Sitting of 10 June 2003

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

    Sierra Leone
    Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on Sierra Leone. [117938]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The UK has made a significant political, military and financial investment to end the conflict in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has now enjoyed over a year of peace under a democratically elected Government. The UK has a long-term commitment to Sierra Leone, and will continue to support the Government as they make the reforms that will ensure a sustainable peace.
    Hugh Robertson: Two key elements in that long-term stability are the prosecution of war criminals and preventing conflict in adjoining countries from destabilising Sierra Leone. In view of that, will the Minister tell the House what practical steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring President Taylor to justice? Secondly, what steps are they taking to secure a regional solution to the problems of the area?
    Mr. Rammell: We have taken the lead in establishing the special court, and committed some £6.6 million to that effect. The court and the prosecutor are entirely independent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the indictment that was recently laid down in respect of Charles Taylor. The prosecutor makes his own decisions, but we are urging that Charles Taylor should give himself up to the authorities, and that others in the region should support that move.
    Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) rightly made the connection with the situation in Liberia, because we know that Sierra Leone's problems have almost always been imported from that country. Even more important than the indictment of Mr. Taylor—although that would be a good thing—is the peace process in Liberia. Will my hon. Friend tell the House
    520
    what practical steps the British Government are taking to drive through that process, which is a necessary precondition to long-term peace in the region?
    Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. We need to push forward the peace process in Liberia, and we are certainly pushing to that effect. The pressure to achieve that will have been enhanced by United Nations Security Council resolution 1478, adopted on 6 May, which renewed the arms embargo and the travel ban aimed at those breaking the arms embargo, and dealt with the issue of rough diamonds. From 7 July, the sanctions will also apply to timber, the revenue from which is used to purchase arms. That pressure, allied with our constant urging of the Liberian authorities to engage in a peace process, represents the right way forward.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Tom Cox: If he will make a statement on the present situation in Cyprus. [117939]
    Mr. Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus. [117948]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I welcome the partial easing of restrictions on freedom of movement across the green line, and the European Commission's trade and aid package for the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that they will lead to a comprehensive settlement based on the UN plan, which remains vital.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the dramatic changes that have taken place in northern Cyprus in recent weeks. For the first time since the events of 1974, we are hearing the voice of the Turkish Cypriot community, which is clearly saying that it wants to end the isolation and to be part of the Cyprus that goes into the European Union next year. Against that background, what are the Government doing to re-engage the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Papadopoulos, with a view to reconvening the talks in the genuine hope that, at long last, we shall see the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, living and working together? Just what are we doing?
    Mr. MacShane: Those aspirations are shared by the whole House. Out of the population of 680,000 Greek Cypriots, 270,000 have crossed into the north, and 120,000 of the 180,000 Turkish Cypriots have crossed into the south. Never before have we seen such people power voting with its feet for a united Cyprus. The Government have repeatedly urged the Cypriot Government and the other players in the region—the Turkish and Greek Governments—to take up Kofi Annan's plan, which is on the table and represents the best way forward. We want the authorities on the island and in the relevant countries to help to unite Cyprus and to bring a united Cyprus into the European Union next May.
    Mr. Love: I, too, welcome the opening of the green line, but of course this is only the beginning, not the end, in terms of finding a solution. We must keep up the

    521
    momentum of bringing the parties together. What action is my hon. Friend taking to build confidence between the two communities on the island, and, more importantly, what is he doing to engage the Turkish Government to ensure that they play their full part in bringing together the two communities and restarting the negotiations?
    Mr. MacShane: I believe that there is confidence between the two communities. Where the breakdown exists is, perhaps, between their political leaders. My hon. Friend is right to focus on Ankara, where the Turkish Government, Parliament and military have an historic responsibility to press Mr. Denktash to reach an agreement within the Annan proposals and then allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union—and one of its top officials will indeed be a Turkish-speaking representative if the Annan plans are adopted. I think that it is in Turkey's interests for the EU to contain a member state one of whose senior representatives in the European Council of Ministers will be speaking Turkish.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the points made by the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will the Minister confirm that there are increasing signs that neither the Turkish Cypriots nor the Turkish settlers are prepared to see a divided island remain when Cyprus joins the EU? Will he use his good offices to stress to the Turkish Government that this is the best time to start playing a more positive role in the solving of the problem, especially if Turkey wants to join the EU?
    Mr. MacShane: I strongly agree. It has been a great pleasure to see Turkish Cypriots waving the blue and yellow EU flag and, along with those in the rest of Europe—with one political exception, perhaps—voting yes to the EU. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that it is for the Turkish Government to engage. We think that they have taken positive steps, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I continue to urge them to move further so that a united Cyprus can enter the EU by May next year.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Now that Lord Hannay's remit has expired, may I take this opportunity to thank him, on behalf of the Conservatives, for his efforts to resolve the intractable problems of Cyprus? Following the unfortunate recent collapse of the talks, will the Minister join me in welcoming the unilateral proposals of the Republic of Cyprus for moves including freer movement of goods, persons and vehicles and the relaxation of employment restrictions for Turkish Cypriots? Will he applaud the Cypriot Government for continuing to seek a positive resolution of the problem?
    Mr. MacShane: I think that the proposals, some 16 of them, advanced by the Cypriot Government, are a move in the right direction. The main stumbling block remains the position of Mr. Denktash, which must be dealt with through direct communication with him. We believe that, again, the Turkish Government, Parliament and military have a key role to play.
    522
    Let me record the House's thanks to Lord Hannay. He has been a remarkable servant of Britain in many ways, and has done a great service in trying to bring the two sides together to secure a final deal allowing a united Cyprus to enter the EU.
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: Given the announcement of the termination of Lord Hannay's service as special representative, what assurance can my hon. Friend give about specific measures that the British Government will take to recognise their special responsibilities as a senior member of the UN and of the Commonwealth and a guarantor of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus? What, specifically, will the British Government do about replacing Lord Hannay?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the triple role that Britain plays as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is under the aegis of the UN that a solution to the Cyprus problem must be found. Britain is obviously also a member of the EU, and is looking forward greatly to Cyprus becoming a partner.
    I believe that things must now be done at Government level. We need to engage with our partners, especially, as I have said, the Turkish Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the Turkish Foreign Minister here in London shortly, and we will continue to press all parties—particularly the Turkish Government, Parliament and military—to accept their responsibilities. We firmly believe that the signals from Ankara can unblock the path to a solution under the Annan package, which gives a fair deal to both communities on the island.

    Zimbabwe
    Simon Hughes: What action the Government are taking to bring about the restoration of human rights in Zimbabwe. [117940]
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) South Africa and (b) Nigeria on Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [117942]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The situation in Zimbabwe is very serious. We have been in regular discussion about it with Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki, and with South African Foreign Minister Zuma.
    Last week President Mugabe's security forces sought to crush opposition protests, and again arrested opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. They have now also arrested the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, Welshman Ncube. Responsibility for the present state of Zimbabwe lies squarely with its present Government. It is they who are responsible for the abuses of human rights, the collapsing economy and the threat of starvation to millions of people. The plight of the white community is bad, but that of the black community is even worse.

