was that householders were disturbed by noises. The complainant was found with her underwear round her ankles and, indeed, the defendant was found with his trousers round his ankles. He was kneeling near her. When asked what he was doing. he replied, "What do you think?" He was asked whether the girl had agreed to have sex with him. He replied, "I do not know; I did not ask her". There was bruising on his and her genitals. The trial judge stopped the case and

1015
acquitted the defendant on the basis that the prosecution had to prove that the defendant had physically attempted penetration, and it had not done so. The Court of Appeal said on a reference that the trial judge was wrong and there was plainly evidence from which the jury could infer what had taken place. But notwithstanding that ruling, there was no possibility of the case being restored.
I refer to another example which concerns the other category of case; that is, the ruling where the prosecution has to stop the case. Case 13 is also an Attorney-General's reference case. The Committee will recall the circumstances. A DNA match was made in relation to DNA taken from a rape victim with a DNA sample that had been taken from someone previously acquitted of burglary. The police had not destroyed that DNA sample. The Committee will know of the circumstances because we have considered the consequences of the ruling that subsequently emerged from the House of Lords that notwithstanding that the sample should not have been retained, it was admissible in evidence. The trial judge had ruled that it was not admissible in evidence. The result was that there was not evidence upon which the prosecution could proceed. The man was acquitted although the House of Lords subsequently said as a matter of law, on the law as it stood, the evidence was admissible and the prosecution could have gone ahead.
I hope that those examples indicate that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with any suggestion or belief that trial judges are anything other than objective and even-handed as between prosecution and defence, but occasionally they may make errors. One circuit judge, when told that the Court of Appeal had reversed his judgment, said, "That is what they are for". It is what the Court of Appeal is for and occasionally it reaches a different view. We seek to give the prosecution the ability in a limited number of cases to test the correctness of such an important ruling before the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me whether the measure would have enormous resource implications. The proposals have been developed in consultation with the senior judiciary. The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 785 give details of the resource implications which we believe will arise on the basis of best estimates. For the Crown Prosecution Service training and expenditure costs are estimated at £1.5 million over two financial years and about £1.3 million annually thereafter. Costs to the Department for Constitutional Affairs relating to the provision of additional Appeal Court capacity are estimated at about £0.8 million per year. Of course, there are resource implications but they are relatively modest and certainly justified in the Government's view by the importance of being able to test such rulings.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked me—
Lord Ackner: I hope that I may intervene on that point. Are the resource implications extended to assisting the Court of Appeal, or are they purely in relation to training the prosecution and other such matters?
Lord Goldsmith: They cover the costs of what is described as,
"the provision of additional Appeal Court capacity".
That is the estimate of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is also an estimate for legal aid costs of about £0.1 million annually from the financial year 2005–06. Of course I recognise that those are estimates based upon what has to be an estimate of the number of cases that may arise, but I hope that they are of help.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked about provisions which do not at the moment appear in the Bill. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to consider the matter. Of course, the question of whether there should be reciprocal rights for the defence has been considered. When we come to Report, I shall want to deal with that in more detail. However, I shall indicate in the broadest terms what the response will be. The defence has the ability to appeal. If a ruling is made by a trial judge in the course of the trial to the effect that certain evidence is admissible, and if the defendant is convicted, at the end of the day the defendant can include in his appeal a complaint that the conviction was wrong because it admitted evidence that was not admissible.
Lord Kingsland: Will the noble and learned Lord give way?
Lord Goldsmith: If I may, I shall continue for a moment. On this occasion, when we are talking about a provision not in the Bill—we have amendments in relation to the part on provisions that are, and to another part to which I know that Members of the Committee are anxious that we should get—I would really rather not develop it further. Of course. if Members of the Committee want to intervene I could not and would not prevent them.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have been away from the House so long that I had quite forgotten the tranquillising effect that his words had on it. That makes me almost reluctant to intervene—it seems a kind of impertinence. Nevertheless, perhaps I might be permitted to reflect on what I think was the last substantive observation that he made.
The noble and learned Lord seems to suggest that the right of the accused to appeal against conviction after the jury's decision is in some way equivalent to any right that he might have to appeal against a non-terminating decision by a criminal judge made against him in the course of the trial. In my submission that view, if not naive, is certainly inaccurate.
As the noble and learned Lord well knows, the test for the Court of Criminal Appeal is whether a conviction is unsafe or not. It is perfectly possible for the Court of Criminal Appeal to decide that the judge's finding in relation to the accused's submissions on a point, say, of inadmissibility was incorrect, but at the same time to uphold his conviction. If I may respectfully submit it, the idea that the defendant has

1017
the same rights as a result of an appeal against conviction as he would have on an appeal against a non-terminating decision by a judge against him is a chimera.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord's absence from the Chamber certainly has not in any way dimmed the clarity or pointedness of his contributions. I am really not going to be tempted to debate a provision that is presently not in the Bill. The noble Lord's point is one that has, of course. been considered. It will be necessary on a future occasion to talk a little more about the current practice of the Court of Appeal in relation to appeals, but I do not want to go further into that. I offered the noble Lord a meeting with me—indeed, we had arranged it, and I do not for a moment complain that he was not able to make it—to discuss the provisions and the intended provisions, an offer that I am very happy to make available to any other noble Lord who would also like to discuss them. We could certainly discuss the topic on that occasion and come back to it on Report.
I shall turn specifically to Amendment No. 132K, which would insert,
"for no more than seven days",
into the provision relating to the adjournment that the prosecution may seek if it wishes to consider whether to appeal against a particular ruling. Part 9 sets out a broad statutory framework for prosecution appeals, but the intention is that the detail of the procedures to be followed will be set out elsewhere, especially in rules of court and practice directions. We are anxious that those should be prepared after discussion and consultation with all interested parties, principally the judiciary. However, the provisions have been subject to consultation with the judiciary and, in the light of its concerns, we want to get the rules right and ensure that it is content with them. Of course we want to minimise delays to trials, while ensuring that trial judges have flexibility to deal with the variety of situations that may arise during a trial and which cannot be anticipated.
Clauses 58 and 59 set out the procedure to be followed where the prosecutor may wish to lodge an appeal against a judge's ruling. They allow the prosecutor to indicate an intention of appealing immediately, or to request an adjournment in order to consider whether to do so. The judge is required to grant the adjournment. The requirement is the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to which I shall come in a moment. As said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, other amendments that we shall discuss separately suggested other time limits—for example, no more than 48 hours. In another place, the suggestion was no more than one day. We agree with the thinking that underlies the amendments—that the decisions need to be taken quickly so that there is not delay—but we do not agree that it is desirable to put such time limits in statute.
1018
The current expectation that we have in mind is that the likely time limit will be in most cases even shorter than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. In another place, 24 hours was referred to. In many cases, that will be absolutely adequate, but there may be cases in which it is not. There is something to consider that is important and cuts the other way: the power should be used sparingly and judiciously. Therefore, it is intended, as I said in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Director of Public Prosecutions will give guidance to prosecutors as to when they should use the power.
In certain cases, the power may require consultation with a more senior prosecutor. In those circumstances, I can certainly envisage that there may be cases in which, with the best will in the world, it is not possible to get that approval within, for example, 24 hours. Therefore, it may be sensible for the period to be a little longer in the interests, while keeping the delay down, of getting a sound decision that does not lead to too many appeals.
Fundamentally, we believe it better to go to rules for setting down time limits. Rules will be able to allow for exceptional circumstances—no doubt within the judge's discretion—better than placing something in statute. What is more, experience may tell that a time limit on which we originally fix is not the right time limit. In those circumstances, if it is in rules it is easy to take account of experience. If it is in statute it is much more difficult to do. Although agreeing with the underlying intention of the provisions, that is why we think it better to leave the matter to rules and practice directions rather than putting it in statute.
I shall move on to Amendment No. 133, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Of course I recognise that it echoes concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the paper deposited after Second Reading. Mandatory procedural requirements are nothing new, and there is good reason in the Government's view for including this one in this instance. It is vital that the prosecutor is given sufficient time to consider lodging an appeal and, in appropriate cases, to take advice and consult senior colleagues. Indeed, he may have to get consent from a senior colleague.
The Government believe it better to provide a necessary protection for both prosecutors and defendants, to provide that there really has to be an adjournment for that consultation to take place if the prosecutor is not in a position to say there and then that an appeal should be brought. If not, there is a risk that an overly hasty decision will be taken. If a judge declines even the sort of short adjournment that I have in mind for the prosecutor to consider the position, there is every risk that the prosecutor will then say, "I must go ahead and appeal it", which would not be in anyone's interests if there had not been real consideration.
I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I am a strong supporter both of the independence of judges and of having confidence in their abilities. I would want always to uphold them. However, it is a modest

1019
requirement in the interests of both prosecutors and defendants that a short adjournment takes place if the prosecutor feels that an appeal is required.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If the judge forms a view that there is absolutely no merit in what the prosecutor argues, why should he not have that discretion? It is very sensible.
Lord Goldsmith: Those of us who have sat as judges have had the experience of believing that there was absolutely no merit in what someone was saying, only to find that, on appeal, not only was there merit, but also that he was right and we were wrong. If the judge believes that it was wholly inappropriate even to have thought about the appeal, I have no doubt that he will make very clear his views when the prosecutor comes back and says, "No, after all, we are not going to appeal". And it frequently does happen in criminal courts, as in other courts, that, for all kinds of reasons, both prosecutors and defence ask for short adjournments to consider matters. While I am the last person to want to see delay in the courts, the kind of period that we are talking about—one designed to allow for a sensible decision to be made—is entirely justified.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Those of us who have sat as trial judges have always been brought up to believe that the question of whether or not to grant an adjournment is essentially a question for the trial judge, who has the feeling of the whole case. Those of us who have had the advantage of sitting in the Court of Appeal have always taken the view that to interfere with the judge's discretion in such cases is something that we will not do.
Lord Renton: I speak as one who did a lot of work as a recorder and, who, for two years, was an occasional relief judge at the Old Bailey. Circumstances can vary so much that it seems to be wrong to deprive the judge of the opportunity to refuse to grant the adjournment.
Lord Goldsmith: It is not a question of requiring the judge to allow the appeal to take place. That will be a matter for leave. It is our intention that important safeguards and guidance will be given to prosecutors so the adjournment is used judiciously.
It is important that an opportunity is provided to a prosecutor to consider properly whether that new procedure should be implemented in a given case. It is much better that there is an adjournment to allow that to take place than that people, as a result of a refusal of an adjournment, are simply driven into saying, "Well, then, I do wish to appeal". That will set in train the need to consult the Court of Appeal about whether an expedited hearing is possible.
Someone may reach the point of asking, for example, "I think that I may well want to seek leave to appeal. May I have a short adjournment until tomorrow
1020
morning in order to consider that and to consult?" If the trial judge says, "No, I do not think there is any merit in that", I respectfully suggest that in nine cases out of 10 the prosecutor will say, "Well, in those circumstances, I must now stand by my initial reaction, which is to seek leave to appeal and that is what I will do". That does not seem to be sensible at all. As far as the short adjournment is concerned, without in any way undermining our belief in the importance of judicial independence and the confidence in judges, we believe that it is appropriate to leave the word "must" rather than insert "may" in the provision.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, beat me to the gun on the question of equating the prosecution's right of appeal in an interlocutory matter with the defendant's right of appeal at the end of a case. As he said, it is frequently the case that one succeeds in the Court of Appeal and establishes that a ruling made by the judge during the trial to allow evidence was wrong. The court then says, "But we think that the conviction was entirely safe". That has to be pure guess work. Let us take, for example, an "introducing evidence" point. On the one hand, the prosecution will perhaps have the right to introduce evidence before the jury following an appeal, but, on the other hand, the Court of Appeal may say to a defendant, "Well, that evidence was included and you were right to object to it, but you would have been convicted anyway". That is just a guess. One cannot equate one with the other.
I am impressed by the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that rules will be promulgated to deal with matters such as time limits. I inserted "seven days" in the amendment because it is essential that the prosecutor takes advice. I hope that any guidance from the DPP will make it clear that in the heat of the moment—and matters do become heated—it is not the prosecutor who will quickly take that decision to appeal. There should be time for reflection and consultation; that should be a matter of procedure. I see that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me on that point. I would be grateful if he would say so.
Lord Goldsmith: I was nodding in assent to the general point that the noble Lord was making. It is important that decisions are not made just in the heat of the moment. It is likely that, in those circumstances, advice will need to be sought. I rise because I would not want to give the impression of having agreed with every aspect of what the noble Lord said about what the guidance should be. The invitation that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to discuss these matters, including the issues touched on by subsequent amendments—which I will not be drawn into today—is of course extended to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am sure that we would benefit if he were able to take up that offer.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have a feeling that the noble and learned Lord has already made that offer to me in the course of earlier proceedings. For the reasons that I have given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132L to 132N not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 132P:
Page 40, line 20, at end insert—
"(8) Where the prosecution informs the court in accordance with subsection (3) that it intends to appeal against a ruling, the judge must—

(a) order the expedition of the appeal;

(b) discharge the jury (if one has been sworn);

(c) grant bail to a defendant in respect of the charge or charges which are subject to the appeal."

The noble Lord said: I am concerned about what happens when a notice of appeal is given by the prosecution. As I indicated in the debate on the previous amendment, where there is a terminating ruling the person will be acquitted. Consequently, if he is in prison on remand, he will be released. If it is the view of the trial judge that he should be acquitted by reason of the terminating ruling that he has made, my proposed subsection (8) should come into play. Pace the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the judge must,
"order the expedition of the appeal",
so that the matter is addressed quickly. He must also,
"discharge the jury (if one has been sworn)".
Where there has been a terminating ruling, it seems quite wrong that the jury should hang around until the Court of Appeal has pronounced on the matter and then come back, maybe months later, to continue the trial.
Finally, the judge must grant bail to a defendant in respect of the charges which are the subject of the appeal. If he is on remand for other charges, or if the trial proceeds on other charges, so be it, he will not be released. But he will have the advantage of the ruling which has been made in his favour until the Court of Appeal states that it is wrong. Amendment No. 132P splits Clause 60, which deals with expedited and non-expedited appeals into two kinds—those which are concerned with a terminating ruling and those which are concerned with other rulings.
Coupled with that are Amendments Nos. 133E, F, H and J in my name. The proposal in Amendment No. 133F is that where the ruling is not a terminating ruling but an interlocutory matter, the judge must discharge the jury. Again, in my view it is wrong that the jury should hang around waiting for the Court of Appeal to decide on a particular matter. For the same reasons I have given in relation to Amendment No. 132P, the judge must grant bail in respect of the charge or charges which are the subject of the appeal.
Amendments Nos. 133H and J are consequential to that principle. If the prosecution is going to exercise this new right of appeal, it has to be subject to stringent conditions as to time and as to what happens to the defendant and to the trial while that appeal is awaiting hearing. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to 15 or 18 months currently for an appeal to be heard. I know of an appeal which is coming up in October resulting from a conviction three years ago. The pressure upon the Court of Appeal is enormous. We cannot have a system which stuffs the Court of Appeal with prosecution after prosecution appeal, expedited or non-expedited, and causes people who are awaiting appeals against conviction in the ordinary way to have to wait their turn. I beg to move.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I support the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. In doing so, I want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General what I hope he will not think a naive question.
Am I right in thinking that the effect of Clause 58(6) is that, if there is an application for leave to appeal against a terminating ruling by the judge, the judge must continue with the trial? Is that the effect of that provision? Or is there an obligation once leave is granted, to adjourn and either expedite or not expedite the appeal?
Lord Goldsmith: Before I deal with this series of amendments, I want to comment on the difference between expedited and non-expedited appeals. As yet, it has not been mentioned. When the prosecution informs the court of its wish to appeal, it is necessary under Clause 60 for the judge to decide whether it should be an expedited appeal or a non-expedited appeal. It is easy to see in what circumstances the judge might think it right for there to be an expedited appeal and in what circumstances it would not be necessary.
The main purpose of the clause is to allow prosecutors' appeals against rulings made in the course of the trial to be heard quickly, particularly if a jury has already been empanelled. It is less important that an appeal be expedited if the ruling is made before the trial has begun or if no jury is yet in place. In this respect, the prosecutor's appeal against a ruling tinder Part 9 at a pre-trial hearing will be like an appeal against a ruling made at a statutory preparatory hearing where there is a right to appeal.
Inevitably, there will be some cases in which an appeal is lodged during the trial. It will immediately be apparent that it cannot be expedited. The intention is that inquiries will be made of the Court of Appeal as to whether, for example, it is able to accommodate such an appeal. It may be that the arguments are complex. Where it appears that the appeal cannot he determined quickly, the Bill would allow the non-expedited route to be taken in that case also.
What then will happen? If the judge decides that the appeal should be expedited, he may order an adjournment and the length of that will depend on a consideration of how long it may be for the Court of

1023
Appeal to deal with the issue. In the case of an expedited case, that may happen on the Tuesday when it is indicated that the Court of Appeal will be able to deal with the matter on the Thursday, so the trial might be adjourned until the Friday. That will be for the trial judge to determine, with the ability for both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal to reverse that decision once it has been made, if it turns out to be unsatisfactory.
If the judge decides not to expedite the case, a different process will be followed. If it is being expedited, he would not discharge the jury because the jury would then be ready to deal with the case when it returned. Let us suppose that the Court of Appeal said that the ruling was wrong and that the case should proceed. Let us further suppose that, typically, the jury has heard all the evidence during three or four weeks, a submission has been made on behalf of the defence and the judge has ruled that the prosecution case has to stop. In such a case, it makes sense to get that ruling tested quickly in the Court of Appeal if it can accommodate it. If it upholds the judge's ruling, the case will come to an end. If it does not, the case will continue with the same jury in place. This provision has been built up in consultation with the senior judiciary who have been consulted about it.
That is the background. I turn now specifically to the amendment. Amendment No. 132P would require the court to expedite all prosecution appeals under Clause 58 against terminating rulings as defined by the Bill. Then the court would have to discharge the jury and bail the defendant. The amendment is highly inappropriate for several reasons. Imagine that we are dealing with a trial for murder. The accused is thought likely to abscond and has not received bail at any time since his arrest. The judge makes a terminating ruling which the prosecutor is firmly convinced is wrong and the prosecutor decides to appeal.
First, there is no reason why a terminating ruling should always follow the expedited route. Most pre-trial appeals will not be expedited, but those lodged after the jury has been empanelled generally will be. It will be for the trial judge to determine that, having regard to all the circumstances. However, if it is clear that an appeal is not capable of being expedited, the court ought to be able to determine which route is followed and the Bill to allow flexibility to decide that. If the court decides that a non-expedited appeal is necessary, a non-expedited appeal should be the outcome.
The second effect of the amendment would also be highly undesirable. Assuming that an appeal is expedited, what possible reason could there be for always requiring the jury to be discharged? The whole point of providing for an interlocutory appeal is so that the trial can continue if the Court of Appeal considers that the trial judge was wrong. Therefore, on the recommendation of the senior judiciary, we have provided for an expedited appeal so as to enable the same jury to remain in place, with less interruption to the trial.
1024
The third effect of the amendment would, frankly, be disastrous. The amendment would require the accused—I speculated that it might be someone charged with murder who was likely to abscond or perhaps someone who was thought capable of interfering with the witnesses—to be freed on bail in all cases, even where those risks existed. That cannot possibly be right.
No doubt the trial judge and the Court of Appeal will have in mind all those considerations—how long the defendant will remain in custody, how quickly the appeal can be dealt with, and the effect on the jurors of keeping them away from the trial for a period of time—when deciding whether it is a proper case to expedite. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment.
The effect of the related amendments—Amendments Nos. 133E, 133F, 133H and 133J to Clause 60—would be similar. Curiously, their first effect would be to leave untouched the power of the court either to expedite or not to expedite a prosecution appeal under Clause 59 against a ruling which is not a terminating ruling as defined in Clause 56 but which is a ruling that the prosecutor regards as terminating. However, there is no reason why an appeal under Clause 58 against a formally terminating ruling should always be expedited but an appeal against a ruling which is, de facto, terminating should not. Both types of ruling lead inevitably to the conclusion of the proceedings for the offence in question.
At all events, the next effect of Amendments Nos. 133E, 133F, 133H and 133J would be to require the court to discharge the jury and bail the defendant where the appeal was not expedited. The court may well want to discharge the jury in a non-expedited case hut, for the reasons I have given, an obligation to grant bail would be highly undesirable.
The effect of Amendment No. 133EA would be to require the court, where an appeal was expedited, to grant an adjournment in all cases. The effect of Amendment No. 133G would be to require the court, where an appeal was not expedited, either to grant an adjournment or to discharge the jury.
When similar amendments were debated in another place, I believe it became clear that the judge should not be obliged to grant an adjournment in the first situation or to discharge the jury or grant an adjournment in the second, but that he should have a discretion to do so. The reason for that is that the Bill allows proceedings for offences to which the appeal does not relate to continue at the court's discretion. The appeal is against the judge's ruling; it is not against an acquittal because no acquittal is ordered at that stage. The appeal is interlocutory and thus the acquittal is suspended.
At this point, I shall answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Clause 58(6) simply provides for the appeal ruling to be suspended while the appeal is in progress. It does not mean that the trial must continue. It is possible that in certain cases the