    523
    Together with the rest of the international community, we will continue to provide humanitarian relief, to sustain Mr. Mugabe's international isolation and to highlight his abuses of fundamental human rights. We will continue to work with international partners—the European Union, the United States and the Commonwealth—in the region.
    In that connection, the House will wish to know that, with our active support, the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund decided on Friday 6 June to suspend Zimbabwe's voting and administration rights in the IMF. It is an indication of how critical Zimbabwe's economic and political situation is that that is the first time that such a measure has been taken by the IMF against a country that is not at civil war.
    Simon Hughes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer. The whole country, and, indeed, the world, are aware of the ever worsening human rights position in Zimbabwe. There is not just torture and imprisonments but deaths, verified by more regular reports—the latest by Statewatch today. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider two specific things. First, will he make an additional effort with his Commonwealth colleagues to prevail on the President of South Africa to make it absolutely clear that the view in Africa, as here, is that that activity on behalf of the Government of Zimbabwe cannot and should not continue? If South Africa and the neighbours of Zimbabwe were to say that in terms, there might be a chance of some movement and response by the Government in Harare.
    Secondly, given the welcome announcement last week—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are others who wish to ask questions.
    Mr. Straw: Thank God, Mr. Speaker.
    We are engaged in very constructive discussions with President Mbeki and Foreign Minister Zuma of South Africa. Our Prime Minister met President Mbeki last week in Evian, and I met both the President and the Foreign Minister two weeks before that. The South Africans are well aware of the gravity of the position. Indeed, in a joint communique from Foreign Minister Zuma and me, both countries underlined that
    "the longer the problems in Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the more entrenched poverty will become."
    Mr. Wiggin: The arrest of Welshman Ncube today, and the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai is on trial for his life, are very serious. Why is it that the IMF has been able to act, the French have acted in the Congo, yet we have done nothing?
    Mr. Straw: The IMF has, as I have just reported to the House, acted with our full and active support.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is South Africa that has to give a strong voice, and that Thabo Mbeki must recognise that this is not the time to repay Mugabe for the support he may have given to the African National Congress in the past? Now is the time to say to Mugabe that what is going on in his country cannot be accepted. ZANU-PF
    524
    supporters in Zimbabwe must also be clear and condemn what is being done in their name if we are to see an end to the atrocities and tragedies.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely understand how my hon. Friend feels about the matter. I know from my discussions in South Africa, and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's discussions with President Mbeki, that the South Africans are well aware of the very serious damage that is being done not just to Zimbabwe but to the whole region of southern Africa.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Since the Foreign Secretary stood beside South African Foreign Minister Zuma on 14 May and meekly endorsed her policy of quiet diplomacy and dialogue in relation to Mugabe, does he know how many people in Zimbabwe have been murdered, tortured, imprisoned, beaten and politically prosecuted? In the past week alone, more than 800 people have been arrested, 400 treated for injuries and 10 hospitalised; three are on the critical list, two have been murdered, and the leader of the opposition and his deputy have been arrested and charged with treason. All that we have had from the Foreign Secretary today is more gestures and more platitudes. When will he finally accept that quiet diplomacy and dialogue are nothing more than a cover for appeasement, that they encourage Mugabe to ratchet up his oppression and that they are a shameful betrayal of the suffering people of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration and anger, which we all feel. What we have done is to secure sanctions by the Commonwealth, sanctions by the European Union, sanctions by the International Monetary Fund and the increasing international isolation of Zimbabwe, which is exactly what I thought the right hon. Gentleman had demanded in the past. What would be devastating for the people of Zimbabwe, however, would be to imply, by that kind of rant, that there are things that we could do, but we are holding back from them. The only thing that the right hon. Gentleman missed out from his rant was the obvious conclusion, expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), that we ought to be taking military action. However, the right hon. Gentleman has himself said to me that he rules out military action. So next time he comes to the Dispatch Box, instead of ranting let him say exactly what he would do in this situation.
    Mr. Ancram: We need to ask why, when we were so ready to take effective action against the abuse of human rights and against ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, we are apparently paralysed in the face of similar atrocities in Zimbabwe. For a start, when will the EU's targeted travel ban and freezing of assets be extended to the families of Mugabe's henchmen—not least to their children studying in England—and to the shameful business men who bankroll Mugabe? And when will the Foreign Secretary go to the United Nations Security Council to seek a resolution to internationalise the crisis in Zimbabwe and put observers on the ground? In short, when will he stop walking by on the other side?
    Mr. Straw: I will go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution when I believe that we will win

    525
    a resolution. What would be a disaster—no doubt under the right hon. Gentleman's diplomacy it would already have happened—is for us to go to the Security Council with the certain prospect that such a resolution would be [HON. MEMBERS: "Flush them out!"] They say, "Flush them out," but I am not in the business of providing gratuitous victories for President Mugabe, as the right hon. Gentleman evidently is.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to action in the Balkans, frankly, that shows up the vacuity of his position. He continually implies that we should take action similar to that taken in the Balkans. The only difference between the action that we took in the Balkans and that which we are taking in Zimbabwe is that in the former, yes, we were able to take military action. He knows very well that a military option is simply not possible in Zimbabwe. More to the point, he wrote to me on 24 October, saying:
    "I have not called for military action in Zimbabwe."
    I rest my case.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on ensuring that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are independently verified. [117941]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): We recognise the need for credible, independent validation of any discoveries by the coalition. Dr. Blix noted last week that UNMOVIC remains ready to resume work in Iraq as an independent verifier, or to conduct long-term monitoring, should the Security Council so decide. United Nations Security Council resolution 1483 explicitly tasks the Security Council with reviewing the inspectors' mandates. This work will be undertaken in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, as the security situation in Iraq stabilises, the work of the 1,400-strong Iraq survey group of coalition forces will get under way.
    Mr. Boswell: Given that the position of the coalition, and of Her Majesty's Ministers in particular, depends almost entirely on the credibility of assertions that have been made about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and given that, to put it mildly, that credibility is still very much in question, does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is essential that an element of the verification process should be independent and be seen to be independent, that the process should not be subject to any editorial steering by any other party, and that it should begin as soon as possible?
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's claim. The simple truth of the matter is that if anybody still needs convincing about the holding of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraq regime before military action was taken, they need only read the very extensive reports of UNMOVIC and its predecessor UNSCOM, which set out in forensic detail the holdings of Iraq and its failure to explain what had
    526
    happened to them. That point was made by Dr. Blix in his valedictory report to the Security Council just last week.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I accept that if there are further—I emphasise the word further—finds of evidence they need to be independently verified.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend impress on our US allies that the early unrestricted return of both UN inspection agencies would help in reasserting the authority of the UN and establishing international credibility, and, if weapons of mass destruction do exist, could speed the urgent task of preventing them from spreading via the black market to terrorists? Subsequently, both agencies could play a vital role across the world in implementing the G8's non-proliferation proposals.
    Mr. Straw: As a result of military action the security situation in Iraq has changed totally, and the big threat that—as accepted by the international community—it posed while Saddam remained in power, has now been removed. As for the future of UNMOVIC, operative paragraph 11, which was agreed unanimously by the Security Council, required the UK and the USA to keep the Security Council informed of our activities in respect of Iraq's meeting its disarmament obligations, so that it would revisit in due course the mandates of UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency. That remains the position of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the matter will be revisited, and what action he intends to take to ensure that that is done fairly quickly? That is important, because it will bring international legitimacy to whatever the findings may be.
    Mr. Straw: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timetable, but I can say that now that the security situation in Iraq is stabilising—that is the first priority of the coalition forces—the 1,400-strong Iraq survey group is getting going. It should be allowed to do its work. In tandem with that, discussions with the US and other international allies about the future role of UNMOVIC are continuing.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend suggests, the security position in Iraq is one of the reasons why the inspectors have been unable to go back into the country. However, is it sensible for the Coalition Provisional Authority to have disbanded the Iraqi army, discharging 500,000 men without any rehabilitation or retraining, and to have allowed them to keep their armaments when they are on the streets without any alternative employment, at the same time as calling for a weapons amnesty? Is such action not likely to destabilise the security situation in Iraq and make it less possible for the inspectors to return?
    Mr. Straw: I accept the burden of my hon. Friend's question—that a difficult balance has to be achieved between the necessary de-Ba'athification process and the need to maintain security and ensure the continuation of some of Iraq's institutions. I am not