1025
trial judge will say that certain aspects of the case can continue, even while awaiting the ruling from the Court of Appeal. Then the trial would be able to continue in relation to those defendants or in relation to that matter, but that is to be determined at the discretion of the trial judge.
Therefore, the Bill provides the judge with a necessary flexibility. I am sure that at least on that point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will agree that, if these procedures are to be in place at all, it is desirable that that should happen. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I shall oppose the others if they are moved.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord makes a very persuasive case, which I shall read with great interest. My concern is that, where there is a terminating ruling, the defendant should be acquitted. As the noble and learned Lord was addressing your Lordships, I was considering whether it was envisaged that, although the judge has made a terminating ruling, he will not discharge the defendant—that is, whether there will be some kind of limbo position until the prosecution have made up their mind whether to appeal that ruling. In the ordinary case, if the judge were to find no case to answer, he would direct the jury to order an acquittal. But is there to be a period of days while the jury are left to wonder what will happen? What is the position then?
Lord Goldsmith: With respect, I should have thought that that was clear from the preceding debate and from what I said. The whole purpose of providing the appeal is that, in certain circumstances, there can be an interlocutory appeal against a ruling which would otherwise be terminating. It would be disingenuous and misleading for the defendant to pretend that, while that was taking place, he had been acquitted. That is why Clause 58(6)—the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, drew attention—states that, while consideration is being given to whether there should be an appeal, perhaps overnight or a little longer, the ruling would have no effect in relation to the offence. If that were not right, we would need to add an additional category of cases where there could be a second trial to those already envisaged in Part 10, which we shall reach later today.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As, in any event, these clauses will not remain as they are and as there is to be a rehash before Report by the Government, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Schools Funding
2.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. It is important to begin with an assessment of the changes which have taken place in the last six years. Our country now has the best results at ages 11, 14, 16 and 18. We have tackled the shameful neglect of our school buildings and, by 2005–06, we will be investing over £5 billion in repairs and new buildings.
"We have delivered major increases in school spending. Schools funding is up by more than 25 per cent, in real terms, per pupil. There is no secret where the money has gone. We now have 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more support staff than in 1997."Moreover, teachers' pay has improved significantly; for example, in 1997, a teacher with six years' experience would have been receiving £20,040, while his counterpart today will, from September, receive £26,460. This is a real terms increase of 13 per cent. And we have started down the road to a fundamental improvement in teachers' workload and working arrangements. Those are all achievements of which teachers, heads, governors, and local and central government can be proud.
"However, there is no doubt that these changes have led, for very many schools, to real difficulties with this year's budget allocations. As I set out in my oral evidence to the Education Select Committee earlier this week, a wide range of factors contributed to this situation. I will not repeat them here. but I wish to put on record my appreciation of the hard work of head teachers and local education authorities across the country to manage through these difficulties and to continue to improve the quality of education provided by their schools.
"In my Statement on 15th May, I said that I would keep the House informed of my thinking and give head teachers and LEAs early indications of our approach to help them to begin planning for next year. My purpose today is to outline the first steps we are taking to respond to the practical concerns raised by schools about the present system. Following continuing consultation with representatives of local authorities, chief education officers and head teachers, I will make a further report to the House in the autumn.
"My guiding principles for the changes needed to the schools funding system for the next two years in order to deliver that are: that every school should receive at least a guaranteed per pupil increase in its funding for each year; that central and local government should achieve earlier announcements of

1027
the financial allocations to schools so that heads have greater certainty and time to plan; that we should provide greater stability through a two-year settlement on teachers' pay, ring-fenced grants and the guaranteed per pupil increase in schools funding; that there should be greater transparency in the overall system of funding for schools; and that the reforms agreed with the key workforce partners, as reflected in the national agreement on raising standards and tackling workload, should be sustained.
"The Government have been working intensively to identity a package of measures that will deliver these aims. This year my department provided a guaranteed minimum increase in education formula allocations for each local education authority. In 2004–05 and 2005–06, I intend to go a stage further. My central proposal for each of these two years is to provide a guarantee at the level of the individual school. So every school will receive at least a minimum increase in its funding per pupil. Of course, many schools will receive more than this minimum. We intend to implement this through fair funding regulations, placing each local education authority under a direct obligation to provide for such a minimum guarantee. I will confirm the minimum percentage increases for 2004–05 and, provisionally, for 2005–06, by the time of the provisional local government finance settlement in November, when we have completed our analysis of costs in the system, in particular, on teachers' pay. We will share that analysis, and the rationale for the level of the minimum percentage increase, with our education partners.
"This guarantee will provide for a minimum funding increase in every school. That minimum will be based upon the average cost pressures for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Obviously, it cannot match the precise composition of each school's current spending profile. For example, it cannot insulate schools from the effects of changes in their pupil numbers, nor reflect their wide range of different staffing arrangements. Heads and governors will continue to need to plan ahead, with their local education authorities, to take account of those features which are specific to every school. But I believe that our average per pupil guarantee will give schools a far more stable foundation.
"We are already discussing with our education partners how the guarantee will work in detail, and we will consult further. We will seek to agree guidelines to underpin the operation of these new arrangements, in order, for instance, to take proper account of the extra protection that local education authorities already provide to very small schools. Within this framework, local education authorities, heads and governors will work together through their schools forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied.
"For sixth forms, the Learning and Skills Council will, in both the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years, provide each school with guaranteed minimum
1028
increases in funding equivalent to the per pupil guarantee for schools. The LSC will consult all heads of maintained schools with sixth forms in the autumn on its plans for improving the operation of sixth-form funding for 2004–05.
"Some schools have found it necessary this year to spend from their reserves or devolved formula capital allocations. Others have set deficit budgets by agreement with their local education authorities. Of course, schools and LEAs have the primary responsibility to manage the ongoing consequences of such decisions, including maintaining sound financial management and balancing budgets. The changes I am introducing for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will help them to do so. However, I recognise that there may be some cases where doing so could be beyond the capacity of individual schools and local education authorities. In those few cases, I will be prepared to consider limited, transitional support to avoid damage to children's education, where that is part of a locally agreed recovery plan between the local education authority, the school and the department. I shall discuss with head teachers and local authority representatives how best to provide such support.
"Of course, the minimum guarantee which I am offering today to schools can only be fulfilled by ensuring that each local education authority has the necessary resources within its schools budget. There are two key elements. First, in both 2004–05 and 2005–06, I will set the minimum increase for schools formula spending share (SFSS) in each authority at a level which will cover the school level guarantee and provide the headroom necessary to enable the local fair funding formula to work; and to help provide transitional support to individual schools, where necessary. Secondly, we will ensure that the local authority receives sufficient central Government grant to 'passport' in full the increase in SFSS into its schools budget.
"The Government will also provide additional resources for other local services, including children's social services, which are now my responsibility, over and above those announced for them in the last spending review. This will help to ensure that the arrangements I am announcing today do not create difficulties for other local services. The details will be announced in the autumn. Having provided these resources, the Government are determined that each and every school should benefit in the way intended. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be writing to every local education authority setting out the Government's clear expectation that, barring wholly exceptional circumstances, each and every local education authority should 'passport' the full increase in its SFSS into a matching increase in the schools budget. This is essential if heads, governors, teachers and parents are to have full confidence that the resources intended for schools will get through to schools. I have statutory powers

1029
to require local education authorities to set a minimum schools budget and I will be prepared to use those powers where it is necessary to do so.
"This year most local education authorities' spending on centrally funded pupil services, such as special educational needs and excluded pupils, has increased significantly faster than their spending on budgets delegated to individual schools. It is essential that in future the individual schools budget receives its fair share of any increase. So my intention is that in 2004–05 and 2005–06 spending on such central items should rise no faster than spending on the individual schools budget. I will consult on how fair funding regulations can ensure that this is delivered. In doing so, I will take account of the need for local flexibility on items such as the expansion of nursery provision to meet the Government's commitments.
"It is clear that a significant source of problems for some schools this year has been the change in the Standards Fund. I will help provide stability and security by maintaining, and inflation proofing, the support the Standards Fund provides to schools at its 2003–04 levels. This means that I am reversing the reductions previously announced for Standards Fund support to schools in 2004–05 and 2005–06. This will provide more than £400 million in each of the next two years, over and above existing plans. I will also be making earlier announcements on Standards Fund distribution, before the announcement of the provisional local government finance settlement.
"I am able to make this additional funding available from my end year flexibility, and other redirection of existing resources. I have previously set out for the House in my department's annual report the planned and prudent use of accumulated end year flexibility over the next three years to supplement resources secured through the spending review. This additional commitment means that my accumulated end year flexibility is now fully committed to support children, young people and adults achieve their full potential.
"Head teachers should know their budgets in good time for the beginning of the financial year. I am taking a number of steps to provide earlier notification of their funding. As well as earlier notification on the Standards Fund, the Government will bring forward the date of the provisional local government settlement to the middle of November. We also intend to bring forward the date by which local authorities are obliged to notify me of their `passporting' intentions by one month to the end of December, and the Government will propose an appropriate amendment to the Local Government Bill at Third Reading in another place.
"It is vital that the reforms we agreed with key workforce partners, as reflected in our national agreement on raising standards and tackling workload, are sustainable. That remains a key priority for my department. By maintaining the Standards Fund at its current level, we will help to ensure that schools receive the core funding they need to make progress on implementing the workforce agreement.
1030
"On 11th July, I submitted my evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body. The evidence makes the case for a two-and-a-half-year settlement on the basis of current targets for inflation. I have set out a clear strategy to enable sensible progression along the upper pay scale while controlling costs and I have asked the STRB to report on all the major issues in early November, so that local education authorities and schools will have much earlier certainty about the level of pay cost pressures for the next two years.
"This year's problems have underlined the need to provide more and better support for schools and education authorities in planning and managing resources, and for schools forums, which have a key role to play in helping to secure local consensus on distribution. We will be discussing with education partners, the National College for School Leadership and others how best we can make rapid progress.
"Finally, I want to make clear that this package is designed to secure stability, and to restore confidence in our funding arrangements for schools. We need to ensure that the schools funding system commands broad support; works to promote our overall objectives for raising standards in education; and ensures that resources are used in the most effective way to secure higher quality and better levels of achievement in schools. I will of course be monitoring the impact of the changes that I am announcing today, with a view to considering whether further changes are needed for 2005–06. It is critical to ensure that funding arrangements for schools are sustainable in the long term.
"I recognise that this has been a difficult year. However, I believe that the steps that I have outlined today provide a realistic framework of stability and certainty for the next two years. We will now work with education authorities and schools within the framework that I have set out today to deliver the further improvements that our children deserve"
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. There will be a bemused sigh of resignation throughout the ranks of head teachers, teachers and governors about it. We have the familiar format: fine words and laudable sentiments; but where is the key information that will deliver the declared aims of the Statement?
Nothing was said in the Statement about the department's own spending or possible economies. Unless schools know with some assurance the quantum of funding to be made available during the next two years, what is to be taken into account and the system of distribution, simply claiming that the settlement will represent an increase in real terms is not good enough. That is what happened this year, and witness the chaos that followed. The crisis that has precipitated the Statement is of Ministers own making. To date, there has been no apology.

1031
What is baffling is the way in which the policy paper, Fair Funding, was hailed as the answer to the problems of funding in our schools. It promised transparency and simplicity; neither aim was delivered—so much so that Mr Charles Clarke and Mr Miliband appeared not even to understand what has happened to their so-called generous settlement.
This year's settlement was made in triumphant mode. Within days, it was clear that it had been ill-thought through, was misleading and, frankly, in presentational terms had been completely bungled. Local government, officials in the department and even heads and governors have been made scapegoats throughout this ·ébâcle. They have been made to answer for the sheer ineptness of Ministers in the department. No, the buck stops on the desk of the Secretary of State.
At the same time as all the confusion surrounding this year's settlement, when schools were making teachers redundant, spending precious capital on revenue, running deficit budgets, and when enormous sacrifices were being made by other teaching staff to avoid their colleagues being made redundant, the department underspent by almost £1 billion.
Reading the Statement today, it would appear that the Government are behaving true to form. They have resorted to departmental control of the whole funding system. On the face of it, the Statement is well intentioned but incomplete. The promise of two-year stability and a real terms increase in funding per school and on a school-by-school basis is of course welcome. Schools will welcome that. But a real terms increase was promised to schools this year on a school-by-school basis. Witness the chaos that followed.
The Statement reads:
"my department provided a guaranteed minimum increase in education formula allocations for each local education authority"—
and,
"I intend to go … further".
The central proposal is for each and every school to receive at least the minimum increase in its funding per pupil. Will that be through the FSS? As the noble Baroness will know, that is no guarantee of actual funding. The FSS is not necessarily backed up by real funding; that depends on what happens via the LEA. If that is at the expense of funding on other services, such as social services, special educational needs or youth services, is it a matter of, "So be it"?
What about LEAs that are already spending well above what the Government deem appropriate for their schools? Will schools that are already on a high level of expenditure and allocation of grants from their LEAs receive the same increase as those that are not? Is it to be allocated on the basis of the funding in each school at the time, or will a more sophisticated judgment be taken of what has been the allocation?
In the Statement, the Government refer to average cost pressures. As the noble Baroness will know, if there is to be a uniform increase school by school, average cost pressures fall differently on different schools. How will
1032
that be taken into account? Let us remember that the promise in the Statement is that we shall receive the detail in September, October or November—if it is genuinely to be earlier than we normally expect information to be available to local authorities.
What about those schools that have gone into deficit this year? What about those schools that are spending precious capital on revenue spending? What about those schools that have deferred spending? Will they receive some compensation to get them up to the level at which they can properly enjoy the increase?
The Statement says that schools forums will agree the funding baseline. That goes well beyond what the Act of Parliament states. If schools forums have the power to agree, are we now to understand that they will determine the funding baseline for schools? What percentage increase on what they provided last year, or on what schools are spending on sixth forms, will learning and skills councils provide? Again, with her experience, the noble Baroness will know that schools do not separately fund their sixth forms. Schools are funded on the basis of the whole school. Once they receive the money, they regard that as for the whole school. So what assessment will be made of sixth form funding?
The Government say that they will,
"ensure that the local authority receives sufficient central Government grant to 'passport' in full the increase".
I want the noble Baroness to give us an absolute assurance that all the caveats that I have listed will be taken into account. That is essential.
The statements to be made to schools this year were made before this year's settlement. Schools believe the Government. The Government should be warned that they are raising huge expectations in our schools. If they do not deliver, surely judgment will follow.
Extraordinarily, the Statement continues:
"This year … local education authorities' spending on centrally funded pupil services, such as special educational needs … has increased significantly faster than their spending on budgets delegated to individual schools".
Is it the Secretary of State's judgment that they are spending too much on SEN—that that spending is excessive or unnecessary? The Statement then says that the Government will ensure that that increase in spending on special educational needs does not run ahead of normal expenditure. We all know that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 required spending on special educational needs over and above the normal allocations, but from reading the Statement, it appears that schools and LEAs that will be mightily handicapped in delivering that.
On the Standards Fund, the Government used fine words in the Statement but, frankly, they are admitting to an error that has caused enormous pain in our schools this year. Further to the reference to the STRB, can we have an assurance that if it reports in early November, as we hope it will, the Government's response will be made known to LEAs and schools before November is out?
The Government are promising greater predictability, which is welcome, and greater accurate and transparent information which, if it is true, is also welcome. Local

1033
authorities' priorities must not be subject to second-guessing, if that means other pressing and sometimes obligatory duties to address the requirements of special educational needs children or social services for children, especially following the Climbié report.
Central control is now the order of the day, so now we know clearly who to hold responsible should anything go wrong in next year's settlement. The Government are in no doubt—it is now on notice—that they are raising expectations with fine words. They have not been forgiven for this year's debacle and they will be judged very harshly if they create a repeat of this year's chaos next year.
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and thank the Minister for repeating it in this House. However, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch: what is there to crow about in the Statement? As with this year's Statement about school funding, which was made with great triumph and came unstitched in very little time, this one is full of promises, but we have yet to see whether they can actually be delivered upon. The previous Statement was made with great aplomb. When it began to become unstitched, Ministers blamed, first, the local education authorities for sticking around £500 million down the back of the sofa at the town hall, and, secondly, headteachers for being incompetent by taking on too many staff. Teachers were now being paid too much.
Now we are being told that too much is going into the SEN budget—again, we have heard that before. When the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act was going through this House we told the Minister, time and again, that the requirements for funding of the Act would be considerably greater than was suggested in the Explanatory Notes. Very considerable obligations have been placed upon local education authorities here. It is very right and proper that their spending should increase. It is about time that Ministers stopped trying to blame someone else for those problems.
Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Mr Barnaby Shaw, the DfES school improvement and excellence manager, who, on 4th July at a Local Government Association conference, said:
"When you try to analyse what went wrong [in this current year] the fault lies with the DfES"?
Later, the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking at the same conference, admitted that the situation had been exacerbated by certain ill-thought-out statements.
We welcome some aspects of the Statement. It is splendid that schools are to have greater certainty about their funding and promises of stability for two years in school budgets. There is also a promise of greater transparency in the passing through of the school Standards Fund. However, greater stability, in particular a longer-term settlement, the prospect of a two-year pay deal and guaranteed per pupil increases, are precisely what was promised last year. How can we believe that the promises will come through this year when they were made last year?
1034
Can the Minister tell me what assurances as to additional resources the department has obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to support the new two-year pay settlement? If he has not given any such assurances, who will be the losers in the guarantee that the Minister has announced today? What plans has the department to model the new proposals to ensure that they do not come unstuck in the same way as this year's proposals did? Will the Minister agree with the need to bring forward the School Teachers' Review Body process so that pay settlements can be calculated into LEA budgets alongside the revenue support grant settlement for local authorities to set their budgets?
Again, we welcome the announcement that there is to be greater transparency. But does the Minister agree that it is not the transfer of the Standards Fund to the core budget that was this year's problem but the £400 million that was siphoned off on the way by the Secretary of State? To aid transparency, will the Minister publish in November the inflationary pressure that she expects schools and local education authorities to absorb within the two-year budget settlement so that we can judge the real levels of increased resources?
Can the Minister confirm that not a single teacher or classroom assistant made redundant this term—it is significant that the Statement is being made on or around the last day of term for many schools—will be re-employed as a result of the Statement? Will she confirm that no additional resources will be given to schools with deficit budgets or those which have been using their balances or devolved capital, and that a recovery plan is, in effect, a loan to be paid back? Will the Minister confirm the Secretary of State's statement to the Select Committee on Monday that, in effect, schools with deficit budgets might need to take a little longer to implement the workload reforms?
Can the Minister explain further precisely what amendments are proposed to come forward with the Local Government Bill? I understand that the opposition Benches have been asked not to table amendments to the Local Government Bill at Third Reading. If I may say so, it is a little rich that the Government, having asked opposition Benches to cooperate in that way, should propose to table very substantial amendments to the same Bill.
I thank the Minister for making the Statement. But there are many unanswered questions to which we would like answers.
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, for the welcome that they have given to the thrust of the Statement. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I do not think that either my right honourable friend or I were crowing about anything. Rather, we were trying to bring forward, as schools break up for the summer—my schools do not break up until next week—the information that we felt would be helpful. That is our intention. I am pleased

1035
that that has been well received. We have said that we will bring forward the details of the discussions in the autumn—I look forward to doing so in your Lordships' House. I shall try to answer as many of the individual points raised by the noble Baronesses as possible.
I should say immediately that this is not about creating scapegoats. On many occasions, my right honourable friend and I have talked about the shared responsibility that we feel with our partners in the education authorities and in schools to ensure that we have the best possible education system. That remains the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about the departmental underspend, as she referred to it. She will know from her own time in government that there is a cut-off point that allows moneys to look like underspend when they have been committed. But, on the statements that I have made about the changes on the Standards Fund, a great deal of the £400 million per year for two years has come from funds that we have been able to reallocate either from within those areas of finance or from reprioritising.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked how we ensure that schools have that guarantee. I say to both noble Baronesses that the guarantee last year was centred on the education authority, it was not at individual school level. That is a change for the following year because of the difficulties that arose. The noble Baronesses would be right to say that it can be fulfilled only by ensuring that there are enough resources within the school budget. That is why I said in my Statement that there would be a minimum increase for schools formula spending share in each authority at a level to cover the school level guarantee and to provide the headroom necessary to enable the local funding formula to work. I hope that that will deal with those issues.
I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about differing cost pressures. We will be looking at an average cost pressure, and, within that, ensuring that the schools forums can discuss how it would apply to individual schools. For example, I mentioned the issue of small schools and the fact that education authorities often have formulae that enable them to thrive. We would be very clear—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those are very different words to those in the Statement. The Statement says that the schools forums will agree, not that they will discuss it. As far as I remember, when the Bill went through, we had an amendment which the Government accepted that the schools forums would not have power to determine those matters.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was about to read out what I said in the Statement. I said that schools forums would have a key role to play in helping to secure local consensus and distribution. Those are the words of the Statement and that is what I read out. That is what I agree, and it is in keeping with what was said in the Education Bill.
1036
The noble Baroness asked about the Learning and Skills Council. The guarantee will apply to both the real terms guarantee and the formula amount for each school, which brings it completely into line with what will be happening at school level. The noble Baroness makes the point that school budgets must be thought of in the round. That is why we have worked with our partners in the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that that will happen.
Noble Baronesses have raised concerns about special educational needs. I clearly said that there is a need to think about local flexibility, and that would apply also to special educational needs. It is important to ensure that we support our children with special educational needs effectively. When we look across the pattern of the returns on Section 52 that the local authorities have put forward, there is a wide variation in the way in which money is held centrally for special educational needs. It is important that we ensure that as much money goes into schools as is necessary to support children effectively at school level. We believe that by talking about the rate of increase, we are able to support that and ensure that schools actually get the rate of increase that they need.
In terms of the STRB timing, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a specific question. as did the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The STRB will report on 3rd November. The Secretary of State will publish the findings a week later and there will be a four-week consultation. That addresses the issue of ensuring that there is time for the information to be out in the system.
Overall, it is important that we recognise that this is a concrete move forward to enable our schools to plan for the future. With regard to the Local Government Bill, my noble friend Lord Rooker will make a statement on that at another time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, the Local Government Bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons and is almost completely through this House. Is the Minister saying that we will amend it at the very last stage without full knowledge of what that change will be well in advance of it being discussed?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Rooker intends to contact both Front Benches to discuss the matter in detail. It would be inappropriate, as the noble Baroness says, to introduce something without discussion. I understand what will happen very shortly. I will leave that in my noble friend's hands.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, as no other noble Lord is getting to his feet, I shall do so. As someone whose experience in local government is in a traditionally low-spending authority, I know that we can pretty well bet that Dorset and Surrey will compete to be the lowest spending authorities—which therefore get least support from government. I am concerned about the idea of average cost pressures, minimum

1037
funding and how that will impact on counties' education authorities which traditionally are not given as much money as other authorities because of their place in the traditional spending tables. How will that be worked out?
There has been only one mention of real expenditure—in the second paragraph in which the Statement mentions the past. Are the minimum increases for schools to be real increases? If so, will they take on board something else that the Statement does not mention—the impact of increased national insurance expenditure by schools, as by other employers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said earlier, we can only ensure that there is a minimum guarantee for each school if we ensure that we give education authorities the necessary resources. I hope that I have made clear that we intend to do that by providing a level within the school funding formula spending share that will cover the school level guarantee, when that figure is worked out. That figure will be worked out by looking across the cost pressures—of which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, will know, teachers' pay is the biggest part. That is why the STRB is reporting early and we are doing this work. That will address the concerns most effectively in order to ensure that we deal with them in the most appropriate way.
Forgive me, but I have forgotten the last point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it was whether the minimum increases will be real and take on board things such as the increases in national insurance expenditure.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The proposal is to look across the cost pressures and to be very clear. As I said, teachers' pay and associated costs are the most critical part of that. We must establish the average cost and translate that into a minimum guarantee for each school, work with our partners in education and ensure that the schools forum, in its consultative way, makes and supports those decisions effectively. Schools must be very clear about what they are getting.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I wish to follow up on two points. First, I hear what has been said on the issue of teachers' pay, and that there are funds. However, compared with many other salaries, teachers' pay is extremely low. Can we be sure that, within the sums allocated, there will be enough to be at least commensurate with raises in other parts of the economy?
Secondly, nursery education was included as one of the targets, but it would be helpful if we could have some idea of how much expansion within the sums allocated we could expect.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the specific reason why we asked the STRB to think about a two and a half year settlement is to ensure that we can
1038
look at the issue of pay as the critical factor in the cost pressures facing schools. However, the Government have done a huge amount to increase the salary levels of teachers. I am very proud of that. As I described in the Statement, since 1997, we have had teachers with six years' experience for whom the real terms increase has been 13 per cent, which I believe is an important figure. So we will await the STRB recommendations. Of course, I am sure that your Lordships will be keen to be informed of all those details.
On nursery education, the Government have a commitment that, by April next year—the commitment has been brought forward by six months—every parent who wishes to have nursery education for their three year-old will have it available to them. We are on track to do that and it will be met.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, the Secretary of State's Statement concluded with the acknowledgement that it had been a difficult year. Others in the House might feel that a more honest assessment of the mess of recent months would have been more welcome. However, we acknowledge the considerable increases in expenditure that have taken place as well as the increases in staffing, which will need to continue in the future. The upward pressures on public expenditure across the board—the Armed Forces, public order, the NHS—are greater and greater.
The Minister did not mention the backlog of building repairs in schools. The inflationary cost in the building industry is well ahead of the average level of inflation. In order to do the same amount of work on our vicarages in Chester, we currently need to budget for 6 per cent to 8 per cent more per year, not 2 per cent to 3 per cent. Will the Minister comment on the impact on the funding of repairs on school buildings as well as on salaries and other things?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know what I can say other than that it has been a difficult year. Perhaps I might be able to say more, but that sums up what schools have experienced.
I forgot to mention the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, made about modelling, which is relevant in the context of what the right reverend Prelate said. The noble Baroness asked me where we would be modelling: we will be modelling down to school level with some education authorities. The noble Baroness will agree that that will be an important factor.
In the Statement, I said that, by 2005–06, we would be investing £5 billion in new buildings and repairs. I could not agree more with the right reverend Prelate about the value and importance of that. If schools have used devolved capital funding this year, we will look to support them, in the context that I described in the Statement. It is important that we have a school stock fit for purpose and that our children should enjoy the highest quality buildings. That is our objective.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 59 [Appeals against certain other rulings]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 40, line 32, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble and learned Lord said: Before moving the amendment, I must say that it is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, back with us again. His effortless advocacy always reminds me, somewhat nostalgically, of a well run tutorial.
I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said. Despite that, I wish to move the amendment. The reason is simply that the noble and learned Lord, with almost bromidal efforts, has emphasised the degree of co-operation that has been provided by the judiciary, as well he might. The paragraph of the report produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that reflects his views and those of all the senior Court of Appeal judges who are involved with crime says in terms that the judiciary has no objection to a right of appeal in relation to a terminating ruling or a non-terminating ruling, as proposed, as long as the Court of Appeal is given the necessary resources.
The important point is that appeals must be brought with the leave of the trial judge or the Court of Appeal, as set out in Clause 57(6). The concern is the obligation that is placed on the judge to grant an adjournment. It would have been preferable if the judge had had broad discretion as to whether to grant an adjournment. In his most recent observations, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General drew attention to Clause 60, under which the judge has full discretion. He says that that allows for flexibility. Indeed it does; it is the same flexibility that I seek now.
The noble and learned Lord's resistance shows the lack of confidence that the executive has, from time to time, in the judiciary. I believe that that will be emphasised later. It will be highlighted when we come to sentencing. The Home Secretary's revenge on the Court of Human Rights is reflected in Schedule 17, which places on the judiciary an obligation to impose sentences about 50 per cent above the agreed—when I say "agreed", I mean agreed with the Home Secretary—guidelines that were brought in the previous year. It is also reflected in the constitution of the new sentencing council and in the minimum terms for burglary.
That is why the amendment is important, and that is why I move it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave strong reasons against the use of the word "must" in Amendment No. 132P. It has been a necessary part of our system of justice, in order that justice may be achieved, to give the judiciary the widest discretion possible in the circumstances, which vary so much. I would have thought that it was even more important that, under Clause 59, the judge should have the widest
1040
discretion possible and that he should not be tied down to a particular exercise of that discretion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has made an important point that the Government should acknowledge.
Baroness Warnock: As a non-lawyer, I support the amendment strongly. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, this is the first of many clauses and schedules that we will discuss—Schedule 17, in particular—but, as it is the first, it is important that a marker should be put down here.
It is extraordinary that the Government, who have properly insisted, in another context, on the separation of powers and the protection of the judiciary from any interference—or suspicion of interference—by government, should insist on these clauses and the clauses that we will discuss later. In those clauses, political interference in the powers of the judiciary becomes more and more manifest, but this clause is the first that presents those of us who feel strongly about that with the possibility of pointing that out.
In the view of non-lawyers such as myself, there is a danger that the political element can often be over-influenced by elements of the press that are extremely insistent on the horrors of crime and the way that crime must be dealt with. That will come up again strongly with regard to sentencing. I deplore the thought that the national press should have any influence on sentencing in the courts. But this is the first instance in the Bill where the danger shows itself. It is for that reason that I strongly support my noble and learned friend.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, the Attorney-General's argument against my "mandatory procedural requirements", as he puts it, in Amendment No. 132P was so overwhelming that I feel obliged to support this and restore discretion to the court.
Lord Goldsmith: This is an odd situation because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had already spoken to this amendment in the second grouping. Indeed, I invited him to say whether he wanted to speak to his amendment at that stage, which he did. So I already have responded to his amendment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to intervene.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ease the conscience of the noble and learned Lord. It is a custom in this House, which has prevailed for a long time, that the grouping of amendments is merely to help discussion when the amendments to some extent overlap. But it always has been part of the freedom of noble Lords to deal separately with any amendment in any group if the need to do so arises. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with the very strong point that he had, has done so.
Lord Goldsmith: I did not intervene to prevent either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, saying anything, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As the

1041
noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised it, my understanding is that it certainly is open to any noble Lord to ungroup an amendment from the grouping. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not seek to do that. Be that as it may, this is by way of explanation, for example, to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who I did not notice in the Chamber before lunch. I may be wrong and if I am wrong, I apologise. I gave the answer to the amendment proposed by the noble and Lord, Lord Ackner, earlier. Perhaps I may point out that this is not the first opportunity for this point to be made. The debate before the Statement will reveal what I had to say about the independence of the judges and my confidence in them. I shall summarise the response that I gave.
A short adjournment—we spent quite some time talking about a short adjournment—should take place so as to enable a prosecutor not in the heat of the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, to be forced into a decision, but to consider out of the heat of the moment whether it is appropriate. It is so as to avoid that situation that it is right that there should be an adjournment. That is what the Bill seeks to do. I continue to resist the amendment.
Lord Ackner: I still lack a proper answer to the points which I have made. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has just left the Chamber because I thought that she made a most impressive speech when we were dealing with juries this week. I complained that behind such amendments was the Treasury hand seeking justice which satisfied its views of justice being returned in a manner which it thought the most economic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, provided an additional and stronger reason. Behind this amendment, and the others when we come to sentencing, will be found the desire of the executive to exercise control over elements of the criminal justice system. However, this is neither the right time of day nor the right stage in the term to force Divisions. I accordingly ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but promise that it is really part of a strategy for mieux sauter when we reach the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133A to 133C not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 133D:
Page 41, line 2, at end insert—
"(7) Where the prosecution has agreed that the defendant shall be acquitted in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (5) and either of the conditions mentioned in subsection (6) are fulfilled, the judge shall order the acquittal of the defendant accordingly."
The noble Lord said: All I require from the noble and learned Lord is for him to say that the judge will obviously order the acquittal of the defendant in the circumstances envisaged in this amendment. His reassurance is all that I seek. In my respectful view, it would not be open to the judge to do anything other
1042
than order an acquittal when the prosecution have agreed that the defendant shall be acquitted. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: The scheme of the Bill is to enable the prosecution to appeal against any ruling terminating from the prosecutor's point of view. The provisions require that the prosecution accept an acquittal under the Bill as drafted. Clause 62(2) provides for the Court of Appeal to order an acquittal where the prosecution loses the appeal. I accept that it is silent as to what happens after the prosecution abandons an appeal or fails to obtain leave to appeal in the first place. I understand therefore why the amendment has been put forward. I undertake to take away the amendment and to consider it with a view to making our views known further on Report. I hope that that will be sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am very grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Expedited and non-expedited appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 133 E to 133J not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Determination of appeal by Court of Appeal]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 133K:
Page 41, line 21, leave out from "may" to end of line 22 and insert—
"reverse or vary the ruling appealed against where the ruling—

(a) was wrong in law;

(b) involved an error of law; or

(c) was one which no reasonable judge could have reached;

and in all other cases the Court must confirm the ruling "
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 133K is an addition to Clause 62(1). It would add, at the end of the present wording,
"where the ruling—

(a) was wrong in law;

(b) involved an error of law; or

(c) was one which no reasonable judge could have reached; and in all other cases the Court must confirm the ruling".

There is a general and a particular motive behind the amendment. The general motive is that if the jurisdiction of the court is not constrained in this, or a similar, way it is likely to be swamped with appeals from the prosecution. It will be particularly easy for the prosecution to seek to appeal decisions by the criminal judge which are purely fact based and, very quickly, the predictions that the noble and learned Lord made about the likely burden on the Court of Appeal will have been proved wrong.
There is also a particular reason for the amendment, especially subsection (c), which concerns appeals against a decision by a judge of no case to answer.
A decision by a judge of no case to answer at the end of a prosecution case is essentially a fact-based decision. It is either the view of the judge that there is no prosecution evidence at all against the defendant or a view that, although there is evidence, it is so slender that it carries no weight.
In my submission the situation is simply this: if a judge's decision that there was no case to answer is so unreasonable that no reasonable judge could have reached that decision, then I accept that that is fair enough. Earlier in the proceedings the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave a good example to the Committee in relation to a rape case. But if a judge could reasonably have reached the decision, surely in those circumstances there is no case for the Court of Appeal to intervene. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Noble Lords on these Benches strongly support this important amendment because it will limit the prosecutor in considering whether to appeal, in particular, a terminating ruling. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to rulings of no case to answer. If the Court of Appeal were to be invited to rule on no case to answer decisions, it really would be swamped. It would be necessary for transcripts of all the evidence to be placed before it and the appeal judges would need to second-guess the trial judge, who would have had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, to assess their veracity and so forth. It would be an impossible task. For those reasons, we support this amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: When I spoke earlier about the purpose behind this part of the Bill, I referred to the existing right of appeal for the defendant. At the end of the trial, the defendant has the right of appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The prosecution has no right of appeal against decisions made by the trial judge which end the trial. I stress that we are talking about decisions made by the judge, not by the jury.
The Bill seeks to create a right of appeal which is equivalent to that for the defendant, but with very different requirements in relation to the circumstances in which it is brought. The appeal can be brought only with the leave of the trial judge or of the Court of Appeal. That is a very important provision because it is through that provision, together with the guidance which the Director of Public Prosecutions will give to Crown prosecutors—I envisage that other prosecuting agencies will be given similar guidance—that the number of appeals made will be limited.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made two points. The first was his concern about the number of appeals that may be brought, which is an important consideration. We have already touched on it in the course of our Committee proceedings today. It is a matter which, for example, concerns the resources to be provided for the Court of Appeal. I estimated the level of costs to ensure that the Court of Appeal would have the necessary capacity to deal with such cases. But that will
1044
be controlled by the leave requirement and by the guidance which will be given, as well as by the general principle, to which I have also referred, that this right of appeal is one to be exercised judiciously and sparingly.
However, I do not agree with the noble Lord's second point, to the effect that there should be some necessary limitation on the basis upon which the Court of Appeal could allow the appeal. I readily accept as a matter of fact that if the Court of Appeal is asked to review an exercise of discretion by a trial judge, then the court, in deciding whether to allow an appeal against that discretion, is unlikely to or perhaps even never would do so if it thought that the discretion was one which could reasonably have been exercised by the trial judge in the way that he did.
Equally, I readily accept that in this case, as it is in all others, the Court of Appeal is likely to recognise the specially privileged and favoured position that the trial judge will be in if it comes to a question of assessment of evidence because the trial judge will have seen and heard the witnesses. These are reasons why, in a case which turned on a question of discretion or on a question of fact, it is very likely that the leave requirement will be operated in such a way that the court will simply not grant leave in cases which would require that kind of exercise. Moreover, once the jurisdiction is up and running, the kind of cases that the Court of Appeal would or would not be prepared to entertain would become apparent from its decisions.
However, there will be cases in which, in the Government's view, it would be appropriate for the Court of Appeal to say, "Yes, it is true that this turns on a question of fact, but on looking at it we are in a position to judge—and it is so important that we can judge—that on this occasion it is legitimate for us to say that this particular ruling from the judge, although it turned on a question of fact, was wrong". I strongly suspect that those will be exceptional cases. If we are to provide a right of appeal which will enable the prosecution to test important rulings of the trial judge, it should not be restricted in the way proposed in the amendment. In short, therefore, the control will be through the discretion of the court.
I am loath to give further ammunition to those who complained about an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 133, but that is where the judgment and discretion will lie. So I resist the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I was in my place before the Statement. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me on a matter to which he alluded before the adjournment and to which he has returned in this debate. Guidance is to be given to prosecuting authorities as to how this new jurisdiction to appeal shall be exercised. Before the adjournment, the noble and learned Lord referred only to the director; he has now referred to other prosecuting authorities receiving no doubt similar guidance. Where is the guidance for these authorities to come from? Will the guidance