    527
    saying that all the decisions taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority have been correct, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we are in constant discussion with our US colleagues—at Government-to-Government level and within the CPA in Baghdad—about how to achieve the most appropriate balance in order to get Iraq going again at the same time as reducing internal security threats.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The thing about verification is that the weapons have to be found first, but the new Secretary of State for International Development has said that looking for them is no longer a high priority. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it does remain a high priority, because the trust that we placed in the Government—and in particular, in the Prime Minister—now appears to have been abused by deceitful spin, all sorts of embellished arguments and by "sexed-up" propaganda? Does not independent verification also require an independent assessment of what we were told existed? For the sake of the Government's tarnished credibility, will the Foreign Secretary now confirm unequivocally that Alastair Campbell will be required by the Prime Minister to appear before any Committee of the House that may be investigating weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Straw: The appearance of members of the Prime Minister's staff before Select Committees is a matter for the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the House."] Ultimately for the House, of course, but initially for the Prime Minister, who will clarify the matter. I recall that the hon. Gentleman made a fine speech on 18 March, summing up the resolution that was agreed overwhelmingly by the House. On that occasion he was unequivocal in his support for the military action on the basis of the evidence then available—[Interruption.] It does the Opposition no good to try to change the terms on which they backed the Government. The basis on which we took the decisions still applies today, and the hon. Gentleman knows that very well.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Foreign Secretary hear Dr. Blix, in the course of his thoughtful reflections, refer to the difficulties of Iraqi pride, and the way in which weapons would have deteriorated over the years? In the light of the forged Niger documents, and what Paul Wolfowitz has now said about weapons of mass destruction, is not it the case that—with the best will in the world—nobody will believe us unless there is an independent investigation?
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept that and I refer, yet again, to the clearest possible evidence, published by Dr. Blix himself, of the unanswered disarmament questions—173 pages of them—which was made available to the Security Council on 7 March. My hon. Friend has always been remarkably charitable towards the former Saddam regime, but to try to explain their lying, conniving, abuse of human rights and refusal to co-operate fully with the inspectors on the basis of hurt pride is, frankly, testing the credulity of all of us.
    Mr. James Paice: Last week the Prime Minister dismissed comments from the
    528
    Opposition about weapons of mass destruction on the basis that the war in Iraq was justified because the people of Iraq had been relieved of a dreadful dictator. Nobody can deny that they have been relieved of that pressure, but will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the legal basis for the military action was the issue of weapons of mass destruction and UN resolution 1441, and that simply invading a country to relieve it of an oppressor is not legal under international law?
    Mr. Straw: The legal basis for the military action was clearly set out in the Attorney-General's advice, a summary of which was made available to the House, and a longer letter that explained the background to his decision was also published by me in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The reason why we took military action was agreed by the House in a lengthy resolution, which was essentially a paraphrase of resolution 1441, which set out that Iraq posed a threat
    "to international peace and security"
    because of its
    "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction",
    its unlawful missile systems, and its defiance of the United Nations and a host of Security Council resolutions. It was for those reasons—that Iraq was already in material breach and, under resolution 1441, in further material breach—that the House rightly decided that that country had to "face serious consequences": military action. That was what the House agreed, and it was successfully undertaken.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Are any Iraqis coming forward with details of where weapons of mass destruction might be found? Some might be motivated by money, members of the Ba'ath party might want to do deals to protect their future, and others who were opposed to the regime might have ideological reasons, so one would expect that information to be forthcoming from Iraqi sources.
    Mr. Straw: As the Iraq survey group gets going—it has only just started, for reasons that I have explained, including the need to stabilise the security situation—I am sure that many scientists will come forward for interview. However, the House would, rightly, be the first to complain if people were not able to give free and unfettered evidence in such interviews.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What steps are taken to co-ordinate foreign policy with other member states of the European Union on human rights. [117943]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): By working with our EU partners, the UK is better able to promote human rights than we are by working alone. The EU this year has secured UN resolutions on Iraq, North Korea, Turkmenistan, the Congo and Burma, at the Commission on Human Rights. The EU holds regular dialogues with third countries, it promotes human rights globally and it has made respect for human rights a key condition for EU membership.
    Mr. Viggers: The Attorney-General and others have given robust assurances that UK law will not be undermined by the European constitution, but what use are those assurances when the charter of fundamental rights is to be interpreted by judges of the European Court? The former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), once said, memorably, that the charter had no more legal standing than the Beano. However, the opposite is true, and the result will be cataclysmic. In those circumstances, is it not right to put the European constitution to the British people for a vote? I suspect that they might prefer the British tradition exemplified by Dennis the Menace and the Bash Street Kids to the Euro-imperialism of President Giscard.
    Mr. Rammell: We welcome the declaration, in the charter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of the basic rights, freedoms and principles common to all European citizens. However, we have consistently made it clear that we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence. The hon. Gentleman makes a specific call for a referendum, but that would carry more credibility if the previous Conservative Government had called for a referendum over the far more fundamental changes to the workings of the European Union that flowed from the Single European Act and Maastricht.
    Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend has given a number of examples of welcome developments on human rights in the EU, such as those in connection with Iran and China. But does he agree that the human rights profile should be higher? For example, none of the clauses in the relevant agreements with third countries in respect of human rights have been activated. Is there not also a need to have personnel with serious human rights experience—such as those from non-govermental organisations—in the EU's key foreign policy structures?
    Mr. Rammell: My right hon. Friend is right that we in the EU must constantly seek to do more, although I must point out that the articles to which he refers were activated in the specific case of Zimbabwe. We pushed for that strongly, and very much welcome it. However, there is no doubt that there are further matters that we need to push and press, and we shall do so.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: When co-ordinating foreign policy on human rights, will the Minister take account of the human rights of the nine UK subjects held in Guantanamo Bay? Will he seek to achieve a common EU position that holds that those nine UK subjects should either be charged or released, and that their present detention is both illegal and intolerable?
    Mr. Rammell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Foreign Office has sought reassurances about the health and welfare of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay on a number of occasions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear consistently, the situation is difficult and unusual and it cannot go on for ever. We are pressing on the matter.

    EU Constitution
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss the EU constitution; and if he will make a statement. [117944]
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on the latest draft of the constitutional treaty from the Convention on the Future of Europe. [117946]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): At the Thessaloniki European Council next week Valéry Giscard d'Estaing will present his final report on the Convention on the Future of Europe. The convention will be followed by an intergovernmental conference, where decisions will be taken by unanimity.
    I can inform my hon. Friend that I visited Nottingham on 27 February to discuss Europe. I plan to do so again as part of a series of visits to 100 UK cities and towns to get over the truth about Europe and dispel the propaganda myth.
    Mr. Allen: That greatest of Britons, Tom Paine, once said:
    "A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government: and government without a constitution is power without a right."
    Does my hon. Friend accept that there can be no short cuts to winning people's consent, either to the euro or to a new constitution that will influence this country? While he is about it, will my hon. Friend tell the House how successful he has been in his pan-European search for a poet who can rewrite some of the Euro-babble that Giscard uses in his first draft into an inspirational text—something a little more inspiring than a sheepmeat directive?
    Mr. MacShane: We should render unto poets that which poets can do and render unto the responsibility of good government that which we have to do.
    My hon. Friend is both right and wrong. He is right to quote Tom Paine, but he may recall that a number of countries have managed quite well without the need for a written constitution. At the end of a conference of 25 sovereign and independent nation states, we shall have a constitutional treaty that we shall bring back to the House of Commons to debate line by line. Thereafter, I know that my hon. Friend and I will continue to argue the case for being in Europe and helping to run Europe—unlike the Opposition, who want to isolate us from Europe and many of whom want us to withdraw altogether.
    Mr. Bryant: The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) just referred to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as a Euro-imperialist, but is not the truth that, despite being French, the president of the Convention has actually produced a remarkably un-French document? Bearing in mind the Chancellor's announcement yesterday that he hopes to take Britain into the euro—eventually—is it not all the more important that we ensure that future amendments to the constitutional treaty do not include proposals for tax harmonisation?
    Mr. MacShane: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right. He is right, too, to note that Valéry Giscard

    531
    d'Estaing has been widely criticised by Euro-federalists, by a number of small countries which think that he has given far too much power to the role of the nation state. The president of the Convention has also been criticised by the Opposition—so between the Euro-federalists who think he is doing a bad job and the fanatical anti-Europeans in the Conservative party who think he is doing a bad job, perhaps he is getting something right.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As we have no written constitution in this country, is there not an unanswerable case for putting a written constitution to the people of this country?
    Mr. MacShane: We are already fully signed up to the constitutional treaties that make the rules that allow us to make the European Union work. That is what will be brought back to the House. Yesterday, I heard the hon. Gentleman constantly make the point that it is this Parliament that should decide the affairs of our British people, not the Daily Mail with its populist plebiscites. That is why I look forward to bringing back the constitutional treaty for the House to debate and examine line by line.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister has said that there will be no referendum on the EU constitution because it is not constitutionally significant. Can the Minister explain how on earth the introduction of a constitution in a constitutional treaty is not constitutionally significant? Why do not the Government have the courage of their convictions and promise a referendum so that people can actually decide—or are they scared that "rogue elements" in the electorate might seek to undermine them?
    Mr. MacShane: The people actually have decided, consecutively, on Europe—whether in 1975 or thereafter, when generally one party has put forward a position in a general election of isolation or withdrawal from Europe and one party has said, "Let us go more strongly into Europe." In the 1980s, the former was the Labour party and we lost again and again. Today, it is the Conservative party—the Opposition—and if they maintain their hostility to Europe and their calls for isolation from Europe and insist that the Daily Mail decide the future of our European policy, they will remain on the Opposition Benches for years, if not decades, to come.
    Mr. Wayne David: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there was a wonderful result in Poland at the weekend. Does he agree that the likely enlargement of the EU to 25 member states next year makes it essential that we have a streamlined constitution to meet the needs not only of the present but of the future?
    Mr. MacShane: I am glad to welcome from the Government Benches the remarkable yes vote delivered by the Polish people on Sunday and I am sorry that we have heard no expression of support from the Opposition for that yes to Europe. To quote the Polish ambassador in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph:
    "As a member of the EU, Poland will strengthen, not lose, her sovereignty."
    532
    He went on to say that
    "the authorities of my country have not planned for a referendum on the EU constitution and it is not required by our law".
    For once, we might follow the example of Poland and say yes to Europe and drop this populist plebiscite nonsense that is shaped only by those who want a no vote to Europe and to isolate Britain still further from Europe.