1045
come essentially from the Attorney-General—who superintends, by statute, the Director of Public Prosecutions—through the director?
What kind of guidance will it be? This new jurisdiction cannot be exercised except with the leave of the court; that is to say, either from the trial judge or the Court of Appeal. I can visualise a trial judge who has made a controversial decision being very reluctant to refuse leave, particularly when Parliament has so recently gone to the trouble of making this appeal available. How will the guidance assist either the judge or the prosecutor?
Words which have a familiar ring have been used; for example, "sparingly"—what does that mean? It is a good fudge word, but what does it mean? What are you sparing? Sparing its use, perhaps, but surely not to the extent of not making use of this new facility in a proper case. What is a "proper case?" That is another good fudge expression that lawyers are used to. Then we have the word "judiciously". We hope that everything done by a prosecuting authority is done judiciously.
How will is this guidance be shaped? How will it help? If it is to come from the Attorney-General, it is difficult to see how, for example, the Commissioner for Customs and Excise can be so guided by the Attorney-General. Is there not a wee embarrassment in the fact that the Attorney-General, although not a member of the Cabinet, is a member of the Government at a time when they are looking so closely at anything which might give rise to an adverse perception?
Lord Goldsmith: The debate has ranged quite widely. I hope that all Members of the Committee will recognise that making the leave of either the trial judge or the Court of Appeal a requirement of this new right we are already putting within the hands of the judiciary and the Court of Appeal a strong power to regulate the number and type of cases they hear. I have no doubt that once the jurisdiction starts the Court of Appeal will make clear the kind of cases it expects to see. That may not be by way of a single judgment at the outset, but it will become apparent as the jurisdiction develops and the Court of Appeal will indicate what kinds of cases are appropriate.
In addition, as I indicated in the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—a copy of which is in the Library and which includes the statement to which I referred earlier—the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to develop internal guidance for CPS prosecutors. I have no doubt that the director will show me the guidance that he has in mind to issue. I expect that guidance to include not only matters such as the kinds of cases concerned but who should be consulted, whether or not a matter should be looked at by a chief Crown prosecutor, and so on. I do not seek at this stage to say what the guidance will be.
I hope that the Committee will find that statement helpful because it indicates that people will look at this issue in a way which, subject to the overall control of the court, will lead to cases being brought only where it is appropriate to do so.
1046
The noble and learned Lord criticised me for saying that the power will be used "sparingly". With all respect to him, I find the expression perfectly intelligible. As to whether the power will be used "judiciously", 1 am glad that the noble and learned Lord said that all things that prosecutors do are judicious. In that context, I was saying that thought will be given as to how it should be exercised. I protest that the powers and controls are strong and adequate.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about the position of other prosecutors. He cited the example of HM Customs and Excise. I should tell him that, since the days when the noble and learned Lord held the position that I am privileged to hold at the moment, responsibility for Customs and Excise prosecutors has been taken by the Attorney-General. A report published earlier this week emphasised the desirability of that and of taking it further. In relation to those prosecutors, the guidance that the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to give will be extremely influential in the drawing up of the guidance which will apply to them. The letter states:
"I expect the other prosecuting authorities to do the same, possibly drawing on the CPS's approach".
However, I hope that I do not need to engage today in a debate about whether or not the Attorney-General who, although a government Minister, exercises an independent position, particularly when it comes to prosecuting—as the noble and learned Lord knows all too well—is the appropriate person to control the way that that prosecuting authority operates.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Like the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble and learned Lord says from a sedentary position, "Like the Lord Chancellor". Tempted though I am, I shall not respond today.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord could not possibly comment.
I, like many noble and noble and learned Lords, am concerned that so much in Chapter 9 is not to appear on the face of the Bill but to be part of either discretionary decisions of the Court of Appeal or guidance given by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I continue to be particularly concerned about the noble and learned Lord's approach to paragraph (c) of my amendment which would allow the Court of Appeal to strike down decisions by trial judges which no reasonable judge could have reached. Surely that ought to give the noble and learned Lord all the powers that the Court of Appeal needs to fulfil all the tasks he wishes it to fulfil.
If a decision by a judge is one that a reasonable judge could have reached, why on earth should the Court of Appeal have any role? Surely it is a well-established principle that a court in those circumstances should not be entitled to substitute its discretionary view for the discretionary view of a lower court. By rejecting my amendment, in effect, that is the principle which the noble and learned Lord seeks to deny.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord saw me shaking my head, so I rise. The law is lull of cases where the Court

1047
of Appeal—this being its function—says, "It was reasonable for this judge below to have reached this decision but we still adjudge, in the interests of justice, that it is wrong". Let us leave it to the Court of Appeal to determine which cases are appropriate for it to look into and in which cases it should overturn the decisions of trial judges as it does in other areas. Trust it. I know those words will be quoted against me in other contexts, but they are appropriate here.
Lord Kingsland: I am not going to seek to extend this debate any further, but I think the noble and learned Lord has heard enough to know that this issue will be returned to on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 133L:
Page 41, line 29, leave out first "the" and insert "that"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 133M and 133N. Again, I simply seek an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that the Court of Appeal will not have the power to order proceedings for another offence to be resumed in the Crown Court.
One envisages a situation in which a judge finds no case to answer and says to the prosecution, "You have brought the wrong charge; if you had brought a different charge, there would have been a case to answer. I will give you leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal". The Court of Appeal then agrees with the trial judge and orders that a substituted offence be tried. Substituting "that" for "the" will prevent what 1 would consider to be an abuse which goes far beyond the policy that lies behind these proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: It will obviously be possible for a prosecution appeal to be directed against the effect of a ruling on several offences. On the face of it, the proposed wording might suggest that the Bill is not sufficiently clear on this point. I am therefore happy to take these amendments away to consider them further and come back to this issue on Report, making our views known then.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133M and 133N not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Cases that may be retried]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 133P:
Page 46, line 7, at end insert "or Scotland"
1048
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 133P, I will, with the leave of the Committee, also speak to Amendments Nos. 133Q, 133R and 133S.
We now come to Part 10 of the Bill, in which the Government seek to relax the ancient double jeopardy rule, which prevents someone who has been acquitted from being tried a second time for the offence. In a nutshell, Part 10 allows the person who has been acquitted of one of the 30 or so offences currently listed by the Government in Schedule 4 to be retried for the same offence if what is called new and compelling evidence comes to light.
This is indeed a controversial part of the Bill. I therefore think it right that I should put on the record now the general view of Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter. I could refer to it only telegraphically at Second Reading because I confined myself to just a quarter of an hour in debating a 300-odd clause Bill. If I outline our view in this group of amendments, it will save some considerable time later in our debates on other groups.
Our approach to this controversial matter is essentially pragmatic. We accept that many people regard it as offensive in the case of the most serious crimes, where a matter of public importance is at stake, that a person who is acquitted because there is at that time insufficient evidence cannot later be retried when compelling evidence has become available.
The Government recently held a meeting in this House at which noble Lords were invited to hear the views of families whose lives had been blighted by the failure to secure convictions in serious cases of murder and rape. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition in this House—my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—and I met the uncle of one young girl who was murdered in Brighton some 17 years ago. Indeed, two young girls were assaulted and murdered at that time—it was commonly known as the "Babes in the wood" case. The families believe, as do others in similar cases, that if the double jeopardy rule were to be relaxed, a conviction could be obtained in relation to the person who had previously been acquitted.
In tackling our debates in this part of the Bill, I feel sure that all noble Lords will have the utmost consideration for families such as those, while also being determined to ensure that the Government's proposals, if they are to be implemented, should work effectively but fairly. If we fail to do that, cases brought against acquitted individuals under these clauses will either not proceed at all or be abandoned midstream. Nobody would benefit from that, and the hopes raised by the Government would be dashed. In saying that, I make no criticism of the Government, either direct or implied. I simply recognise how difficult it will be to make the powers work in the right way in practice and that, above all else, the existence of a power for retrial will not necessarily mean that guilty people will be convicted.
I turn to what appear to be technical amendments in this group. They are probing and relate to the territorial extent of the provision. It will be clear that Clause 69(1) refers only to England and Wales.
Clause 89 contains the modifications necessary for Part 10 to apply to Northern Ireland. Clause 69 allows a person to be retried in England and Wales if they have been acquitted in England and Wales or in any other part of the world outside the United Kingdom. However, there is no reference whatever to Scotland in Part 10.
The Bill places us in the frankly bizarre position that someone acquitted of an offence in France, Germany, Italy, Spain or any country could be retried for that offence in England and Wales, but someone who is acquitted of an offence in Scotland, which is a part of our own United Kingdom, could not be retried for that offence in England and Wales.
The then Under-Secretary of State Mr Hilary Benn confirmed that in the Standing Committee in another place on 20th January. He said:
"An acquittal that occurred in Scotland would not be covered … The Scottish Executive have decided that they do not want that to happen. That is a product of devolution … The situation that I have described reflects the nature of our relationship with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 16/1/03; col. 5.]
I should like to press the noble and learned Lord the Minister a little further on this point. Why cannot and should not this Parliament, acting as a legislative body for the criminal law of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland, include a provision in the Bill to place Scotland on the same footing as every other European Union country and, indeed, every other country? As I read the Bill, Scotland will be the only place on Earth where it will be possible to be acquitted of a crime and then not retried in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland, for the same crime if new and compelling evidence comes to light. Would the Minister confirm that my analysis is correct?
I now turn to my amendments which would insert "Northern Ireland" into Clause 69(1). As a result of Clause 89, which was inserted at Report stage in another place, the provisions of Part 10 will also apply in Northern Ireland. My question is about the interrelation of the provisions for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 69(1) and 69(4) make it clear that, so far as concerns England and Wales, a person can only be retried in England and Wales if they have previously been acquitted in England and Wales or
"elsewhere than in the United Kingdom".
I have already referred to the position of Scotland, and is Northern Ireland not in a similar, although not entirely analogous, position as a result of the Government's drafting?
Is the effect of the Bill, therefore, that although Part 10 will apply in Northern Ireland, a person acquitted of an offence in Northern Ireland can be retried in Northern Ireland but not, as I read the Bill, in England and Wales, because Clause 69, which deals with retrials in England and Wales, allows a person to be retried only if they have been convicted in England and Wales or outside the UK? Is not the position mirrored in respect of England and Wales when the provisions of the Bill are applied to Northern Ireland? I would be grateful for clarification from the
1050
Government. The matter seems very convoluted, and it seems that there may be problems in the way in which the Bill's drafting affects the availability of retrial. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness took the opportunity to state the position of her party on Part 10. I hope that I may be forgiven for doing so briefly myself, before coming to the amendment tabled in my name.
The rule that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence is so well established in our law that we should be very cautious indeed before we accept Part 10 as it stands. The rule could have been challenged when they discovered fingerprints in the 19th century. DNA could be regarded as the 20th century equivalent of the 19th century discovery of fingerprints. But the rule survived, and it survived because it is based on a very sound principle, which applies equally to civil proceedings and criminal proceedings—that there must be an end to litigation. I could put that principle in Latin but I am sure that the Committee already knows the Latin and, therefore, I need not repeat it.
That is the principle but I accept that the discovery of DNA has made a difference since, as I understand it, we can now be absolutely sure of guilt the second time round. If so, it seems to me that a limited exception to the rule is now justified. The only question is, where is that limit to be placed? No one, I think, suggests that the prosecution should be entitled to a third bite at the cherry. No one, I think, suggests that the exception to the rule should be extended across the whole range of criminal offences. It should in my view be confined, at any rate to start with, to the most serious crime of all; that is, the crime of murder, and not the 31 offences which are now included in Schedule 4.
As happens so often, the Home Office simply cannot resist the temptation to overegg the pudding. When we reach Amendment No. 135ZA, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which I prefer to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, which I believe is Amendment No 135. I beg leave to address the Committee later on my amendment but in the mean time I await the Attorney-General's response to these amendments.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for their general observations. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for saying that the issue is really not about the principle but how the principle should be applied. We shall consider that in later amendments. Therefore, I shall not say anything further about the reason for this part until we reach the more detailed provisions. I hope that the Committee will understand that. At that stage. I want to come back to the point rightly and powerfully made by the noble Baroness about the effect on families of certain of the cases we are discussing.

1051
I hope that I may confine myself at this stage to the important, although technical, issues raised by Amendments Nos. 133P, 133Q, 133R and 133S.
Lord Neill of Bladen: Before the noble and learned Lord proceeds any further, will he indicate what he considers would be the appropriate point for any Member of the Committee, such as myself, who wishes to raise the general principle that has just been touched on by two speakers to do so? Is there any particular slot where that would be appropriate? Otherwise, I should like to speak now before the noble and learned Lord finishes his comments on the technicalities. I gathered he had it in mind that there would be such an opportunity.
Lord Goldsmith: I am the last person to advise the noble Lord when he should speak. Specific amendments relate to whether the provision should be retrospective, for example, the amendment spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the offences which should be covered. Those are probably the two most appropriate points at which more general observations might fit in, but I do not stop anyone speaking at any point if he or she considers it helpful to do so.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hold my fire for the moment but I shall want to discuss the general principles at a later point.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I, too, should like to speak to the general principles at some point. It would be helpful if the Attorney-General indicated when would be the best time to do so. We are happy to take guidance from those who are leading the debate.
Lord Goldsmith: I hope that I can help the Committee. I understand and appreciate the way the matter has been expressed by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. I believe that Amendment No. 134 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which we shall reach shortly, and which raises the question of retrospectivity, would be a good point at which to comment more generally on the clause.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Is there not also the possibility that the discussion could take place on a Clause 69 stand part debate?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, but no notice has been given.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Although it is most courteous for noble Lords to give advance notice of clause stand part debates, that is not required, so Members of the Committee could speak on that if they wished to do so.
Lord Goldsmith: I entirely accept that. I was simply giving the reason why I had not suggested it as a place to debate the matter, because no one had given notice
1052
that they wanted to resist clause stand part. 1 have done as much as I can to help Members of the Committee identify when they would like to speak.
Lord Neill of Bladen: The Minister has done it very well. I shall wait until Amendment No. 134.
Lord Goldsmith: I have not dealt with Amendment No. 133P at all yet. I shall describe the position in relation to Scotland. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that the effect of the way in which the Bill is presented to the House is that, if there is an acquittal in Scotland, it would not be open to the Court of Appeal in England to grant leave for a further trial in that case. At least at the moment, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have not decided that they wish to introduce to Scots law the changes brought about by Part 10.
The Government strongly take the view that it would be inappropriate to seek to include acquittals by Scottish courts in the scope of cases which may be retried under Part 10. Criminal law in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament. That is the result of the arrangements for devolution, which were approved by this House. Because under those arrangements criminal law is a matter for the Scots, it would not be appropriate in the Government's view to attempt to overcome that issue by applying the measures to Scottish acquittals. That is how the matter would be perceived—put shortly, that this Parliament would, as it were, allow a right of appeal in an English court to overturn a Scottish acquittal. That is why Scotland is in that position.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, Clause 89 applies the relevant provisions to Northern Ireland. Therefore there would be no difficulty should, for example, further evidence come to light of a new and compelling nature sufficient to justify an application under this part of the then Act in Northern Ireland when there has been an acquittal in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that there is no reason why, if that evidence has come to light in England or Wales, that evidence could not properly and indeed most appropriately be passed to the prosecuting authority in Northern Ireland, for that authority to consider whether to proceed. I see no difficulty about that.
I shall take away for further consideration the issue of whether there still remains a gap. It is not obvious to me that there is, in practical terms, but I shall certainly give further thought to it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his general guidance with regard to how Members of the Committee may address the general issues. I only laid out the barest guidance on that in referring to the approach that we on these Benches were taking. We will have opportunities as we go through other amendments to look at each and every objection in detail, and how they might or might not be overcome.

1053
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for addressing the detail of the technicality of the amendments, and for his offer to look again in case there is some lacuna with regard to Northern Ireland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133Q to 133S not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 133T:
Page 46. line 25, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 133U, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They are also probing amendments and relate to subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 69.
On subsection (4), will the Minister confirm my understanding of the drafting, which is that courts in England and Wales would have the jurisdiction to retry a qualifying offence no matter where in the world it occurred? Will the Minister reveal what discussions there have been with authorities in other jurisdictions? Could he confirm my understanding that, although there have been discussions, no conclusions have been reached so far? It is important to know how those measures will be implemented. Does the Minister yet have any idea of which jurisdictions would agree or refuse an extradition request for a suspect in such circumstances, because of their own rules against double jeopardy?
In Standing Committee in another place on I 6th January, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr Hilary Benn, said that he was not aware of any discussions at that stage with foreign authorities about the effects of that part of the Bill. I understood that the Government intended to take part in such discussions. Will the Minister update us on those?
We referred to some of those matters when we debated that part of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill on which the noble and learned Lord responded on behalf of the Government. Although it is a little while ago now, they were such exciting exchanges that I am sure they are still fresh in his mind.
I turn to subsection (5). The Bill states that conduct which is punishable under the law of another country is to be treated as being,
"an offence under that law for the purposes of subsection (4), however it is described in that law".
Will the noble and learned Lord explain the purpose of those words? The Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 281:
"Subsection (5) recognises that offences may not be described in exactly the same way in the legislation of other jurisdictions".
We have certainly come across that in many instances when dealing with the provisions of the Extradition Bill and the loss of dual criminality in Part 1 of that Bill.
In what circumstances are any of the offences listed in Schedule 4 of the Bill described in other countries as not being criminal offences? Noble Lords who took
1054
part in our debates in Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill will recall our discussions about administrative proceedings. I note that my noble friend Lord Renton is in his place. He took a significant part in those discussions, as did my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Is that what the Government have in mind? Are there any specific instances to which the Minister can point of the offences listed in Schedule 4 not being described as criminal offences under the law of other countries, or is it a kind of belt-and-braces, just-in-case provision?
Alternatively, do the words relate not to how an offence is classified—whether it is administrative or criminal, for example—but to the names given to particular offences? In another place, that seemed to be what the then Minister, Mr Hilary Benn, was hinting at, when he said in Standing Committee on 16th January at col. 392:
"We are talking here about the equivalence—
his word, not mine—
"of what will constitute a qualifying offence. Because offences are described and framed differently in other jurisdictions. it will be necessary to undertake an equivalence exercise".
Will the Minister comment further on what the "equivalence exercise" would comprise? Who will undertake it? Will the Court of Appeal and the court in which the person is retried, as well as the DPP. have to be satisfied that the offences are equivalent'? I would welcome clarification from the noble and learned Lord on those matters. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have an objection in two parts. The first part relates to the practicalities of these provisions. That an acquittal anywhere in the world can be "appealed", to use the noble and learned Lorcl's expression, in this country is extraordinary. He has told us that the reason Scotland is not included in these provisions is that it has no intention of abolishing the rule on double jeopardy. I have not heard that any of the common law countries have decided to abolish that rule, and it seems to me impractical to put the acquittals in other countries under the spotlight.
Secondly, if there is no reciprocity—if no one else throughout the world is going to follow this line and say that an acquittal in the United Kingdom is not good enough and that they will investigate an offence all over again—why should we start down that road? I entirely support the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions and I must indicate straightaway that I shall have to write to her in relation to a number of them. I am afraid that I do not have the answers at my fingertips. She is right in saying that I took part in the proceedings in this House on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, and exciting though it was I cannot immediately recall all the details which she thinks I should be able to recall.
The noble Baroness asked what is the state of the discussions that have taken place with other countries in relation to the potential operation of this clause. Those discussion are continuing, but I would like to

1055
write to her in order to tell her as much as I can on that. That may also deal to some extent with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Secondly, the noble Baroness is right to say that the application of extradition rules will be important in practical terms, because if the person in relation to whom a retrial is sought is not present in this country, extradition must be used in order to bring that person within the jurisdiction of the court. Again, I will have to write to her on the operation of those rules, with copies to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
As regards the purpose and meaning of subsection (5), its broad purpose is apparent. Subsection (4) operates in circumstances,
"where a person has been acquitted, in proceedings elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, of an offence under the law of the place where the proceedings were held, if the commission of the offence as alleged would have amounted to or included a commission (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of a qualifying offence".
Clause 69(5) is not intended to cover actions which do not constitute offences abroad. It is intended to refer to an offence which may be described differently abroad, but which amounts to a qualifying offence over which this country has jurisdiction. I am afraid that I cannot indicate specifically, by reference to a particular country, how an offence which appears at present in the relevant part of Schedule 4 is described in that country which would give rise to that issue. If I am able to give more information about that, I will include it in the letter that I have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised an objection of principle. Remember this, I would say: at present, the courts of this country are justified and entitled to try a serious criminal matter where there is evidence for that to be done. It is accepted that in certain cases the fact that a person has been acquitted in another country of the same offence may constitute a bar. In cases where it does not constitute a bar, at present such a charge could be brought in the courts of this country.
While special devolution provisions relate to Scotland and while practical issues may arise, such as extradition rules, the Government have taken the view that if there is evidence of such a serious offence of a new and compelling kind—we shall discuss in due course where the line should be drawn as to what is a serious offence for these purposes—then justice would suggest that the case should be tried. It should not matter that the acquittal took place in another country rather than in a court in this country.
However, so far as concerns Amendments Nos. 133T and 133U, I hope that the explanations that I have given, together with my promise of further explanations, will satisfy the noble Baroness sufficiently and that she will not press the amendment today.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Subsection (4) appears to be most extraordinary. As I understand it, it gives a power totally dissimilar to anything that we have previously had in criminal law in this country. Do I understand correctly from what the Minister said that
1056
someone could be acquitted—let us say, in the Caribbean or in France—of one of the 81 offences listed in the schedule to the Bill? And do I understand that it is the intention of the Government that there should be a power then to apply to the prosecutor—whoever that may be; presumably the defendant has been prosecuted by another body in the country in which his case took place—or to apply to the Court of Appeal in this country to order a retrial? Is that correct or not on the basis of new evidence?
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord adds at the end "on the basis of new evidence". The whole of Part 10 is directed at permitting in particular cases—we shall come to what those are and what the safeguards are—the authorisation of a further investigation. With the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions an application is to be made to the Court of Appeal to determine whether or not, because there is new and compelling evidence and because the interests of justice so require—as I said, we shall come to all those safeguards—the case should be tried again.
This clause states that if that can be done—if the conditions are satisfied and if, in the view of the Court of Appeal, the interests of justice require that to be done—where the acquittal took place in Maidstone, so also should it be capable of happening if the acquittal had taken place in Lyons or in some other place in another country in the world. In my respectful view, there is nothing astonishing about that. The same principle is being applied whether the acquittal took place in this country or somewhere else. But the strong safeguards will still apply.
I emphasise that Clause 69(4) applies only in circumstances where the offence is one for which the courts here have jurisdiction; for example, in the case of murder alleged to have been committed by a British citizen abroad. That could have been tried here. In the example given, it has not been tried here; it has been tried in France or wherever. Had it been tried here, the provisions of Part 10 would apply so that a retrial could be ordered if the conditions were made out. The fact that it could have been tried here but has not been—it has been tried somewhere else—should not prevent it from being the subject of an application under this part. The final words of Clause 69(4) are,
"in proceedings elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, of an offence under the law of the place where the proceedings were held. if the commission of the offence as alleged would have amounted to or included the commission (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of a qualifying offence".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord referred to a very interesting point. The crimes of universal jurisdiction in which a British citizen is the defendant are piracy, genocide and murder. That is one reason why subsequent amendments will seek to confine this power to a limited degree. Does it mean, for example, that a person who has been acquitted of murder while serving in the Armed Forces in Germany

1057
can face a new trial in this country, simply because evidence that was available in this country was not available in Germany?
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord is now getting into the question of what are the conditions. We shall come to those. The requirement under Clause 72 is for new and compelling evidence. We shall come to what that means. We shall also turn to the fact that the interests of justice test to be applied takes into account certain matters. In Clause 73(2)(c), the question of interests of justice is to be determined having regard in particular to whether certain evidence,
"would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings…but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition".
I am very happy to consider the specific example the noble Lord gives and to come back on that. I just take issue with the proposition that there would be anything other than the full rigour of the conditions set out in Part 10, which would apply wherever the acquittal had taken place.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord can make it clear under what law any such retrial would take place.
Lord Goldsmith: In criminal law it would have to take place under English law. We do not try cases in our criminal courts under any other law.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: If a person was convicted of murder in France and acquitted under French law, and there was new evidence, does that mean that there would then be a power to apply to retry him in this country under English law? On what basis—I know we shall turn to these conditions later—would that court know whether the evidence was genuinely new evidence available in another country at the time of the original trial?
Perhaps I may make my position clear to the Attorney-General. I actually support the principle behind Part 10 and said so at Second Reading. However, 1 think that one must consider whether it is appropriate to use it in cases where the original trial has not taken place in this country.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I must say that I do not often come to the rescue of the Attorney-General, but it seems to me that he is plainly right on this case. If we are going to accept this principle at all—if there is new evidence which satisfies Part 10 and if we have jurisdiction to try a man a second time in this country—it does not matter a row of beans whether he has been acquitted here or elsewhere.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. He has sparked a realisation of how important it is that we get right the safeguards and the list of offences in Schedule 4. The noble and learned Lord was saying that we will get to the details later. We are dealing here with the extent of the application of the jurisdiction on how we will operate the relaxation of double jeopardy. In fact,
1058
it has disappeared in many cases. If we are going to accept that the principle is right, we must make sure that the fact is right.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that if the principle of double jeopardy goes in certain limited cases, the guilty should not escape—if that is what we are trying to say. But in so doing, we must ensure that we are content with how we define that loss of double jeopardy. We will have that opportunity in later amendments.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will write to me on the specific questions I raised. He will know when we were dealing with the Extradition Bill, hidden away in Grand Committee upstairs, that I also expressed concerns about the compatibility of the provisions of this Bill with the Extradition Bill and that the Government later this summer—or indeed autumn or winter, whenever we are going to finish these Bills—will achieve some synchronicity whereby these particular clauses are compatible.
I may not agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the principle of the matter—I may go further than he in agreeing with some things that the Government propose—but I am certainly concerned about how the matter is put into effect in practice. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 1330 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 46, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may start by saying that this is in no way a paving amendment. The one thing that stands out a mile from Clause 69 is subsection (6). Indeed, I was surprised that no one picked up subsection (6) on Second Reading. I should have done so myself if I had been able to take part.
We in this House are surely right to have a strong antipathy to retrospective legislation—an antipathy that is not confined to the retrospective creation of new offences. It goes much wider than that. All retrospective legislation is undesirable, but especially when it is liable to deprive a man of his liberty, whether or not by creating a new offence as in this provision.
Let me give an example of what I have in mind. A man commits one of the less serious offences under Schedule 4. He is tried and acquitted. All of that happened five or 10 years ago. He consults his solicitor at the time and is told, perfectly correctly, that he cannot be tried again for that offence. He then marries and, perhaps to clear his conscience, he tells his wife that he was indeed guilty of that offence. The marriage then breaks up, perhaps in acrimonious circumstances.
Is that man then to live for the rest of his life in fear that his wife will tell the police that he confessed to the crime, or perhaps sell the story to the newspapers? I would regard that as the grossest injustice. He had a right in accordance with our law not to be tried again—a right

1059
that accrued five or 10 years ago when he was acquitted. If the rule of law means anything, he surely ought not to be deprived of that right by subsequent legislation. It is no good saying, "Well, he was guilty anyway so he cannot complain". That would hold good only if the guilty are to be regarded as having no rights—hardly the mark of a civilised society.
I should be very surprised if the Attorney-General were to take that line. No doubt he will say instead that the Court of Appeal would never exercise its discretion to order a retrial in such a case. Maybe not. But the Government seem to be taking that line throughout the Bill as we go through it clause by clause. It is surely wrong to enact illiberal and repressive legislation and then say, "Oh, but it will not be enforced, or only in the most exceptional circumstances". The criminal law should be certain in its impact. As we lawyers would say, it should not depend on the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot, if, indeed, there will shortly be any foot to be measured.
It may then be said that unless we make Clause 69 retrospective, it will be some years before it can be applied; to which I should reply, "So what?". We have lived with the rule against double jeopardy for hundreds of years; surely we can live with it a little longer—unless, of course, the police have specific cases in mind that they would like to bring back before the courts to secure a conviction. I caught a hint of that in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, at Second Reading on 16th June at the foot of column 600 of Hansard. I hope that I was wrong, because I can imagine nothing more abhorrent than to pass retrospective legislation designed to catch particular individuals.
For the reasons I stated earlier, I am in favour of the limited exception to the double jeopardy rule; but I am wholly against making that change retrospective. I beg to move.
Lord Neill of Bladen: The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was good enough to indicate that I might make a few observations about the general principles involved here. I am surprised at the meekness with which the Committee is accepting the situation, where a centuries' old rule against double jeopardy is being jettisoned. I find it astonishing that, at present, no amendment on the matter has been tabled. Perhaps something can be done on Report.
A very grave and serious principle is involved. I do not agree with the reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to a Latin tag to the effect that it is in the interests of the state that litigation should come to an end. It is my understanding that that applies to civil litigation. The principle on double jeopardy is that it is a very grave thing for a man or a woman to be prosecuted for a criminal offence. If acquitted, the acquittal should stand for all time; it should not be a provisional acquittal. Something very serious is at stake.
I hear people talk about DNA cases, where the new compelling DNA evidence is brought to light, but that is not what we are talking about in the Bill. We are
1060
talking about so-called "new and compelling evidence" and where it is "in the interests of justice" that there should be a second trial. When I read the definition of "new" I could hardly believe it. New means old. Clause 72(2) states:
"Evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted".
All that it says is needed for evidence to qualify as "new" is that it must not have been brought forward. To make matters worse, when the Court of Appeal considers whether it is in the interests of justice to make an order under Section 71, under Clause 73(2)(c), one of the factors to which regard must be had is,
"whether it is likely that the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition".
You would be dealing with old evidence that was available but with which there has been some mess-up in the earlier proceedings. The width of the abolition of the double jeopardy rule is extremely extensive. No attempt has been made to chisel it so that it fits DNA-type conclusive evidence cases.
Secondly, what will be the consequence of abolition of the double jeopardy rule? My prediction is that there will be hounding in the media of people who are acquitted in sensational, high-profile cases. The acquittal will not be final, and it will be up to anybody, including the press, to see what additional evidence they can rootle out so that there can be a second prosecution of the person who has been acquitted.
I have some experience in those matters, having been chairman of the Press Council for some five years. The press is industrious in pursuing such matters. Perhaps that is a healthy thing.
Thirdly, what a time to introduce the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy. We are about to be asked to sign the convention coming out of the Giscard d'Estaing praesidium in France, which the European Council of Ministers in Thessaloniki announced the other day would be signed in June next year. Part of that is a charter of rights.
I remind noble Lords about Article 50—I say that ironically, because I do not think anyone knows what is in the charter of rights. It says that:
"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law".
That is the basic provision in Article 50 of the charter. To make matters simple, an explanatory memorandum accompanies the charter which quotes Protocol 7, Article 4 from the convention on human rights, which states that the basic rule is that there is no double jeopardy. However, in subsection (2), it says that a member state may introduce a qualification and may have double jeopardy. We have had the right under the convention for years and not exercised it. We are about to exercise it when another rule comes into place via the charter.

1061
I have serious and grave concerns about the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy. It will lead to very undesirable results and has been drafted in a way that is in no sense confined to a necessary and tightly drawn category of case.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, that this House has not become meek. That is certainly not a word that has ever applied to me. I have always felt that the attitude with which I have most difficulty is "blessed are the meek", because they are the ones that end up getting the hardest deal of all.
I wanted to reassure the noble Lord. I contacted the Public Bill Office but did not have the draft Bill with me. I said that I wanted the provision for double jeopardy not to stand part of the Bill. I was informed that the provision was in Clause 77, but should have been in Clause 7. Noble Lords will see my name asking for Clause 77 not to stand part, but I was asking for the right to retry not to stand part of the Bill. I shall certainly table an amendment on Report.
I should like to speak to the principle involved and express my concerns. We are talking about a rule of constitutional importance which is recognised throughout the common law world and even beyond. It is applied in virtually all developed legal systems. I note that when the issue was discussed, in seeking to find support for this move away from principle, the Prime Minister himself said that such a system was used in Finland, Sweden and Germany. He was not able to name anywhere else, because there is no other place.
When I inquired into the actuality of that, I discovered that it meant that in places such as Finland and Sweden, there is an opportunity to re-try when there has been a corruption of the process. If the judge—there are no juries such as we know them in those systems—has been somehow corrupted and an acquittal has been entered wrongly because of that corruption, it is possible to re-try.
We have a similar provision. In the 1990s, legislation was carried through this House and the other place that allows for the retrial of a defendant who is acquitted when there has been interference with the process and the jury might have been nobbled. It has never had to be used. So, we have the equivalent of what exists in the countries to which the Prime Minister referred. We are running in the face of a principle that is accepted around the world.
The reason for the principle is clear. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, expressed it better than I could. It is a serious and grave thing to put someone on trial. In denying the principle, we are creating something new. In murder trials and in other serious trials, we are creating the conditional acquittal. I want the Committee to think seriously about that. A person who stands trial will not be able to leave the court building sighing with relief. Many of us have had the experience of a client almost collapsing at the end of a trial, and we have been able to say to him or her, "It is over. You can rebuild your life". We will not be able
1062
to say that any more. It is a terrible punishment to visit on many people that they should live with uncertainty without finality. We know that, in a number of cases, terrible wrongs have taken place or guilty people have walked free.
Here again, an incredible problem presents itself to us. I, too, have been moved by the accounts of people who say, "The man who killed my daughter is walking around". We know that such cases exist. Happily, there are few about which we can say that with any certainty, but what we will visit on the many is the fear of the hand on the shoulder. That is a terrible thing to bring into our system.
It looks like an easy change to make. DNA has arrived on our doorstep, and we can be confident that someone has committed an offence. However, the Government really want to do exactly the thing about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, expressed concern and deal with the sort of cases that come up in the press from time to time, in which people pained by an injustice want that injustice cured. I am afraid that retrospectivity is at the heart of it. It will bring credit on the Government, if they are seen to solve the grievances in a handful of cases.
We must think seriously about it. We are pouring a poison into the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, said, one of the problems is that, in the contemporary world, it is not just the policeman who can put his hand on one's shoulder; the press can do it, too. When a man or woman steps out of a courtroom acquitted in a particular kind of case, a campaign will immediately be mounted to have that person brought back before the court. That is a terrible thing to visit on our system.
There is a risk that disappointed investigators, particularly in high profile cases, will wish to recommence investigations immediately after an acquittal, especially if there is pressure from the media, from victims and their families, who will have a higher expectation, and from politicians who want to jump on the bandwagon. Those with previous convictions known to the investigating officer would also be a target. Officers with a personal animus against an accused may wish to pursue him, despite an acquittal. That is a worrying thing to introduce into our system.
There is a serious risk that any new trial would be unfair. If the process goes through—I know that there is an attempt to limit press coverage—it will mean that a new jury in a second trial will know that there must have been evidence that the Court of Appeal considered very compelling. We are introducing the presumption of guilt and attacking the fundaments of our legal system. After a first trial, the prosecution will have precise knowledge of a defendant's case and will be able to review and strengthen its own case and plug holes in it in the light of that knowledge. People may say, "So what?". The answer is that we are turning on their head all those things about the burden of proof.
The Government propose that fresh evidence should be taken account of only if it could not reasonably have been available for the first trial, but it is our view that such situations are likely to be