    Middle East
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the road map for peace between Israel and Palestine. [117945]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): We welcome the commencement by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel of the road map and also the personal engagement of President Bush in its implementation. President Bush, Arab leaders and the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, met at Sharm el Sheikh on 3 June. There the Arab leaders made clear their commitment to a negotiated solution and their determination to work for that, including by preventing support from reaching terrorist groups.
    President Bush, the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers and King Abdullah of Jordan met the next day, 4 June, at Aqaba. There Prime Minister Sharon reiterated his commitment to a contiguous Palestinian state, saying that it was not in Israel's interest to govern the Palestinians, and he undertook to remove settlement outposts. Prime Minister Abbas undertook to work to end the armed intifada and to act against incitement and violence.
    In that connection, I know that the House will wish to condemn the actions of those in groups—such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades—who claimed responsibility for the serious attacks and killings at the Erez crossing on Sunday and who are, by those actions, actively seeking to destroy the peace process and the men of peace in the Palestinian Authority.
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer. In the light of the actions that he mentions that took place at the weekend, and the rejection by Hamas and others of Abu Mazen's best efforts to achieve peace through the road map, does not the Foreign Secretary recognise the problems faced by the Israeli Government in trying to introduce further concessions, with a backdrop of that violence and the rejection of peaceful methods by Hamas and others?
    Mr. Straw: I recognise indeed the very significant problems faced by the Government of Israel, and I applaud the stand that Prime Minister Sharon is now taking, against a lot of opposition, not least from within his own party. At the same time, I greatly applaud the statesmanship shown by the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and the simple fact is that neither side—nor indeed the international community—can any longer allow the agenda for peace to be disrupted and undermined by the men of violence. If we had allowed that in Northern Ireland, we would never have

    533
    had a peace process. We must not allow that in respect of this much worse conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: I am sure that we all wish the road map well, and I condemn those who are obstructing the process. It is clearly still a very dangerous place and, in that context, I wonder whether I might be allowed to raise the case of my constituent Mr. Tahseen Chaudhry, a fourth-year medical student at Birmingham university, who appears to be have been arrested by the Israeli authorities on or about 20 May, then apparently released on 4 June, but re-arrested by the Jordanian authorities. The family are naturally extremely anxious to know what has happened to that young man. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to make contact with the Jordanian authorities to find out whether they are holding my constituent? Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether British officials will be given access to him? If the Jordanian authorities have any plan to charge him with any offence, can we know what that offence is; and, if not, should he not be released?
    Mr. Straw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's great concern about the fate of the two men involved in the case to which he refers. My understanding is that they were initially arrested by the Israelis, then handed over and taken into custody by the Jordanians. We have been in touch today with the Jordanian authorities, and they have confirmed to our embassy in Amman this morning that both men should be released very soon.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I join the Foreign Secretary in his condemnation of those in terrorist groups who seek to undermine the process established by the road map? As one who has been critical of Mr. Sharon and his Government in the past, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the symbolism of the dismantling of a number of settler outposts, even though they are relatively minor and, in some cases, uninhabited? Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that more than symbolism will be required to meet the full requirements of international law in so far as that relates to settlements? Can he tell us what mechanisms, in his judgment, will be available to the Quartet to ensure that that objective is achieved?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening remarks, as the simple truth is that the leaders on both sides, Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon, are showing great courage, including personal courage, in the face of intense and potentially violent opposition from within their own areas. We need to do all that we can to support such statesmen, who are taking such risks to secure a wider peace. Yes, of course there must be more than simply symbolism, but in such a theatre of conflict we should not underestimate the power of symbols, and a start is now being made to remove some of those symbols and shibboleths. Of course, that must be followed by further and tangible action on the ground, which is why the Quartet are not static but are continually in contact to monitor progress and to ensure that that takes place.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: We know that, as part of the road map, the American Administration
    534
    have identified an individual who will stay and work on the road map. Who else will be involved in the road map process? Who is the EU representative? Who will be the United Nations representative? Who will be the Russian representative? What will be their role in helping to take forward the road map?
    Mr. Straw: It is an indication of the high priority that President Bush has given the implementation of this peace plan that he has appointed his own National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be directly responsible for its implementation. Others will work under Condoleezza Rice in the region. The United Nations representative Ls Terje Roed-Larsen, and a change is currently taking place in terms of the EU representative, because the existing representative has just retired. Active consideration is being given to a replacement for that individual, but the fact that there is currently a vacancy in no sense indicates a lack of determination by all European Union Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers to play our active part in pushing forward the peace process in the middle east.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right when he says that we need to support Prime Minister Abbas in the courageous steps that he has taken. He will have seen the seriously unhelpful comments from President Arafat. What do the Quartet propose to do with President Arafat? How do they propose to get round Arafat, who is once again proving to be an obstacle to peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Straw: One of the contributions that the United Kingdom made earlier this year was actively to encourage the reform process within the Palestinian Authority through two sets of meetings held in London in January and February, so that the Palestinians reformed themselves with a new constitution that established a Prime Minister who could be an active and reliable interlocutor for the Israelis and for the international community. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, that is perhaps one of the most important contributions that we could have made to the peace process.
    James Purnell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is easy to be cynical about peace? Does he recall those voices in the media who said that the road map would never be published and never be implemented, and that Britain and America would never give it their full backing? Does he agree that the terrorists will defeat the peacemakers every time, and that the key is to encourage the Israelis, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab neighbours to work together to dismantle the organisations of terror that are trying to break the road map at the moment?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. In particular, there was a high level of cynicism, which I always thought was completely misplaced, about whether President Bush was committed to this exercise. He has shown not only by his words but by his deeds that he regards it as his highest foreign policy priority.

    Death Penalty (United States)
    Malcolm Bruce: What recent representations he has made to the US Government regarding British citizens facing the death penalty in the United States. [117949]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): In the last year, Ministers and officials have made representations to the United States Government on behalf of three British nationals charged with death penalty-eligible offences and one facing execution. The three facing charges have now been told that they will not face the death penalty. The British national awaiting execution was executed on 4 February.
    Malcolm Bruce: The Minister will acknowledge that Britain is a leading member of the Council of Europe and that its 45 members have abolished the death penalty. Britain has also engaged in dialogue with the United States where there is considerable unease about miscarriages of justice relating to people on death row. There is particular concern about Scots-born Kenny Richey who has spent 16 years on death row although there is disputed evidence in the case against him. Additionally, nine British citizens and three minors in Guantanamo Bay face at least the possibility of trial by a military court and the death penalty, which would be executed without the right of appeal. That would be contrary to any human rights legislation that the Government and this country have ever supported. Does the Minister accept that the situation is a major obstacle to good relations between Europe and the United States?
    Mr. O'Brien: We clearly have a fundamental disagreement with the United States on the death penalty. Our overriding objective is to avoid the execution of any British nationals. We will express our opposition to the death penalty and its use on a British national at whatever stage and level is judged appropriate after the moment when the imposition of a death penalty on a British national becomes a possibility. We do not differentiate among types of British nationals when making those representations.
    I confirm that we have been closely involved with the case of Mr. Richey, who recently became a British national and now has dual UK-US nationality. In line with our policy, we have been making representations both on his case and on the hon. Gentleman's points about Guantanamo Bay. We always make it clear that if there is any possibility that a death penalty might be considered, we will make representations. I repeat that we do not differentiate among those who are charged.
    Geraint Davies: When the British visited my constituent Feroz Abbasi in Guantanamo Bay, he said nothing for an entire hour. What assessment has the Foreign Office made of my constituent's mental health, especially given that he is housed in a cage that is 2 m by 2 m, gets only 15 minutes exercise twice a week compared with the hour norm by internal standards and is deprived of much of his family mail? When will there be a proper assessment and
    536
    support for his human rights, and when will he be charged or else returned to Britain to his family home in Croydon?
    Mr. O'Brien: We continue to hold discussions with the United States on resolving the issue of Mr. Abassi and other detainees in Guantanamo Bay. We have made it clear that we expect international standards on the way in which individuals are detained to be applied, especially if they are British nationals. We have also made it clear that the matter has dragged on for a long time and that it is time for the United States to find a way of bringing matters to a conclusion and resolving the anomalous situation faced by the Guantanamo detainees.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend tell us the United States' reply to those representations? There is great concern about not only British citizens, but EU citizens and all people who are held in Guantanamo Bay in conditions that seem to defy the Geneva conventions and international norms. It is just not good enough. If we are the great ally of the United States and it listens to us carefully about such things, surely it should have something more positive to say about those representations, especially given that press reports this week suggest that the United States has just constructed an execution chamber at Guantanamo Bay.
    Mr. O'Brien: Our discussions with the United States have been extensive, especially during recent weeks and months. We hope that it will find a way to take the matter forward but the issue is very difficult. I am speaking not only about the nine British detainees in Guantanamo Bay but about the generality of people who are detained there when I say that productive and useful intelligence information is still being received from detainees. However, we have made it clear that we hope that the United States will be able to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

    North Korea
    Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on bilateral relations with North Korea. [117950]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The UK established diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea in December 2000 and opened an embassy in Pyongyang in July 2001. We believe that this provides a useful channel of communication to impress directly on the DPRK regime that it has to desist from developing nuclear weapons and must re-engage with the international community through multilateral dialogue.
    Rachel Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that although engaging in any constructive dialogue with North Korea is extremely difficult, it is vital in the interests of regional and global security to keep the channels of communication open?