1063
commonplace because of inadequate investigation in the first place. Almost every case in which there is an unhappiness for the family or the victim—whether it be the Stephen Lawrence case, or the recent case of Damilola Taylor, or, indeed, the case of Julie Hogg where a mother found her daughter months after the event—invariably the reason why the case failed the first time was poor investigation. Instead of improving policing and investigation, it has been plugged again by trying to interfere with principles within the system.
The abolition of the rule against double jeopardy is liable to encourage unreasonable expectations in the victim. It is likely to create media campaigns and to rob the process of finality. That could have very real and serious consequences. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who rises up astounded that there is not alarm and despondency much wider than there has been about what it really will mean; about what the implications will be; about the kind of campaigning there will be on the steps of courts; and about how hideous it will become for the lives of many. So the cost to our system will be great.
Turning now to DNA, I say particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that, if it is the situation that we do not have this as retrospective legislation—I hope, indeed as he does, that it is not, but I have my real suspicions as to what its purpose is—what is the need? What we should be urging for is proper investigation. I urge Members of the Committee to recognise that of course we hear these cases and we feel and empathise with the pain of those who feel a wrong has been done, but we must also measure it against the much greater wrong of interference within our system as a whole.
That role has existed since Roman law times; it is shared around the world for very good reasons. Interfering with it is a shocking step away from the principles on which our system is based. What do we say to people who say, "My daughter's murderer is walking free"? In the particular case of Julie Hogg, a man confessed that he had committed the murder of this young woman. He was brought back before the court and was convicted of perjury. The maximum penalty for perjury is 10 years' imprisonment. The judge, who I think made a mistake, gave that man six years. He probably should have faced the full range of that sentence—10 years probably would have been appropriate. Maybe we should be looking at lengthening the sentences on perjury; maybe we should be looking at other ways. But to leave it that a person walks out of a court room thinking that all he has got is a conditional acquittal for one of the most serious cases for which one will stand charged in court, is a terrible way to take our system. That is a terrible route for us to be going down. I go back to the principle and will not be meek on this subject.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In our debate on jury trials and whether they were to be curtailed, I thought that there was general agreement that we were all concerned to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system. I have genuine sympathy, to this extent: there is a difficulty in terms of public
1064
confidence in an extreme case of the character that has been recited. One can understand with deep compassion the disgust and anger of the relatives of someone who has been murdered in circumstances where DNA establishes beyond a doubt that the person acquitted was in truth guilty.
But one needs to look more deeply, as I trust the Government will, at where the interests of public confidence truly lie. The superficial answer is clear in the scenario that we are imagining. But a little further down the line, I wonder whether public confidence would be sustained if this change were made when it was seen how people having been acquitted were hounded and badgered and their lives made a misery month in, month out.
I turn to a point not as yet made in the debate: how would witnesses who had given evidence for the defence be treated? How would their lives be affected? What pressures would be brought to bear upon them by certain tabloid newspapers—I cite those as an example, but by no means exclusively—to change their evidence? How would their lives be examined and placed under the microscope? What efforts would be made to demonstrate in public that their evidence had been thoroughly unreliable because of all kinds of things that may subsequently have been brought to light? When that is seen to be the pattern, I venture to suggest that public confidence will not be quite so firmly behind the change now being proposed.
So much has been said in the debate that I need say no more. I endorse all the remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. I also support strongly the remarks on the question of retrospectivity made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. For myself, I find this matter extremely difficult and I am deeply uneasy about the compromise arrived at by the two Opposition Front Benches because those who have been charged with and acquitted of murder, soliciting for murder or genocide—possibly this may even be extended to manslaughter; I can see the logic of it—are the very people against whom the decibels are going to be the loudest in the public press and on whom the pressures are going to be the greatest.
Not very helpfully. I confess to unease and to an unconcluded mind, but in any event I am absolutely certain that Schedule 4 is grotesquely overdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I strongly support the argument which has just been adduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I think that it should be possible for my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench to take this away and think again about the whole issue. Why was the rule of double jeopardy developed'? In my view, nothing that has been said in this debate obviates the necessity of keeping that rule.
However, I never have and do not now want to score points against the Government, which I invariably support, but the burden of proof here rests very heavily on my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General.

1065
Moreover, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and subsequently reinforced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about hounding by the media after an acquittal, is highly justified.
My noble and learned friend ought now to explain to the Committee how those consequences, which in any light are unacceptable, can be mitigated or, better still, how they can be avoided altogether. I hope that he will see that noble Lords who made these points have not done so lightly. They have been made as the result of a great deal of experience.
So far as I am concerned, therefore, I shall listen with great interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say. but I beg him to come forward with some form of reasonable response to the genuine points that have been advanced in this debate. I hope that he can do so.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: While I accept the lash of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for the compromise to which he referred, I hope he will notice that my name is attached to this amendment, which deals with retrospectivity. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed out, towards the end of the 19th century fingerprints were discovered to be unique, but that made no difference to the double jeopardy rule.
We now have DNA, but that is not unique. The Committee will remember a case in Cardiff last week. Three men had been wrongly convicted and were acquitted by the Court of Appeal after serving some three years. The offender was finally traced through DNA—but not his own DNA. It was the DNA of a nephew, who was not born at the time of the original offence. It was so close to the DNA of the offender that those who investigated the offence were able to apprehend the right man after some 15 years. It was a case of some notoriety in Wales.
I have been involved in a case where, although it was a 10 million to one chance that the DNA found on the victim did not come from the defendant or someone closely related to him, it did not follow that there were not people within his own family who may have had similar DNA. The odds fell from 10 million to one to about two to one. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that the defence was that someone else in the family had committed the offence. DNA is not the wonderful complete answer to everything in investigations. In many cases there is still a question mark about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said that in future people will live in uncertainty when they are acquitted. The amendment is concerned with people who, in the past, have lived in certainty that there was finality. If the amendment is not passed, they will all of a sudden find that the acquittal they received many years ago, maybe in another country, will no longer protect them from further investigation and the kind of pressure to which noble Lords have referred.
Furthermore, victims and their families who still carry the hurt with them will be disappointed. There have been many famous cases: indeed, the noble
1066
Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to some of them. However, in such cases where acquittals have taken place, I have not heard that there has been some new discovery of DNA that suddenly made those acquittals wrong. Those who have in the past finally come to a closure and conclusion about the trial that took place will suddenly find that it has all opened-up again.
The whole purpose of the rule against double jeopardy is to have closure and finality. As human beings our lives are short and we have to come to terms with decisions that are made. As noble Lords have pointed out, this is a rule that applies throughout the common law systems and in most jurisdictions where the rule of law prevails. We move from it at our peril.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: I had not intended to speak on Part 10 because I am sympathetic to what one might call the "DNA aspect" of the proposed changes. But the remarks of a constellation of distinguished speakers today have led me to think that the clauses may not be tightly enough drafted.
I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that if the possibility of retrial was limited to new and compelling scientific evidence that was not and could not reasonably have been available at the time of the earlier trial, that might go far towards making the proposed changes more acceptable.
Perhaps, also, bearing in mind what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the question of retrospectivity requires further consideration. For myself, I regard that as a difficult question on which, possibly like others, I will retain an open mind.
Viscount Colville of Culross: This debate has turned into a general discussion about Part 10. I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, in seeking a method whereby she could discuss it. I have only one short point for my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd. Even if his amendment were to be passed, it would do nothing to cure the situation in the future. The situations mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will occur when convictions take place after this legislation is in force, even if it is not retrospective, because the same situations will occur some years hence and there will be exactly the same anticipation and disquiet among those who think that they have been acquitted. Therefore, the issues raised go to the entire point of double jeopardy rather than against retrospectivity.
Lord Lucas: It seems to me that subsection (6) is essential to the Bill. It is only when you look at those few cases of manifest injustice which have occurred over the past 25 years that it is possible for any sane man to think that this is a fair provision. It is only when you focus on that individual pain and allow the rest of your common sense to be excluded that it is possible to think that the injustices which will be done by this provision in any way come close to, let alone are outweighed by, the benefits which this provision will bring.

1067
The situation is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has said. We will regret passing this provision from the moment we pass it. It will, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, open up a whole Pandora's box of years of past misery by people whose friends or relations or children have been murdered and who believe that they know who did it or that the person who has been acquited really did it and there is something that was not properly considered at the time. It will open up endless bitterness; it will be food and drink to the media, who will be able to run all sorts of operations to make people who have been acquitted and anyone associated with the trial miserable.
The costs of doing this are enormous in terms of human misery. The benefits are certainly tangible and important, but they do not outweigh the costs. The present rule is prevalent in so many systems, long-lasting and well respected. That is for a reason. It is because whenever people have allowed themselves the space and the rationality, they have concluded that that is the right balance. When so many societies with different outlooks and points of view have reached that conclusion, it is one that we ought to respect. I hope that my Front Bench will respect it too. Sometimes I think they share instincts of the present Home Secretary—they certainly did when we were last in power. I very much hope they have changed their mind.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: The remarks that have just been made have brought me to my feet. It is worth remembering that these ancient protections have not existed accidentally and have not survived for so long as to be ancient protections for no good reason. They have survived for so long precisely because they have stood the test of time and been a hallmark of a civilised society which is not moved by populist concerns to do what seems cheap and easy and popular because of particular cases which have come to notoriety. The ability to resist pressures arising from such cases is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society.
My noble friend referred to the previous administration and the proclivities of the present Government. In considering a proposal of this kind, one is minded to ask whether it is appropriate to give this Government the benefit of the doubt on the basis that, if a credible case can be made, they should be supported in the interests of justice. However, the number of provisions in the Bill that offend previous principles that have lasted for centuries, such as the one that we are discussing, are so numerous that the Government have lost the right to the benefit of doubt.
As a former Home Secretary, I have to say that if I had dared to introduce a quarter of the provisions in this Bill, which go against the traditions of fairness and criminal justice, I would have been torn limb from limb by those on the opposite Benches—and they would have been right to do it. I regard the Bill as containing a number of provisions that are an affront to justice and to civilisation, and this is one of them.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brennan: In a debate of such importance, metaphorical self-evisceration is not helpful. The debate must surely be conducted on a serious basis. This part of the Bill seeks in a limited form to reflect the sense of justice of the community.
Let me put a contrast to the Committee. If we consider it just that someone who has been in prison for 15 or 20 years should be released because DNA evidence shows that person to be innocent and another person to be guilty, that accords with the sense of justice of our community. The innocent have been set free. We had an example of that only the other day, with the three people from Cardiff who were released and acquitted and the real murderer subsequently convicted because of DNA. That represents a sense of justice We might compare with that the case of a person who has been acquitted of murder 15 or 20 years ago, when DNA evidence shows that person in fact to have committed the murder. I do not believe that the community would say that it was just to let that person avoid a retrial and possible conviction under these provisions. Indeed, the sense of justice will be stretched in the extreme if we legislate to release the innocent but legislate to protect the guilty.
That practical state of affairs is what the ordinary person in the street will have in mind. The value of double jeopardy as a protection between the citizen and an overbearing state or prosecutor is absolutely fundamental and well established. The proposals in principle will not denigrate or destroy that protection, subject to two considerations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the present senior Law Lord, closed one of his excellent lectures on justice by quoting from a decision of the Court of Appeal in Mattan. That was the case of a man who had been hanged 50 years ago whose conviction was posthumously overturned. I shall paraphrase the end of the judgment, quoted by the noble and learned Lord. It said that the instance indicated the absolute need for integrity by all those involved in the prosecuting process.
When we look to how the change in double jeopardy should he properly controlled, the first control must be absolute integrity by all those concerned in the prosecution at the time, as well as at the second attempt.
The second control must surely be the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The wording that we shall have to consider, properly interpreted, gives that court very strong powers indeed to avoid sending back for trial unmeritorious attempts to reopen cases. The tenor of the statutory language that we are considering is that the measure is for wholly exceptional cases.
I apologise to the Committee for not being present earlier but I know from conversation with him the opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, expressed about the dangers. I mentioned that the two precautions of integrity and strong appellate control are essential.

1069
In expressing my general support for the principle I want to close by inviting my fellow lawyers in this Chamber, in so far as it is intellectually possible—this is difficult for us because of our training and our upbringing—to look at the matter as if we were citizens in the context which I first described in opening these remarks. I do not think that anyone could condemn what I imagine to be the majority of ordinary reasonable citizens who would say that this limited change to double jeopardy, especially when scientifically justified, reflects our sense of justice.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I have been most impressed by the speeches during the past hour. They have shown this Chamber at its very best. I hope that I may from an entirely lay perspective offer a word of support to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I was brought up with the principle that justice must be done and must be seen to be done. What must be seen to be done is, in a sense, culturally relative and changes over time.
Provided the restrictions are drawn tightly—probably more tightly than in Clause 72—to make it clear that the evidence should be scientifically compelling, and not just compelling in a more general sense, the exception that proves the rule could uphold the principle of double jeopardy while allowing for exceptional circumstances. If that is not the case, the danger is that one brings the whole process of the administration of law into a certain disrepute because of the media attention which is given to the exception. So, provided Clause 72, and other relevant clauses, could be drawn more tightly, I personally would be willing to accept the measure, but with a heavy heart for all the reasons which Members of the Committee have given so impressively over the past hour or so.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The debate of the past 50 minutes has shown that the Bill is not a seamless whole as a Criminal Justice Bill but a portfolio Bill of a significant number of stand-alone changes to our criminal justice system, some of which receive wholehearted support. However, others, such as the one we are discussing, spark very deep concerns, and sometimes for different reasons among different groups within this Chamber and elsewhere.
I and my colleagues in another place have considered all these matters, as we have other parts of the Bill, very deeply. Indeed, I believe that our feelings echo very closely those that have just been expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
I turn to the difficulties we face when we consider whether we should accept the relaxation of double jeopardy as a principle—a principle that my noble friend Lord Brittan said is ages old. If we accept that relaxation, which we on these Benches have, we then immediately pose ourselves the very difficult next step of what to do about retrospectivity. As soon as one relaxes the principle of double jeopardy, one builds in the effect of retrospectivity in the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said so poignantly and so graphically, every person has to face the tap on the shoulder.
1070
In accepting the fact that there should he a relaxation of double jeopardy as a principle, I do riot underestimate the pain and the fear that will be felt by some. As the right reverend Prelate hinted, what is important is that pain and fear should be felt only by those who are guilty. That is why I think it is our duty to ensure that the rules within Part 10 are so closely and carefully drawn that we do not throw to the wolves of the tabloid press people who should not face retrial.
I, too, have reflected on the more general nature of the debate. The noble and learned Lord very properly directed us to whether subsection (6) should be deleted. I have a confession to make to him. I did not overlook the matter; an amendment was tabled in another place by my honourable friend Dominic Grieve, with the purpose of trying to probe what we as a Parliament were letting ourselves in for if we were to go down that route. We went through the painful and difficult decisions referred to by the right reverend Prelate and decided that we would accept double jeopardy, but with close restrictions.
Therefore, on this very rare occasion I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, and I hope that it remains a rare occasion. However, I shall certainly try to ensure that Part 10 does not proceed in its current and unamended form, because the safeguards are not there at the moment to allow subsection (6) loose on the country.
Lord Goldsmith: My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis invited me to consider that the points made today were not lightly made. I entirely accept that, and would never have thought otherwise. I entirely agree with those who have said that there are difficult choices to be made. The Government have considered those. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws attributes this part of the Bill to the Government's desire to achieve quick credit. That is not how I see it at all. I see it as a provision to provide justice in exceptional cases where justice has not been done, and to protect others.
We have not focused on protecting others today. If, for example, we know that there is a man walking the streets who has been guilty of serious crimes. and whose DNA we did not have then but have now, and if we could prosecute him now although he was acquitted before, we could get him off the streets and protect other people's daughters and children. That is a step that we have to think long and hard about before we say that we will not take it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I share that sense of outrage at the possibility of someone walking free when new science provides us with a remedy. Why, therefore, have the Government not confined themselves in this part of the Bill to DNA and scientific breakthrough?
Lord Goldsmith: I will come to that, but I shall deal with the principle in my own order.
The Government have been persuaded that it is necessary to make a limited exception to what the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, describes as an age-old principle and a rule that is centuries old. I am glad

1071
to have support not only from those on the Opposition Front Bench and—as I understand it, although I may not have understood it correctly—on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in a powerful and important speech, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, for indicating that he also has been sympathetic to the principle, although he wants to consider the precise details, which I understand. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his agreement that there should be a limited exception.
Those are not the only people who have taken the view that this is the right thing to do. The Law Commission supported the change. Lord Justice Auld in his report, Lord Macpherson in his report on the Lawrence case, and the Home Affairs Select Committee have all agreed with the principle of change. I am glad that the amendment has allowed us to air some of the issues of principle. I will deal with certain of the points that have been made, but I will not shrink from saying that, difficult though the issues are, it is right to make the change.
The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, said that it is a centuries-old rule. Yes, it is. Not for the first time this week, a Minister at the Dispatch Box is saying that that does not necessarily mean that it is right for all time. The evidence is there and the case has been made for this limited exception.
I do not agree with the assertion of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that no other country has a different rule. The annexe to the Law Commission report indicates—I have it in front of me—that that is the case, for example, in Denmark. Protocol 7, Article 4 of the European Convention, from which the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, read, indicates that it is accepted in the Council of Europe that there may be exceptions to the principle of double jeopardy, no doubt because there are countries that adhere to it.
Equally. I recognise—and it is always the case where there is a balance to be struck—that, to use the words of the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, there are implications of pain for some. I accept that there are certain risks attached. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. referred to the risk of being hounded by the press, but went on, from his experience as Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, to answer that point by recognising, as we all know, that that happens already, even without any such rule. The press is inquisitive and roots out injustice in all sorts of ways. I recognise that the provision carries a price, but it is a price worth paying, because of the justice that it will bring about.
I will deal briefly with the point that he made—
Earl Russell: If the noble and learned Lord is relying on DNA for his justification, as he did at the beginning of his speech, that is a temporary problem because it is a new technique. Why not, then, make the Bill what
1072
our ancestors used to call "a probationer" and insert its own sunset clause in the provision? If the need is temporary, so should be the change in the rule.
Lord Goldsmith: I thank the noble Earl for his intervention. I do not restrict my case to DNA and I will come to a striking example that does not depend one little bit on DNA, but where I will challenge noble Lords to say that they do not see the cry for justice contained therein. I will come to that in a few moments.
DNA is a new technique. As other noble Lords have said, fingerprinting was a new technique once upon a time and, no doubt, we will see further new techniques in the future. Therefore, if we are to have the provision at all, as we believe we should, let it cover all of those cases.
I shall deal briefly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, on a European matter. I hesitate today to go into any substantive issue relating to the draft Convention on the Future of Europe, which has been produced by President Giscard d'Estaing and to the intergovernmental conference, which is about to take place. However, I do know something about the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to which he referred as I was one of its negotiators. I know that it contains provisions that make it clear that where there are clauses—such as the one to which the noble Lord referred—which relate to the European Convention on Human Rights they have the same meanings, and include the same exceptions. I also know that that charter is not directed at what countries do within their own national competencies. It is directed, as its clauses make clear, to what is done by the Union's institutions or by member states when they are acting as agents. I do not regard that as a reason against these provisions.
My noble friend Lord Brennan put the matter very well when he referred to the sense of justice that the citizen and community would have. He said that we must not be seen to be legislating to protect the guilty. With the safeguards that are built into the Bill—and we will come to consider their detail—that is what we would be doing if we declined to carry through this provision and its retrospectivity.
We have moved a little towards a Second Reading or clause stand part debate. I make no complaint about that—indeed, I encouraged it. But it is worth remembering the safeguards that have been built in. They include retrials only for the most serious criminal offences. We will have to come back to exactly where the right judgment is to be drawn in relation to that and I shall not be drawn into that issue now. I know that it is an important issue and I look forward to listening carefully to what is said about the current list. There may be only one retrial. Any reinvestigation must be authorised personally by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan for referring to the need for integrity of all those involved. That is something which as Minister responsible for the director and for the Crown Prosecution Service I hold