    537
    Will he join me in welcoming the recent statements by China and Russia and the G8 summit on North Korea's nuclear ambitions? What role is the UK playing in developing and supporting the international partnership of North Korea's closest neighbours?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is certainly the case that pursuing diplomatic negotiations with the DPRK regime is a challenging task to undertake. Nevertheless, it is crucial that we do so and we remain engaged with all the key
    538
    international partners. That is certainly the case in respect of China and Russia, and I have had detailed discussions about the issue with my counterparts in those countries.
    I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the initiative of the Chinese Government in calling for and hosting the recent trilateral talks in Beijing. That was a very helpful and positive step forward. Additionally, we remain engaged and in contact with South Korea and Japan. It is crucial that North Korea comes back to the negotiating table and agrees to give up its nuclear weapons programme so that we can move forward.

Point of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is your policy on moving Question Time along? I know that it is difficult, but we only reached Question 12 today, despite the fact that several questions were grouped. Members spend a lot of time preparing questions for the Order Paper and the ballot. How do you think that you can move things along so that we can perhaps get to Question 15 or even further?
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman's question was next on the Order Paper. I do try to move things along. In fact, I have had some success, because in the past we have had fewer Foreign Office questions than we had today—so things are improving.

Consumer Protection (Unsolicited E-Mails)
12.32 pm
Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the prevention of unsolicited commercial e-mail; to amend the Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Regulations 2000; and for connected purposes.
Unsolicited commercial e-mails are a pestilential nuisance that threaten terminally to swamp and suffocate the world e-mail system, which is probably the biggest improvement in communications that the world has experienced since the invention of the telephone. Spam is now a multiplying giant parasite that threatens to destroy its host.
One hon. Member told me that when he returned from a Select Committee visit abroad his inbox was jammed with 600 e-mails—a common experience for hon. Members. Another hon. Member told me that he is so exasperated with the deluge of junk that he receives that he is threatening to change his URL to tryanothermp.com. The only person I have ever known who claims to have benefited from spam is a gentleman who says that he bought every offer he received to enhance his maleness and now has a male appendage that is 43 m long. That neatly illustrates the preposterous and ridiculous claims made by spammers to enliven our love lives or to give us brides from Nigeria.
There is a much more sinister side to spam, however. A large number of spam messages are from companies offering medicinal drugs. We know that even under this country's strict rules about 2,000 people a year die from the use of prescribed drugs.
However, the drugs offered by spammers are not on prescription and are offered without any rules or regulations whatsoever. Most odious of all are the pornographic e-mails. It is estimated that three out of 10 unsolicited e-mails are pornographic. They are sent out on an entirely random basis, so are received by vulnerable people and children, and the images that they present are often distressing and damaging.
Spammers keep up their deception, lies and dissembling, and are constantly disguising their methods to get through filtering systems. The Member who received 600 e-mails, for example, has an efficient filtering system. The great danger is that the advantages that we gain as parliamentarians from e-mail might be destroyed if we had a filtering system that destroyed the legitimate vigorously expressed messages that we occasionally receive from our constituents. E-mail is a great boon for those of us who serve on international bodies such as the Council of Europe, as we can complete work in a short time—a matter of an hour—by sending reports abroad to be edited, corrected and commented on; previously, that would have taken many weeks.
Our open, universal system is already in danger of collapse. China has now virtually cut itself off from the world system. There is now another great wall of China—an electronic one—that keeps e-mails out

541
because of the problems that have been experienced there. New Scientist reported last week that one of its journalists sent an e-mail to Texas and had it returned with the message:
"Your IP address is from a blacklisted country. Disconnecting."
The blacklisted country was the United Kingdom, so the system is imploding.
What can we do? Our role is to legislate—that is all that we can do. Twenty American states, eight European countries and the EU have passed much legislation. Heroic work has been done by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who have campaigned against spam and are organising a spam summit on 1 July.
The purpose of my Bill is to make sure that we act in solidarity with states and countries that are trying to make sending unsolicited e-mail a prosecutable offence. There has been optimism about achieving that goal because of the successful action taken against junk faxes, which have now literally dried up. As for spamming, the rogue country in the free world is the United States of America. One individual there recently equipped his house to send a billion e-mails a day. He knows that if he gets one response for every 1 million e-mails sent he is still in profit. Unfortunately, we are up against the belief in America that free trade should be unfettered and
"red in tooth and claw".
In this case, however, that means the freedom of pornographers in their thousands to pollute the internet and the freedom of thousands of criminals to try to rob us. Action must therefore be universal and concerted.
542
The Bill seeks to amend consumer protection legislation to prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail, making it a criminal offence unless the consent of the recipient has been gained. That has already been done in Denmark and Austria. The main message, however, is that we must ensure that people who receive such e-mail are aware of the best way to discourage such e-mails being sent to them in future. There are measures that ordinary e-mail users can take—never make a list of e-mail addresses; never respond to spam at all and, in particular, to spam e-mail that instructs people to reply with the word "remove", as that is used by those who prowl the internet to gather new addresses; and never sign up to sites that promise to remove one's name, because the racket is that those names are used to confirm that there is someone at the other end.
Finally, I pay tribute to Steve Linford who, in many ways, has been conducting a successful one-man campaign against spam, but is now in despair. Although he has been adept at spotting spammers' new moves and devices, he said last week that the menace could bring the e-mail system juddering to a halt.
He thinks it may have only six months left. He says:
"The e-mail system is on the edge of meltdown."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Paul Flynn, Tony Lloyd, Mr. Win Griffiths, Michael Fabricant, David Taylor, Brian White, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Mr. Huw Edwards.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (UNSOLICITED E-MAILS)
Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the prevention of unsolicited commercial e-mail; to amend the Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Regulations 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 119].

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Carry-Over)
12.41 pm
The Leader of the House (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move,
That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
The carry-over of a public Bill is not unprecedented. The House agreed to carry over the Financial Services and Markets Bill on 25 October 1999. As I understand it, that Bill was a highly detailed and complex measure, which was significantly improved by the extra time provided for scrutiny, but this is the first time a carry-over motion has been moved under the procedure approved by the House last October.
In its second report of last Session, the Modernisation Committee recommended that Standing Orders be amended to permit carry-over of a Bill by resolution of the House for an experimental period, but that no Bill should be carried over for more than one extra Session. The Committee argued in paragraph 38:
"If we are serious about providing for better scrutiny then we most adopt a longer time perspective which permits more time and more thorough scrutiny. That can only come from the wider use of carry-over."
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has just explained why the Modernisation Committee provided for greater scrutiny of a Bill, but can he assure us that, following the statement yesterday and the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said,
"Because Britain has experienced difficulty in balancing supply and demand in housing, we propose to build further and extend the reforms already announced in respect of planning"—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 411.],
we are not getting a new Bill—a rewriting of the Bill—partly because the Government have changed their mind? The Chancellor seemed to imply that yesterday.
Dr. Reid: It is true that the Chancellor referred yesterday to planning and the simplification of the planning process, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the discussions and amendments to the Bill, which cover Crown immunity and various other aspects, and the decision to allow for greater scrutiny were not connected with the decisions announced yesterday by the Chancellor. The decisions were taken in order to allow for greater scrutiny and to incorporate further amendments, and because of the pressure of business in general. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire planning process was referred to yesterday, and is a material factor in diminishing some of the obstacles to our entry to the euro, that is not directly related to the reasons why I am moving the carry-over motion today.
I finished my quote thus:
"If we are serious about providing for better scrutiny, we must adopt a longer time perspective that permits more time and more thorough scrutiny. That can come only from the wider use of carry-over."
544
Some Opposition Members objected to that. It was not my comment, but a continuation of the direct quote from paragraph 38 of the Modernisation Committee's second report of the previous Session.
Sir Paul Beresford: It is clear from the Order Paper that if the motion is agreed the Bill will return to Standing Committee. The difficulty faced by the previous Committee was that as a result of the lack of time allowed by the guillotine only a fraction—perhaps about 25 per cent.—of the Bill was covered. In the light of the proposed changes, will the time allowed in Standing Committee be sufficient to allow proper consideration of the Bill?
Dr. Reid: I hope that it will give a greater opportunity for scrutiny. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was no leeway for amendment or discussion. The information that I have—of course, I was not a member of the Standing Committee—suggests that some 500 amendments were tabled and 210 were taken in respect of a Bill of about 70 clauses. That does not suggest that there was a complete absence of scrutiny or discussion of the amendments. Nevertheless, I hope that the point that he makes is correct and that there will be greater leeway for scrutiny when the Bill goes back to the Standing Committee.
Sir Paul Beresford: Many of the amendments were dealt with under the guillotine. On the basis of a quick finger count, I hope that those amendments were not included in the total.
Dr. Reid: That is all the more reason for the hon. Gentleman and I to be united in welcoming the fact that there will now be some more time for greater scrutiny of the Bill if it returns to the Standing Committee. Indeed, I hope that the Government's willingness to allow more time for scrutiny will be welcomed not only by him, but in all parts of the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Bill was 90 clauses and seven schedules long. Will the Leader of the House tell us how many clauses and schedules were debated in Committee? Can he assure the House that when the Bill is recommitted to a Standing Committee, the Committee will not be subject to a guillotine?
Dr. Reid: On the first question, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head how many provisions were debated, although I can write to him.
Mr. Eric Forth: It is very important.
Dr. Reid: I have no doubt that it is important, and I try to assimilate whatever information I can about Bills with which I have not been personally acquainted, but I cannot provide a direct answer to that question. As I said, I understand from the background information that I read before this debate that about 500 amendments were tabled to a 90-clause Bill. More than 200 amendments were selected and discussed, often in groups.
Of course, there is continual time pressure and continual pressure on the Government in terms not only of the legislation, but of the degree of our

545
accountability. Throughout the past six months, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and his colleagues have been at the forefront in asking us to be accountable to this House on the question of Iraq in particular, and we have done that. It is not possible to guarantee in advance that we will not use the guillotine on any of the amendments, but, whatever complaints hon. Members have had in the past, it is plainly the case that there will now be more scrutiny than there would have been before I came to the Dispatch Box to announce the carry-over.
Matthew Green: I might be able to elucidate the matter a little. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who is sitting next to the Leader of the House, stated in a written answer:
"Of the 90 clauses in the Bill, 22 were fully debated, four were partly debated and 64 were not debated."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 348W.]
A massive 64 clauses were not debated.
Dr. Reid: In view of those circumstances, there is an even greater reason why there should be at least a degree of unity, and agreement that the scrutiny offered by the carry-over—an addition to any that has occurred until this stage—should be welcomed by all of us. I find it extraordinary that an alleged lack of scrutiny in the past should become the basis of an objection to extra scrutiny in future. I do not follow the logic of that position.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that if the Bill is recommitted to Committee it will contain extra provisions, especially on getting rid of Crown immunity and promoting the Government's sustainable communities agenda, may we have an assurance that not only the new clauses but the 64 clauses in the present Bill that were not considered previously—not through filibustering—will be considered in Committee?
Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as a matter of formality we are recommitting the whole Bill, not parts of it. If he has misgivings or desires about how we conduct the extra time that will be available, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be only too willing to discuss that allocation of scrutiny time with Members on both Opposition Front Benches. I see that the hon. Member for Cotswold is nodding. I do not concede that there was inadequate scrutiny in the past, but, if there was, surely we should all welcome the fact that there will be additional scrutiny in future. (Interruption.] Perhaps not those of a more churlish spirit.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given that the previous guillotine enabled only less than a third of this highly technical Bill to be debated, and that we still do not know precisely what new items the Government are going to put into it, will the Leader of the House tell us what the new items will be so that we can judge whether the provisional eight sittings that the Under-Secretary has proposed to me will be enough? We will have only four sittings on the five major new items that Government are to add to the Bill and four sittings to revisit at least half a dozen issues
546
that we raised in relation to the previous Bill. The Government are already building up a problem for themselves as regards the new recommittal Committee.
Dr. Reid: We are always willing to take the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and we will try to defuse any problems that he thinks are building up.
Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Reid: Yes, as soon as I have finished responding to the hon. Member for Cotswold. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will outline some of the issues in more detail when he speaks.
Andrew Bennett: I am not enthusiastic about guillotines, but the blame for the lack of debating time for the Bill should lie firmly with Opposition Members. They knew what was in the Bill, and if they had been succinct and to the point they would have been able to cover the issues. They should take an example from Members in the other place, who are dealing with legislation very quickly and efficiently.
Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend's robust and forensic criticism of the attitude and practices of those on the Opposition Front Bench is accurate, but I am trying to be more emollient, as is my wont on such occasions, by trying, whatever differences we have had in the past, to direct us towards a position of potential agreement. It is good that we now have more time for scrutiny. If hon. Members are concerned about using that extra time, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will explain in some detail the measures that will to be added to the Bill, and he is willing to discuss with Members on both Front Benches how the time is allocated. We shall attempt to make up for whatever deficiencies there have been in the past, irrespective of which side of the House they arose from.
I had hoped—admittedly, it has proved to be a forlorn hope for the time being—that the Government's willingness to allow a longer time for scrutiny of the Bill would be welcomed on both sides of the House. I hope that later the House will agree to recommit the Bill to Standing Committee, but it will be possible to give it more time in Committee only if hon. Members agree to our proposal to carry it over to the next Session.
There are various reasons for that proposal; I have not pretended that it is all to do with allocating extra time for scrutiny, although that is part of it. I have been open with the House, in the past, as well as today, about the pressures that we are under this Session, not least in view of the fact that we have made available—quite rightly; I make no complaint about it—a significant amount of time to consider the situation, then the conflict, in Iraq. Although we have enough time to complete the passage of the Bill this Session, we believe that it would be beneficial to delay its departure to the other place. That will give us the opportunity to introduce to the House, rather than in the Lords, new provisions to end the Crown's immunity from planning control, subject to certain safeguards, thus implementing a long-standing cross-party commitment. I hope that the House will welcome that and accept that the motion is made in good faith.

547
We will discuss later how the additional time in Committee can best be used. That will be a matter not for diktat, but for negotiation through the usual channels.
Mr. Forth: Huh!
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman contributes what I presume to be an Anglo-Saxon, rather than a Latinate. "Huh!" to demonstrate his scepticism about my remarks. I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is always eager to try to reach a consensus on such matters, and I hope that the Opposition will engage constructively in the process of how we allocate the extra time.
We do not anticipate that the Bill will have completed its passage through the other House by 4 December, a year after its first introduction in the House. We have therefore also tabled an extension motion today to allow proceedings on the Bill to continue for up to a further six months.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Bill left Committee and was reported to the House on 28 January this year. What has happened to it in the intervening period? Surely it could have almost been on the statute book by now.
Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the period since the end of January has been rather busy in the House.
Mr. Forth: No, it has not.
Dr. Reid: Well, it has included a war, among other things. It has been a busy time. I understand that the hon. Member for Cotswold may have found it inconvenient to wait for this important Bill—so have we. However, we are now in a position not only to make cross-party amendments but to give additional time to scrutinise it. I hope that that is some consolation. In practice, we hope that the Bill may achieve Royal Assent by the end of March.
In short, I ask the House to agree to the carry-over of the Bill and hope that it will accede to that request.
12.57 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important and unprecedented motion.
Today, we are witnessing the Government performing a sheepish and embarrassed U-turn over one of their flagship Bills of this parliamentary Session. It comes as no surprise that they hope to smother under the guise of complex parliamentary procedure the admission that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was, from the start, a deeply flawed and poorly drafted measure. It strikes me as remarkable that for the past few months the Under-Secretary has been walking around with his fingers crossed, hoping that nobody notices that the Bill has been out of Committee since 28 January this year. For no fewer than 133 days, the Bill seemed to be reported missing somewhere in Whitehall. Rather as in the case of Lord Lucan, reports occasionally crept out of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about its possible whereabouts, but there were
548
no definitive sightings. We all asked ourselves whether the Government were so embarrassed about the Bill and the reaction to it from all manner of specialist and professional bodies that they planned quietly to shelve it, or whether it would be whipped through Parliament before the summer recess despite the fact that it was deeply flawed.
As long ago as December 2001, the Government produced three huge tomes of consultation papers, to which they received no fewer than 16,230 replies. As a result, they decided to submit the Bill to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and referred it to the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Committee produced its report in July 2002. It shows how flawed the Bill was from the start. Paragraph 5 of its conclusions states that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions provided the Committee with an analysis of the responses to the consultation on the Green Papers, to which I referred. It showed that 88 per cent. of the respondents did not support the replacement of local plans, unitary development plans or the local development framework, and that only 10 per cent. of the 16,000-odd respondents supported the abolition of county structure plans.
Many organisations that responded, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which supported reform in principle, opposed many of the practical grounds. The former was critical of proposals for business planning zones and the latter criticised the plan to introduce tariffs. Paragraph 6 of the Select Committee report stated that the proposals amounted to a fundamental and radical reform of the planning system, but that it had been argued that the Government's objectives could be better met by reforming the existing system. Conservative Members say amen to that. We argued all along that it would be far better to reform the existing system than to rip up four or five decades of case law and planning law and start again, thus creating a paradise for lawyers.
Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman also take the trouble to make the point that the Government listened to the Select Committee and made many consequent changes? Much of the organic change for which we have argued has been going on during the consideration of the Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee report, but he should update his comments by saying that the Government listened.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government may have taken note of a small amount of the Select Committee's report, but they produced a deeply flawed Bill. It was rushed through in 12 half-day Committee sittings, which ended on 28 January. The guillotine was far too strict and we voted against it. The specialist magazine, Planning Weekly, was moved to comment:
"The Government is not fast-tracking the legislation so much as actively railroading it through."
That railroading made proper parliamentary scrutiny almost impossible. We should bear that in mind when we consider the extent to which the Bill's scrutiny was unsatisfactorily stunted.