1073
very dear. It must be subject to the decision of the Court of Appeal—my noble friend's second condition. I agree entirely with him that the clause provides strong powers to send back unmeritorious cases. I refer to one of those and we will come later to the detail. I draw particular attention to the requirement that the evidence, to be compelling, must appear "highly probative" of the case against the acquitted person. There are other conditions, too: not just a bit of evidence or something which might have changed, but something which is highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
Then, too, the interests of justice must be considered. Those will be an important safeguard. Reporting restrictions are also included so as to avoid the risk, so far as one can, that someone will be tried ultimately by the press rather than by a court seized properly of the matter.
Let me turn to retrospectivity. If one accepts that the principle of change is right—it is right to have a limited exception, subject to safeguards—I see no argument for saying that it should apply to cases only after the legislation comes into force. I will develop the reasons, but I respectfully note that those noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who said that the points that have been made arc not assisted by making the provision not retrospective are right. None of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is dealt with by making it not retrospective.
Being not retrospective deals with one point and one point only. It is the example that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, gave; the example of someone acquitted of one of the less serious offences. But the principle must be the same. Let us assume that it is someone who has been acquitted of murder and who later confesses to someone of that murder—whether to a wife or someone else—who then goes to give that evidence. I respectfully beg to differ from him. If someone has been guilty of a murder, has confessed to that murder and has chosen to do that, I am not sure that 1 can agree with the noble and learned Lord that that person should be allowed to sleep easy in his bed.
I now turn to the specific example that I wanted to mention. It has been mentioned already but it is important to have regard to it because it also answers the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, as to whether we should restrict this matter to DNA evidence. I refer to the case of Mrs Ann Ming, whom I and other noble Lords met the other day. She is the mother of Julie Hogg.
For those who do not know the story, we listened to Mrs Ming explain how, after the police had spent weeks looking for her daughter and told her that she must have gone off to start a new life, she went to the flat where her daughter had been living and discovered her decomposing body behind the bath panel. She then saw a man tried twice for the murder of her daughter. On each occasion, the jury was unable to reach a
1074
verdict and so he was acquitted. Within weeks, he was boasting in public houses that he had got away with the perfect murder. Some years later, he confessed to the murder and, when on trial for perjury, he confessed in court. I want to read From Mrs Ming's words. She said:
"His defence barrister says in court Dunlop"—
that is his name—
"has made 'British legal history', being the first person to have been acquitted of murder then later to confess 'in court'. If this is the case, there are no guidelines, no test case, so please set a precedent with this case. Change the 'double jeopardy' law. Make it retrospective and, instead of criminals like Dunlop making a complete mockery of the British justice system, let Dunlop and others be brought to justice for the crime he has confessed to, not just for lying in court for this horrendous crime".
She says:
"I will challenge any civil liberties group about 'human rights'. Our daughter had a right to life. Dunlop took this from her. We have a right for justice for Julie and the only way for us and other families to obtain justice is to change the 'double jeopardy' law retrospectively".
I respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that if, as I believe is right, we make a limited exception to double jeopardy, I could not look Mrs Ming in the face and say, "This will not apply to a case like this". I could not look her 'n the face and say, "This applies only where there is scientific evidence, but not where someone has confessed several times and in court". I would have to say to her, "Of course, he committed the offence before. It was against the law then. We are not changing the law retrospectively. What he did was a crime then. He should be punished for the crime now". I could not say that the provision would apply only in the future. I resist the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he see risks in making law for a single case?
Lord Goldsmith: I am not proposing the making of law for a single case. I have identified a striking case, which some noble Lords, as did I, had the opportunity of hearing about directly. It is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, refers, and which society considers to be justice. Only a few cases will be affected because they will be exceptional. I believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions said to the Home Affairs Select Committee that he would be surprised if there were more than a few cases. They are exceptional cases which cry out for justice, just as, fortunately. we have only a few cases which cry out for justice the other way.
Lord Lucas: I was very disturbed by what the noble and learned Lord said by way of illustration. He asked us to imagine that someone is tried and acquitted of murder and that several years later we obtain his DNA. We then know that he is guilty, and this guilty man is wandering the streets. I believe that t hat is a complete misunderstanding of DNA evidence but not one that I would expect a tabloid newspaper to avoid. I would expect exactly that kind of misstatement to be

1075
trumpeted in the tabloids—that is, that someone is wandering around with his DNA "found at the scene" or found on an object and therefore he is guilty.
DNA can provide absolute proof of innocence but it cannot provide proof of guilt. That is the case, first, because matching is not exact. A piece of DNA is cut into chunks with enzymes and we see how it comes out on a gel. We are not dealing with a complete sequence. So we are dealing with probabilities which are only in the millions and not in the thousands of millions. If we take the world as whole, it seems likely that quite a few people will have identical DNA.
DNA is also contained in many parts that we leave behind us in our passage through life, so it is easy—unlike a fingerprint—for it to turn up in places which might be inconvenient when it comes to an explanation. It may be very compelling evidence—and I understand that it is compelling evidence—but we cannot know that a man is guilty just on the basis that his DNA has been found at the scene until we have tried him. I was very disturbed that the noble and learned Lord, who understands a great deal, did not understand that.
6 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I take that as a question directed to me. The noble Lord will understand that precisely what the Government are proposing is that someone should be tried on all the evidence there is. The illustration I gave concerned identifying a piece of evidence that may make all the difference to a case. I am not suggesting that it is the only evidence available. Should we allow the situation in which we now know that there is compelling evidence that this person may be a great danger, but we can to do nothing about it until he strikes again?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The debate has gone far wider than my amendment. That is as it should be. The amendment has at least served that purpose. As noble Lords know, I do not go so far as my noble friend Lord Neill, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords in their feelings against Part 10 as a whole. For my part. I am in favour of a limited exception to the double jeopardy rule. We shall be exploring those limited exceptions, I hope, when we come to other amendments which have already been tabled and those which will no doubt be tabled in the future.
I come back to the purpose of the amendment. It was not meant to deal—to answer the point of the noble Viscount—with the kind of difficulties that have been raised in relation to Part 10 as a whole. It was intended to deal with a specific problem, about which I feel quite strongly. Any exception we make should apply only to those acquitted in the future, in respect of whom it may well serve a useful purpose in the interests of justice, and not to those who have been acquitted in the past and who have since lived in the belief that they could never be tried again. That is the point of the amendment.
I must say that 1 do not feel wholly satisfied by the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General dealt with the point. He dealt with it only by
1076
giving an example from the opposite extreme to the one I gave. Somehow it is much better to exclude those cases altogether by saying that, "This shall not be retrospective"—that is what I mean by retrospection—and then to go ahead from there. I shall want to return to the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Qualifying offences for purposes of Part 10]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 135:
Leave out Schedule 4 and insert the following new Schedule—

Criminal Justice Bill

  SCHEDULE 4 QUALIFYING OFFENCES FOR PURPOSES OF PART 10 PART 1 LIST OF OFFENCES FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
  Murder
  1. Murder.
  Rape
  2. An offence under section I, 3, 6 or 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
  3. An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17).

  PART 2 LIST FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  Murder
  4. Murder.
  Rape
  5. Rape.
  Genocide crimes against humanity and war crimes
  6. An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17).

  PART 3 SUPPLEMENTARY
  7. A reference in this Schedule to an enactment includes a reference to the enactment as enacted and as amended from time to time.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 135 takes us to the subject of the limited exceptions, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has just referred. It is grouped with Amendment No. 135ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which takes an even more limited approach than mine.
  We turn to the difficult issue of which offences should be covered by the retrial provisions. The Government lists the offences in Schedule 4. As I have mentioned already, we feel that the range is far too large. It means that double jeopardy will not apply to a limited series of cases but to a range which is far too wide.
  Why did the Government decide on that list? Why did they expand it during proceedings in another place? After all, the Law Commission recommended that only murder should be subject to the relaxation of double jeopardy. The argument for including murder is clearly that we should accept that someone who has a propensity to kill other people is a serious public menace. No doubt one reason that weighed heavily on

  1077
  the mind of the Law Commission was that there is an enormous public interest in ensuring that such people may never strike again.
  We have tried to take a pragmatic approach to the matter. In Committee and on Report in another place, my honourable friends fully debated which offences should fall within the new rule relaxing double jeopardy. We have considered the matter further since those debates. I had the opportunity briefly to pass that information to the Attorney-General, which is reflected in the nature of our amendment.
  We remain convinced that retrial should be permissible only in serious cases, but, as is evident from our amendment, we go further than the Law Commission. We say that Schedule 4 should be confined to murder, rape and genocide. We are trying to take into account the public interest question and address the most serious of offences. Also, from a purely practical point of view, it is essential that the police and prosecution are given the opportunity first to demonstrate that the new proposals work fairly and effectively before we even consider rolling out the abandonment of double jeopardy more generally.
  As I said at the beginning of the Committee's proceedings today and in speaking to Amendment No. 133P, bringing a second prosecution will not be evidentially straightforward. Before we raise and then dash the hopes of victims and remaining relatives, we should ensure that the new proposals deliver both fairness and public benefit in the most heinous of offences only.
  I have drafted the list of offences in the amendment to take the debate further than was possible in another place. In discussing the matter with my colleagues there, it became apparent that we would need to consider whether manslaughter should be added as a final item on the list. We are still considering that. I shall he interested to hear what the Attorney-General has to say in response to that—and, of course, the views of all other noble Lords.
  Our underlying view is that the Government have not yet got the balance in Schedule 4—their shopping list—right. It is a recipe for failure and disappointment. That would simply be wrong—wrong for the public interest and wrong for all those who appear before the courts in future. I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I shall speak to Amendment No. 135ZA, which is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. If there is to be any invasion of the principle of double jeopardy, it should go no further than that recommended by the Law Commission. Its report was published in March 2001 after two rounds of consultation. Why, if the Law Commission—which is supposed to advise the Government on criminal law matters—limited the proposal as it did, have the Government gone so much wider, with a list of 31 offences?
  The Law Commission said:
  "The approach we have decided to adopt is to see whether we can identify specific offences within the larger category of offences potentially attracting a life sentence which we believe are inherently serious enough to justify the application of a new evidence exception. We have come to the conclusion that under
  1078
  the present law the only such offence is murder. The main reason for this conclusion is the widespread perception, which we share, that murder is not just more serious than other offences but qualitatively different. The effect of this difference is that murder satisfies the test we have proposed for the scope of any new exception, namely whether a manifestly illegitimate acquittal sufficiently damages the reputation of the criminal justice system so as to justify overriding the rule against double jeopardy".
  Those are the Law Commission's views. We do not think that the Government should go beyond them, if the rule is to be breached at all. Consequently, our amendments are limited to murder, soliciting murder—conspiring in soliciting murder—and genocide; that is, murder on a large scale.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: For reasons that I mentioned earlier, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in preference to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  Earl Russell: I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Thomas has tabled Amendment No. 135ZA. 'The great danger with any provision of this sort—any relaxation of the rule—is that one creates an opportunity for vendetta. The use of the law as a vendetta in many societies in this century and others has not been unknown. It can be a very formidable form of vendetta. For that reason, I am surprised that the Government have decided to include an offence such as rape on their list of offences that may be tried a second time.
  My noble friend's amendment at least has the advantage of introducing certainty and excluding, with the exception of murder, those elements that are most liable to give rise to vendettas. That is a very sensible precaution.
  Lord Hylton: As a mere layman in these matters, I support the principle of restricting the list as much as possible. On those grounds, I prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to that moved by the Conservative Front Bench. However, if we had to vote on the matter, I would support either.
  Lord Goldsmith: I indicated earlier that I wanted to listen carefully to what was said in this part of the debate, so I am grateful to those who have spoken—albeit briefly, but I know from the previous longer discussion what lies behind many of the points made.
  It is necessary to bear in mind—if I may respectfully say so, the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, do not—that the Government received advice not just from the Law Commission but from Lord Justice Auld, who has also dealt with the issue. He recommended that the provision go beyond that suggested by the Law Commission to cover all offences that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. That is helpful advice, but, with respect to Lord Justice Auld, there is a difficulty with it in that all common law offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It seemed to the Government that more certainty was necessary. We have therefore sought to identify offences considered to have a particularly serious impact on the victim, their family or on society more widely, which, for the most part, carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

  1079
  I respectfully differ from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in considering the importance of including rape, for example. One can imagine cases—sadly, we have had some—where individuals have carried out campaigns of rape against women in one part of the country or throughout it. I would not regard such cases as a vendetta. I agree entirely that the law should not be used as a means of a vendetta. If we are to extend the principle of being able to come back on cases, as we believe we should, those cases should be included also.
  Other offences fall within the list. However, as my honourable friend Hilary Benn said in another place, where you draw the line is a matter of judgment. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, specifically asked my view in relation to manslaughter. The Government's view is that manslaughter should appear on the list. Indeed, there may even be difficulties in not having it appear. For example, there could be sufficient evidence and a compelling case to retry a person for murder who had previously said that he was not at the scene at all. When that case comes before the court, although it seems clear that the defendant was the person who killed, for the first time, the question might arise whether that person should be convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I am not sure that I am right about that, but it needs further consideration. Manslaughter can be a very serious crime if the circumstances have been demonstrated to make it out in the way proposed.
  I recognise that a matter of judgment is involved. Although the Government's schedule has been drawn up in the belief that it covers the right offences, recognising that an offence is on the list does not mean that all the cases that fall into that category will be sent to the Court of Appeal—far from it. I would like to consider what has been said today and return to the matter on a future occasion.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My response will be brief after that generous offer from the noble and learned Lord. This is a key issue with regard to the safeguards that should hedge around double jeopardy, so I am grateful to him for his offer to consider the matter again. We will. I am sure, meet the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, between now and Report to consider the position further.
  In the view of responses earlier from the Minister and amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, it is not appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 135A. That will disappear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 135ZA not moved.]
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Application to Court of Appeal]:
  [Amendments Nos. 135ZB to 135 AB not moved.]
  Clause 70 agreed to.
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72 [New and compelling evidence]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 135B:
  Page 47, line 34, after "not" insert ", and could not reasonably have been,"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment poses a question with regard to the new and compelling evidence that, as defined in the Bill, would enable the relaxation of the rule of double jeopardy to take place and for a retrial to occur. It would appear from the drafting of the clause that the new and compelling evidence is evidence that was available at the time of the original trial, but was simply not adduced at that trial. It may have been in the hands of the prosecution or, potentially, in the hands of the police but not the prosecution. It may have been in existence, but due to an inadequate investigation—not only through someone's fault—it was not available at the time of that first trial.
  The question that goes to the heart of the matter is what would happen if the prosecution had the evidence and, for whatever reason, chose not to use it? Should it then be used to trigger a retrial? The prosecution may not have realised the significance of the evidence, or they may have decided that, although it should be significant, it would not, at that time, come up to proof; and, therefore, did not use it.
  At this stage of the Bill's progress and given the time of day and the impending Recess, I move the amendment as a probing amendment to ask the Government to develop further their argument for why they have come up with this definition, instead of the original definition. which was intended to be a matter of new scientific evidence. The case has been made by many bodies that there should be a reasonableness test and that evidence should be brought forward only if it was not reasonably available at the time of the first trial. Other noble Lords have already said today that they might prefer it if it were the case that evidence should be adduced only if it had come to light subsequently and was not in anybody's hands at the time of the original trial.
  This is an attempt to probe the Government on why they are going down that route. What evidence have they to show that that is the proper way forward? I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: If it does not cause difficulty to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I shall speak to Amendment No. 135BA, which is on the same topic, although it is not grouped with the noble Baroness's amendment.
  In Clause 73(2)(c), the question,
  "whether it is likely that the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition"
  is set out as merely something that goes to the discretion of the Court of Appeal, when it is considering whether it is in the interests of justice. It should not be one factor among others. The Court of Appeal should not be able to say, "There are other matters that allow us to ignore that aspect of the case. Although it was discoverable on an earlier occasion, in our discretion, we will order a fresh trial".

  1081
  It is more important that the evidence that was discoverable by "reasonable and diligent inquiry", in the terms of my amendment, should not be the "new and compelling evidence" referred to in Clause 72. My amendment would make it an absolute condition that the Court of Appeal could not order a new trial on the basis of evidence in respect of which the police investigation had been a failure or had been inadequate. I shall move that amendment in due course.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In the case of new evidence as regards the defence and their subsequent application for a retrial, I have always understood that such evidence was not available to the defence to be adduced at the time of the trial. This definition of "new" goes far wider than that. I had assumed that, by "new evidence", the Government meant evidence that had since become available but was not available to the prosecution at that time. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will reconsider the definition of "new evidence". It appears to cover anything that the prosecution do not choose to use at the time.
  Earl Russell: I support my noble friend's amendment. I mentioned just now the danger that the provision would be used for vendetta. One of the cases that I have in mind concerned a young man who was a member of my seminar. He had been accused of murder, tried and acquitted. I may add that the young man came from West Belfast. The murder was the murder of a policeman. The police clearly were firmly of the opinion that the person was guilty. At every possible opportunity, for years afterwards, they used to arrest him for anything that they could possibly throw at him.
  Policemen who believe firmly in someone's guilt of murdering another policeman very naturally tend to feel rather strongly about it. If those police had had the opportunity—believing, as I understand they did, firmly in the young man's guilt—simply to go through their files, dig up anything they found and persuade someone that this was reasonable and compelling—many of the safeguards are ones that cannot really adequately be established before cross-examination—I am convinced that that would have happened. I am not convinced that this sort of repeated return to something is in the interests of justice. I am not persuaded that this repeated trawling of police files is in the interests of justice. I think the requirement that it should be new evidence is a sensible requirement and would help to keep the scope of these provisions within boundaries. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look on this with some favour.
  Lord Neill of Bladen: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will have deduced from what I said when I spoke before that I think this definition of new evidence is inadequate. It is a lower test than is used habitually in civil cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no such requirement
  1082
  here. I do not have a very strong view as to which of the two propositions should be accepted—namely, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. But it is something that needs to be looked at. If there is to be new evidence, the definition must be tightened up.
  Lord Goldsmith: Clause 72 requires that,
  "there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence".
  It defines evidence which is to be regarded as "new and compelling" for the purposes of this part of the Bill. The definition of new evidence, as it stands in the Bill, is straightforward, factual and objective. Clause 72(2) states that,
  "Evidence is new if it was not adduced",
  at the original trial. I emphasise that that is a threshold test. The Bill provides further safeguards by requiring the court to consider whether the evidence is compelling, as set out in Clause 72, and whether it would be in the interests of justice for a retrial to be ordered, in Clause 73.
  It is important to note that Clause 73 provides the significant safeguard at which, fundamentally, both amendments are aimed. It is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether the interests of justice are such that the order for a retrial should be made. In reaching that view as to the interests of justice, the Court of Appeal is required to take into account whether there was any lack of due diligence or expedition on the part of the police or prosecution, either in their original proceedings or in the new proceedings. I draw attention in particular to Clause 73(2)(c) and (d), which will specifically guard against the criticism that a poor police investigation can simply lead to a "second bite of the cherry". It is in no one's interest that that should happen. It is clearly in everyone's interest that the police investigation and the prosecution should be put on the best basis possible at the time of the first trial. Given that this part of the Bill provides only a limited exception, there is no incentive for the police or the prosecution not to do that.
  The Government believe that the best way of achieving the protection is as has been set out in Clause 73 rather than in the way set out in the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Neill of Bladen: Would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to consider this question? Turning first to Clause 73(2)(c), all it requires is that the court should have regard to such new evidence. It does not say that it would be a knock-out blow either way. It simply provides that having regard to it should be one of the factors in answering the question in subsection (1):
  "if in all the circumstances it is in the interests of justice … to make the order".
  The noble and learned Lord appears to be arguing that if it is a case where there has been negligence in the past resulting in the evidence not being adduced, that by