549
Hon. Members have already pointed out that the measure has 90 clauses and six schedules. By the end of consideration in Committee, 63 clauses and four schedules had not been debated. What a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. In the Committee's sixth sitting, clauses 18 to 36 could not be debated, which meant that contentious issues, such as the preparation of local development documents and the plan for joint committees of county councils and local planning authorities—two of the measure's central planks—went undebated.
On 21 January, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) tabled an amendment to correct two glaring spelling mistakes. The Bill mentioned "complusory" purchase and used the peculiar new word "satisified". It would have been reasonable of the Under-Secretary to accept the amendment without debate. However, he asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. It was put to the vote on my insistence and defeated. The Minister's only excuse for refusing to accept elementary amendments on spelling mistakes was:
"I do not have confidence that there are only two errors … I undertake that my counsel will go through the Bill to find all the typos".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 January 2003; c. 299.]
At that stage, the Government were so determined not to consider any amendments that we were asked to let the Bill be reported to the House with spelling mistakes. If that is allowed, how can we do our job properly?
On 6 December 2002, when the Bill was published, the Government stated that they intended to have a new planning system up and running by the next year. Only two months ago, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), the Leader of the House described the Bill as "important, indeed urgent". A month ago, the Under-Secretary affirmed his desire to get the Bill
"approved and on the statute book as soon as we possibly can."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 298.]
What have the Government been doing since January?
According to the Standing Order, only one Bill can be committed under the unprecedented carry-over procedure. It is almost as if the Bill is a test case. What a measure to choose—it has had such a bad start and such long consideration. As the Leader of the House said, the procedure is not unprecedented in that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 began with 277 clauses and reached Royal Assent with 425 clauses. However, the Bill has been moved to a late stage in the Session, and we do not know what the Government will include in it now that they could not incorporate initially.
The Under-Secretary told me the other day that he intended to tackle five items. First, he would correct the spelling mistakes that he previously refused to correct. Secondly, he would include the measly concessions that he made in Committee. Thirdly, he would consider further some of the issues that we raised in Committee, such as the statement of development principles, planning permission, urban development corporations and local development orders. However, we are told that we are likely to get only four sittings in which to examine those matters.
550
Fourthly, the Under-Secretary said that he would include a provision to take account of the Law Commission's recommendations on the mechanics of compulsory purchase. To my mind, that is the only excuse of the four for wanting to extend scrutiny of the Bill. Fifthly, he said that he would introduce a new concept of eliminating Crown immunity in relation to planning for Departments. That would have an enormous effect in terms of bureaucracy, delay and expense. In a letter dated 5 June 2003, he stated that he would include a sixth category to implement the sustainable communities agenda.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what exactly he will include in the Bill. There is no chance of properly scrutinising the six categories, let alone revisiting some of the issues that were not debated in Committee, in the eight sittings that he proposes.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that—perhaps this is even more important than the points he has just made—we now have an opportunity to simplify the Bill? We have an opportunity to deal with what was being imposed on this country compared with Wales, but it is being missed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend played a sterling part in Committee. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet contributed greatly, unlike some Labour colleagues, who never spoke. I shall revert to that point later. My hon. Friend has made a good point. The provisions for Wales are a great deal simpler than those for England. Although we debated the incorporation of the provisions for Wales into the English system at length, the Government steadfastly refused to consider that. I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that the extra time that the unwelcome and unprecedented motion grants will give us a chance to revisit the matter.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman suggested that he was not happy with ending Crown immunity. How does he square that with his opposition in Committee to the many powers that the Bill awarded the Secretary of State? Why does he want the Secretary of State to retain powers on Crown immunity? I am confused by a position that appears inconsistent.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman adopts the sneaky technique of misrepresenting me. I did not say that we opposed the abolition of Crown immunity. I want to see the Government's proposals and I shall subsequently decide whether to recommend them to my colleagues. Until we read them, it is impossible to make a judgment. That is why we need adequate time in Committee to debate them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the measure is a centralising Bill par excellence. It gives the Secretary of State and the regions enormous powers. Both matters were subject to many amendments in Committee to try to make a bad Bill better.
We are debating something that is unprecedented. It is covered by the new Standing Order introduced in the House on 29 October 2002, which makes provision for a Bill to be carried over. As the Leader of the House has said, the Modernisation Committee's idea, when proposing the new Standing Order, was to ensure that

551
Bills had proper scrutiny. I hope that introducing this motion, which the Government will presumably whip through on their side, will enable the Bill to have such proper scrutiny, because otherwise, those bodies out there will be equally dissatisfied. We have had a lot of representations, and I shall give the House one or two quotes from them. Simon Ricketts, a partner at S.J. Berwin, says:
"The planning bill will make the system more complex and will not achieve the government's aims for a faster, fairer planning system."
Karen Cooksley, a partner at Masons, states:
"The planning bill will keep lawyers busy for years."
We would have found it infinitely preferable to modify the existing system, but the Government were not satisfied with that. They are determined to tear up the existing system, to create huge powers for the Secretary of State, who will be able to control virtually the entire planning system, and to dictate to the regions what they must put in their regional spatial strategy. The regions will, in turn, dictate to the local authorities what is to be in their plans.
I have one final question for the Minister. A number of councils are currently considering their local plans. They have been ordered to adopt the new system in 2004, whether the legislation is in place or not. Under this new procedure, we are getting a year's extra scrutiny from when the Bill was first committed to the House on 4 December. If the next motion—which you will not permit me to talk about now, Mr. Speaker—is passed, we shall have a year and a half. That will take us to June 2004, at the latest, to get the Bill on to the statute book—if, indeed, the Government do not have to use the Parliament Act to get it through their lordships' House. The House of Lords will now undoubtedly give it huge scrutiny. How are local planning authorities to approach this matter if they do not know precisely what form the Bill will take, but have been told that they must carry out the consultation and start preparing their local plans? The local authorities need an answer to that question from the planning Minister.
This motion is unwelcome. We wish that it had not been introduced, and we believe that the Government's discipline in getting their legislative programme through the House is a shambles. If the Bill is carried over, the parliamentary procedure in the next Session will undoubtedly be made even more difficult, because it will be cluttered up with Bills from this Session. We will oppose this motion; it is a bad motion from a Government who are incapable of getting their legislative procedure through. This is a bad Bill, to boot, and we hope that we shall now have an opportunity to improve it in some small measure.
1.12 pm
Andrew Bennett: I welcome the procedure that the Government are going to adopt for carrying over Bills; it seems very sensible. I should like to make two points. The first is about the nature of Bills in the House and the way in which the Leader of the House will deal with Bills in the next few months. The second is specifically about this Bill.
As I understand it, there has been a tendency for the Government to want to keep Bills short. It has even been said that if a Bill gets too long, the Legislative
552
Programme Committee of the Cabinet will not allow it into the timetable at all. I hope that the Government will give some thought to that matter. When I used to teach—admittedly, it was some time ago—the Education Act 1944 was almost the teachers' bible. In that one piece of legislation, we could see most of the provisions that we needed for our work. The tendency of the Government in recent years, however, has been to have lots and lots of legislation, and I simply make a plea to the Leader of the House that it might be better to get on to the statute book a big, comprehensive Bill that would last, rather than giving Departments pint-sized pieces of legislation on a regular basis.
I make this plea bearing in mind the Housing Bill that the Select Committee is about to look at. The amazing thing is that we have received a huge amount of evidence for the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill—that is very helpful—but almost 50 per cent. of it complains about things that are not in the Bill. When we spoke to Lord Rooker about that, he made it quite clear that if the Bill were to expand, it could well lose its legislative slot in the Queen's Speech. I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider letting Departments have full and comprehensive Bills when they need them, rather than doling out a little bit each year. That would be much better.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting and constructive point, but let us suppose that the Bill, in whatever form it takes, eventually gets on to the statute book. Would not that be a good time for the Government to introduce a consolidation Bill that brought together in one piece of legislation all the matters relating to town and country planning, including the principal Act?
Andrew Bennett: There might well be arguments for a consolidation Bill, but I do not think that the House deals with them particularly well. I would repeat my plea for having a full Bill to start with. When I come to discuss the Bill itself, I shall make the point that adding on the provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders and other matters is a sensible move by the Government.
I want to make the small point that, in my view, the Opposition are whingeing far too much. It seems a little odd that the most important thing that they wanted to consider in Committee was the spelling mistakes. I should have thought that there were more important principles in the Bill. Being a bit dyslexic myself, I do not think that we should get too hung up on the spelling, but I shall leave that point aside. The Opposition should also consider how Parliament has been modernised. If we are to have pre-legislative scrutiny, and if the Select Committee is to do much of that work, the Opposition will have to consider using their time in Committee rather more efficiently.
Mr. Forth: We always appreciate helpful advice from the hon. Gentleman, based on his vast experience, but if he is saying that the Opposition must fit in with the time arbitrarily set by the Government, I am not sure that I agree with that as a parliamentary principle. Is he aware that, certainly in another place, the recent experience has been that pre-legislative scrutiny increases interest in a Bill, and increases the available level of knowledge and

553
expertise about a Bill? It does not, therefore, reduce the amount of time or the necessity for scrutiny; rather, it tends to increase it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Andrew Bennett: I understand those arguments, but I still believe that, as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government have to concentrate their mind on the issues that people outside are pressing. It might well be that the Opposition need to do that as well.
I do not like the idea of knives coming down in Committee. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that a Bill has to come out of Committee at a certain time, and that is what the House has traditionally done. It is then up to the Opposition to allocate the time within those constraints. If the Opposition want a sitting to go late into the night—although I understand that Ministers are not very sympathetic to this—I have no difficulty with that, so long as they are prepared to meet the deadline at the end of the proceedings. It is important, however, that they adapt their tactics to current procedures.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has made a point about knives. He will be aware that knives have been involved on at least four occasions in relation to this Bill, and on no occasion was the Government Whip prepared to go beyond 7 o'clock, despite the fact that we were prepared to do so. We do not agree with guillotines at all, but if the Government were to give the Opposition the freedom that the hon. Gentleman describes, within a constrained number of sittings, by extending the sitting time and removing the knives, there would be some purport in his criticism.
Andrew Bennett: I accept that; it seems to me that there has been a lack of negotiation. Personally, I would not start with the guillotines; I would simply start with the Government setting a deadline for the proceedings and hoping that the desired result could be achieved by negotiation. I have to say, however, that, having been in the House for quite a long time, and having filibustered in Committee on many occasions, I believe that the way in which Bills were scrutinised in the past was often not particularly helpful—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going wide of the matter before us.
Andrew Bennett: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I shall turn to the Bill itself.
I welcome the extra bits that the Government will put into the Bill, but I want to press the Minister on the question of delay. When the Select Committee was rather more enthusiastic for organic change, rather than a big bang of legislation, there was a worry that there would be a hiatus for local authorities in the interim while moving from the old system to the new. I think that such a hiatus is beginning to develop.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that this process will not delay the implementation of the Bill. The dates envisaged were some time after the Government expected Royal Assent to be given, and I hope that they will be kept to.
554
Will we have the extra planners we were promised? The legislative change will not work without more planners, and more effective planners. We were pleased when the Government made concessions on section 106 money, but many people outside are confused and concerned, and I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what is happening. I also hope that we can have a bit more information about the provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders, and an assurance that what the Chancellor talked about yesterday will not be slipped into the Bill: that would be very unfortunate.
I plead with the Minister to ensure that any new development body for the Thames gateway will not slow the process down. The Select Committee noted that in Dartford, for instance, people who had been working very slowly for nearly 10 years had now got their act together.
When trying to create sustainable communities, the Government should look again at the building regulations. This morning, with the Select Committee, I visited BedZED, a Peabody Trust development. That showed me how much progress could be made in the building of sustainable housing. I hope that building control regulations will keep up to date with the best of what is proposed.
I am glad that we are going to spend a bit more time on the Bill. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider applying the same principle to the draft housing Bill. Finally, let me plead with the Opposition not to go on whingeing, about guillotines, but to find ways in which they can work effectively within the new restrictions.
1.22 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am glad of the opportunity to speak. As the Leader of the House said, although there are precedents for carry-over, we are using a new procedure for the first time. My colleagues and I are far from happy about the way in which that procedure is being imposed on us.
I have experienced the benefit—I hope it is a benefit—of working with the Modernisation Committee on some of these issues since its inception. Neither the Leader of the House nor his Conservative shadow, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), have experienced that benefit, let alone others who are speaking today. I therefore want to refer to points made by the Leader of the House earlier, and to what lies behind the process.
The Modernisation Committee has always seen this as a deliberate, careful trade-off. The Opposition parties would have a bigger role in deciding the business of the House, while the Government would have more certainty about the way in which its business might be pursued. In particular, we might together try to improve the product that emerges from the legislative sausage machine. I am sorry to produce another analogy immediately, but that would enable us to avoid the "London bus" syndrome of having to consider all the big Bills arriving seriatim during the parliamentary year without devoting proper scrutiny to some important parts of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) hopes to deal with points relating specifically to the Bill if he is able to speak on the next motion. I want

555
to return to what was said by the Leader of the House in his introduction. He referred to a motion put to the House on 29 October last year, and to one of the Select Committee's recommendations which was the subject of the debate that followed. What he did not mention was recommendation (i), which stated:
"We recommend that there should be collective consultations with other parties in the House on the broad shape of the legislative year, those Bills intended to be published in draft, those Bills intended to be carried over and which Bills are expected to be introduced in the Commons, including discussion on the likely dates of recesses and related matters such as Friday sittings and Opposition days".
That was part of the trade-off.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was right to point out that implicit in the Modernisation Committee's proposals was the fact that the Government would know the date when Bills would leave Committee, but that within a Committee it should be largely left to the Opposition parties to decide where the knives should fall and how much time should be spent on individual sections. That is all part of the proposal put to the House on 29 October.
Lest there be any doubt about that recommendation, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), made crystal clear what the procedure was intended to be. He said:
"we have committed ourselves to consultation with other parties in the House—both the official Opposition and the other parties—on the broad shape of the legislative year, including consultation on which Bills might be introduced in draft, what the broad order of Bills coming before the House might be, whether a Bill begins in the Lords or in the Commons, and which Bills might prove to be appropriate for carry-over. That is wide-ranging consultation—much wider than any collective consultation that has previously been attempted in this House—and I hope that it will assist in developing consensus on the shape of the parliamentary year."—[Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 696.]
There has been one such meeting—a meeting between the then Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, a representative of the minority parties and me. There have, however, been no further collective consultations on these issues. The context of the motion we are discussing has therefore been blown to smithereens. There has been no discussion, and no agreement, on the broad context of carry-over and the legislative year. That means that the agreement made not just in the Modernisation Committee but in the House on 29 October is not being followed this afternoon, and my colleagues and I are very concerned.
We do not think it acceptable to deal with these matters piecemeal. There must of course be a specific motion for a specific Bill—that is what the House agreed to—but we face the possibility that over the next few weeks we will have to deal with other stand-alone motions on other carry-over issues without the appropriate consultation that was agreed to, and to which the Government were previously committed.
Dr. John Reid: I do not dismiss some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Normally, at the time of Second Reading or thereabouts, we would want to give prolonged advance indication of the Bills that we
556
wanted to carry over. That has not happened in this case. I hope that we shall not need to resort regularly to the method we are having to employ today.
Mr. Tyler: I hear what the Leader of the House says and I know that he speaks with great sincerity, but I wonder whether we shall not be faced with yet more carry-over proposals between now and the end of the Session—in which case his words may come to haunt him.
Two other important safeguards were built into the trade-off that was recommended to, and accepted by, the House. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has already mentioned one: that programming in Committee should be left to the initiative of members of that Committee, in particular Opposition members, so that they could identify the most important issues, and decide on