  1083
  itself would lead to a new prosecution. Is that the case? I am not sure. It is simply one matter to which the court must have regard.
  Lord Goldsmith: Indeed it is a matter to which the court is required to have regard. Reverting to our previous discussions, I do not doubt that the court would look very hard indeed at that particular matter.
  Earl Russell: Does the noble and learned Lord agree with the view once expressed in this Chamber by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the words "have regard to" mean almost exactly nothing?
  Lord Goldsmith: I am not aware of the occasion on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made that remark. I have enormous respect for him, not least because he is also a former Law Officer; indeed, the oldest surviving former Law Officer since the sad demise of Lord Shawcross. I do not know the context in which he said it and I certainly would assert that it is significant, important and of the greatest moment that Clause 73(2) requires the court to have regard, in considering the interests of justice, to a number of specific matters.
  I have no doubt that the Court of Appeal—in which I have great confidence, as do all noble Lords—will consider this properly and take it into account. I do not accept that it would need always and in every case to be a knock-out blow, but that would be for the Court of Appeal to determine. Ultimately the Court of Appeal will be concerned with what is required in the interests of justice. Those interests of justice certainly will require a consideration of the position of the defendant and whether on the first occasion the trial ought to have been dealt with in a different way, but that may not be the only consideration to which the Court of Appeal will have regard. However, that is for the court to decide.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, suggested that at this stage I should deal with the point that this is a more generous test than that applied to the defence. With respect, I do not believe that that is right. The defence will be able to appeal. For example, the Criminal Complaints Review Commission may bring before the Court of Appeal new evidence which could have been adduced before, but which had not been. Indeed, that is a circumstance in which matters are brought back to the Court of Appeal and it would be surprising if it were not. It would be very surprising if the law stated that where a miscarriage of justice had taken place because of the incompetence of the lawyers acting for the defendant, there was no means by which that could he corrected by the Court of Appeal.
  I think that the noble Lord might have had in mind the principle which applies in civil cases, but which is an entirely different circumstance. So this is not more generous to the prosecution; quite the reverse, it remains a much narrower test.
  1084
  However, I sought to suggest that there are three objections to the proposed amendment. First, it would give rise inevitably to extensive legal debate about whether any particular piece of evidence could or should have been produced by the police at an earlier stage. Secondly, it would replace an objective threshold test with a more subjective one, which might result in the exclusion of evidence which had not previously been put before the court, but which might otherwise be regarded as compelling.
  Thirdly, it is right that the Court of Appeal should consider the nature of any evidence which has not previously been adduced, but which might be compelling in terms of the case against the acquitted person, and reach a decision about whether it is in the interests of justice and the interests of the whole community, for a retrial to proceed, taking all the relevant factors into account.
  The right way of providing an appropriate safeguard against those who are looking for a second bite of the cherry is to include this important requirement in Clause 73. That is the answer both to the amendment of the noble Baroness and to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
  Viscount Colville of Culross: I am not troubled that there is a very strict test about what is compelling or that there is a very strict burden on the Court of Appeal under Clause 73. However, if we are trying to tighten up the matter, I wonder whether this really is new. If it is not new, we have a very loose and slack test.
  The difficulty with the Bill as it stands is that there is nothing to suggest that this really is new—it has just not been adduced before. Although the failure to adduce it may not be due to incompetence, the fact is that it has not been adduced. I would be much happier about the whole of Part 10 if "new" meant new.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his support of the principle behind my amendment. If one stands in the Court of Appeal on behalf of an appellant who has been convicted and produces evidence which was available to the defence at the time of trial, one will get absolutely nowhere. I do not see why the prosecution should be in a better position.
  I heard what the Attorney-General said about bringing back a case years later, but that is a very different proposition and it is not easy to get over the threshold involved. The appeals of right following a conviction do not permit one to introduce evidence which is not new. It seems to me that the Government must accept something along the lines of these proposed amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on what is a core issue as regards the safeguards that one hopes will operate to ensure that. where the double jeopardy rule is relaxed, it is done in a proper manner.
  We are seeking to ensure that a reasonableness test is hedged around the production of new evidence. I take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe,

  1085
  with regard to—I have said it again. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I called him by the same wrong name on a previous Bill. One day I shall get it right.
  I take the point of the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross, about how new is "new". I recall that when I had insurance on a computer it was on the basis that if anything went wrong and it was not capable of being repaired one could have a new part. When the monitor failed and could not be repaired, it turned out that the insurance company defined "new" as something that was new to me—in other words, renovated and not new. The noble Viscount hit the nail very firmly on the head: what indeed is to be "compelling new evidence".
  I am grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord has put the Government's case. They consider that the reasonableness test for new and compelling evidence comes within the wider remit of the Court of Appeal decision on the interests of justice in Clause 73(2)(c).
  I shall certainly consider that matter further. It may be that the noble and learned Lord has satisfied me about it. I should like to discuss it further with him during the summer. I may not need to come back to it on Report. but I shall have to consider the matter carefully. My objective is exactly the same as the Government's in this respect. I want to ensure that there can be no excuse for sloppy investigations by either the police or, subsequently, by the prosecutor which would mean that there could be a greater opportunity for retrial than is strictly necessary. As our objectives are clearly the same, this is one of the provisions on which we should be able to come to an agreement rather than having difficulty with it on Report. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 135BA not moved.]
  Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 135BB:
  Page 48, line 4, leave out subsection (5).
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply designed to obtain an explanation from the Government as to what this provision means. I do not understand the purpose of it, and I really cannot have any attitude to whether I want to see it in the Bill until I understand it. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: This provision states, in effect, that previous admissibility is not relevant to the new evidence. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, it is to ensure that any new evidence is assessed in accordance with current rules and standards of evidence and that in any potential retrial, those standards and rules of evidence would apply. Evidence which is otherwise new and compelling would not be excluded from consideration of the court solely because it would not have been admissible at some previous date. That does not of course mean that the overriding interests of justice test
  1086
  disappears—that is still for the Court of Appeal to determine. That is the answer to the question as the noble Lord asked for it.
  Earl Russell: Does not this answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, with devastating clarity; namely, does "new" mean new?
  Viscount Colville of Culross: It is relevant to this because a later part of the Bill changes all the rules about admissibility. So I assume that the Government's intention is to allow a second trial to take place in which evidence that would previously have been ruled out is now made admissible under this legislation. That is a fairly incestuous situation. It may be part of the design of the Bill, but it seems that it takes two bites of the cherry—what was available before is not new in the sense that I have described in that it was there but it was not admissible under the then rules. It now becomes new, it would appear, because the rules have been changed.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I now understand what that clause is about—not, I regret to say, as a result of anything the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said but because of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said a moment ago.
  There seems to be a "not" missing from the provision—it is probably a misprint. The provision might make sense if it said, "For the purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether any evidence would not have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person and is now admissible because of the provisions of this Bill". I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to consider whether there is an omission in the provision.
  Lord Goldsmith: I do not think there is. To say it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible is exactly the same as to say it is irrelevant whether any evidence would not have been admissible.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: We can enter into a discussion about this at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Interests of justice]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 135BC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 135C or 135D.
  [Amendment No. 135BC not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 135C:
  Page 48, line 10, leave out "existing circumstances" and insert "the circumstances existing at the time the court is considering the application"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 135C, I will, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 135D. These are

  1087
  probing amendments which relate to the requirement under Clause 73 that the Court of Appeal must decide that,
  "it is in the interests of justice"
  to have a second trial.
  As we have already debated in part previously, Clause 73(2) lists a number of criteria to which the court must have regard when considering this issue. The first is whether existing circumstances make a fair trial likely. The amendments are alternatives to the Government's drafting, and would change that phrase. Amendment No. 135C would change it to whether,
  "the circumstances existing at the time the court is considering the application",
  make a fair trial likely. Amendment No. 135D would change it to whether the existing circumstances,
  "and the circumstances that appear to the court to be likely to exist at the time of the retrial",
  make a fair trial likely.
  Veterans of the Courts Bill will recall the debate earlier this year when one noble Lord expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the word "current" in a series of amendments that I tabled. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord who objected—in the most courteous way, as he always does—is here in his place today. That is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He rightly pulled me up on the use of the word "current" because, as he said, "Current, when?"
  The same arguments could be advanced about the use of the word "existing", without further explanation. I have therefore tabled the amendments to clarify that what the Government intend is what is stated in Amendment No. 135C—that in deciding whether or not there can be a fair retrial, the Court of Appeal should consider only the circumstances existing at the time the application for a retrial is made, and not the circumstances that may, or may not, actually come to exist by the time the retrial takes place. No doubt, if that is what the Government intend, the Minister will say that it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to engage in speculation on what such circumstances might or might not be. There may well be force in that argument. However, that brings me to my next question.
  Will the Minister clarify whether the trial judge at the retrial will retain his or her powers to halt the retrial on the grounds that there could not be a fair trial—perhaps because of something that had happened in the intervening period between the Court of Appeal considering the application for a retrial and the retrial taking place? According to Clause 77(2), that period could be as much as two months after the application is made, or even longer if leave is given in exceptional circumstances. I see problems in that.
  If the trial judge has the power to halt the retrial on the grounds that a fair trial could not be held, will the judge be able to take a different view from that of the Court of Appeal, even if no new issues have arisen between the Court of Appeal hearing and the retrial? On the other hand, will the trial judge be bound to
  1088
  some extent by the Court of Appeal's consideration of whether a fair trial could be held? I suspect, as there is nothing in the Bill to fetter what would ordinarily be a matter for the trial judge's discretion, that the judge will not be so bound, but I would welcome clarification of the point, which is especially important in the context of any potentially prejudicial publicity between the Court of Appeal hearing and the retrial itself. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness finished her speech by referring to the risk of prejudicial material being published between the decision of the Court of Appeal and the time of the trial. She is right to raise the issue, which the Government have already considered. It is an important point, which is why later clauses. particularly Clause 76, provide for important reporting restrictions that the Court of Appeal can impose.
  Amendment No. 135C would turn the words "existing circumstances" into,
  "the circumstances existing at the time the court is considering the application".
  I am not entirely sure whether it is intended to read the two amendments together. Perhaps because I was not party to the debates over the meaning of the word "current", I do not see the difference between saying, as the clause does, that the court must have regard to,
  "whether existing circumstances make a fair trial unlikely",
  and saying whether,
  "the circumstances existing at the time the court is considering the application",
  make a fair trial unlikely. I am not sure that I see the difference at the moment. It may be that what the noble Baroness has in mind is that one should consider the two matters together so as to indicate that the court must also have regard to the future. She was right to anticipate that we would be concerned about imposing too great an obligation on the Court of Appeal to speculate as to what the position may be. But, having said that, in deciding whether existing circumstances make a fair trial unlikely, I would expect that the Court of Appeal would have regard to what the previous publicity, and the publicity at that date, had been by way of example.
  In deciding at this time whether a fair trial would be unlikely, there is a degree of speculation inevitably involved in what the Court of Appeal is doing in the sense that it is saying today, "Do we think a fair trial tomorrow would be unlikely?" But we would be against imposing this duty of speculation in the way that the noble Baroness proposes.
  Earl Russell: Does it make the distinction the noble Baroness is trying to make if a large body of material is in the hands of a newspaper and one has good reason to believe that the newspaper intends to publish that material as soon as the case comes to court, but not if it does not? Is that in fact a clear distinction between the two amendments?
  Lord Goldsmith: The noble Earl may be right. That may be what the noble Baroness has in mind. Obviously she must speak for herself on that; I cannot.

  1089
  I must respond to the specific questions that the noble Baroness asked me. She asked me whether the trial court would retain the ability to consider whether a fair trial was possible, having regard to events which had occurred between the hearing in the Court of Appeal and the trial. Save to the extent that those had already been taken into account by the Court of Appeal. there is nothing in the Bill, as the noble Baroness says, to say that the retrial court does not retain its usual discretion to decide that a fair trial is not possible. Therefore, subsequent events would be, it seems to me, open to the subsequent court to consider.
  The noble Baroness asked whether the second court could reach a different view on the same material from the view that the Court of Appeal had reached. I believe that the answer to that is no because once the Court of Appeal had reached a considered view that a fair trial was likely, notwithstanding things that had happened before, it would not be appropriate for the second court to reach a different view. Whether that is a matter of judicial self-restraint or whether it is implicit in the Act, I would need to consider, but I have done my best to answer the question.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I apologise for my momentary inattentiveness when the noble and learned Lord was trying to give me what was, indeed, a very helpful answer. However, I was being sounded out whether this was the appropriate time for proceedings to finish. As the noble and learned Lord might expect, I was rather relieved to find that the Government agreed that it was.
  Lord Goldsmith: We believe that we have another five minutes. Perhaps we can deal with the next amendment, which does not look very long.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 135 D not moved.]
  Clause 73 agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Procedure and evidence]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 135E:
  Page 48, line 29, after "served" insert "in person"
  The noble Baroness said: This is another probing amendment. It relates to the service by the prosecution on the acquitted person of the notice of application to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. Clause 74(2) provides that the service must be effected within two days of the
  1090
  application being made. My amendment would simply require the service to be in person. 1 would welcome the Minister's comments on the circumstances in which service would normally be effected. I do not need to go into details of the problems about service, because the noble and learned Lord and I have had discussions on the matter on the Crime ( International Co-operation) Bill. I would be grateful if he could explain what the implications would be here.
  The service of such an application will inevitably be a testing experience for the recipient who, in these circumstances, should not be expecting it. Having been acquitted, they are hardly now likely to find the tap on the shoulder. Will the notice contain details about how the person can obtain legal advice? Will such a person be entitled to free legal assistance for the purposes of the application itself? Do the Government intend to specify a standard form of notice, or will its contents be left to the discretion of the prosecutor? I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: The amendment appears to require the prosecutor to serve in person on the suspect the notice of an application of the Court of Appeal to quash a suspect's acquittal. We do not see the need for that at all. We do not see the reasoning behind having a crown prosecutor in person serving a notice of application on the suspect. Of course, proper arrangements will be made by the courts for the service of such notices, but there is no need in our view to insert this provision into the Bill.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As the noble and learned Lord implied, it is not my intention that prosecutors should have in addition to their ordinarily busy lives the job of making the service. The amendment was to probe what the process will be for service. I will consider it further before Report. However, we are going into new realms, where service may occur many years after the original acquittal. so there could be some problems with regard to process in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  PEACE I Funding
  PEACE I Funding
  Departments of State: Faith Advisers/Units
  Departments of State: Faith Advisers/Units
  Departments of State: Diversity
  Departments of State: Diversity
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: 2000–03 Report
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: 2000–03 Report
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Acts of Parliament since 1997: Prohibited Activities
  Acts of Parliament since 1997: Prohibited Activities
  Iraq: Dossier
  Iraq: Dossier
  Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet
  Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet
  Crown Prosecution Service: Annual Report 2002–03
  Crown Prosecution Service: Annual Report 2002–03
  Panel Counsel Review Group
  Panel Counsel Review Group
  Africa: Small Arms Control
  Africa: Small Arms Control
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Burma
  Burma
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  British Nationals in Foreign Prisons: FCO Policy
  British Nationals in Foreign Prisons: FCO Policy
  US Alien Tort Statute: British Companies
  US Alien Tort Statute: British Companies
  Cayman Islands: Appointment of Attorney-General
  Cayman Islands: Appointment of Attorney-General
  Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong
  Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: Action to Incapacitate Weapons
  Iraq: Action to Incapacitate Weapons
  Iraq: Refrigerated Containers
  Iraq: Refrigerated Containers
  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Army Personnel Centre: Key Targets
  Army Personnel Centre: Key Targets
  Training Group Defence Agency: Key Targets
  Training Group Defence Agency: Key Targets
  Army Training and Recruitment Agency: Key Targets
  Army Training and Recruitment Agency: Key Targets
  Service Children's Education: Targets
  Service Children's Education: Targets
  Military Low Flying: Annual Report
  Military Low Flying: Annual Report
  Afghanistan: National Army
  Afghanistan: National Army
  Armed Forces Pay: X Factor
  Armed Forces Pay: X Factor
  Service Personnel: Return from the Gulf
  Service Personnel: Return from the Gulf
  Military Vehicles: Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle and Future Command and Liaison Vehicle
  Military Vehicles: Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle and Future Command and Liaison Vehicle
  Ministry of Defence: Disposals Process
  Ministry of Defence: Disposals Process
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Public Bodies Compliance
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Public Bodies Compliance
  Biometric Identification
  Biometric Identification
  Temporary Protection: EU Directive
  Temporary Protection: EU Directive
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Coercive Information Powers
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Coercive Information Powers
  Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement
  Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement
  UK Passport Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  UK Passport Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Forensic Science Service: Review
  Forensic Science Service: Review
  Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: 2002 Statistics
  Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: 2002 Statistics
  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  Assets Recovery Agency: Annual Report 2002–03
  Assets Recovery Agency: Annual Report 2002–03
  Voluntary and Community Sector: Government Relations Compact
  Voluntary and Community Sector: Government Relations Compact
  Housing: Local Authority Subsidy
  Housing: Local Authority Subsidy
  CAFCASS: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  CAFCASS: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Magistrates' Courts: Annual Report 2002–03
  Magistrates' Courts: Annual Report 2002–03
  Biofuels
  Biofuels
  Motorways: Congestion and Sensitive Lorry Miles
  Motorways: Congestion and Sensitive Lorry Miles
  Car Insurance
  Car Insurance
  Scottish Peerage Claims: Ministerial Responsibility
  Scottish Peerage Claims: Ministerial Responsibility
  Post-16 Full-time Students
  Post-16 Full-time Students
  Government Economic Services: Salary Costs
  Government Economic Services: Salary Costs
  European Capital of Culture 2008
  European Capital of Culture 2008
  Council for Science and Technology: Quinquennial Review
  Council for Science and Technology: Quinquennial Review
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Model Constitution
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Model Constitution
  Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities: Supporting Staff
  Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities: Supporting Staff
  Disabled Living Foundation: Self-assessment Project
  Disabled Living Foundation: Self-assessment Project
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Commission for Health Improvement: Annual Report 2002–03
  Commission for Health Improvement: Annual Report 2002–03
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report 2002–03
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report 2002–03
  NHS Pensions Agency: Quinquennial Review
  NHS Pensions Agency: Quinquennial Review
  Health Select Committee Fifth Report: Government Response
  Health Select Committee Fifth Report: Government Response
  Independent Complaints Advocacy Service
  Independent Complaints Advocacy Service
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Plywood
  Plywood
  Wooden Flooring: Home-grown Timber
  Wooden Flooring: Home-grown Timber
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty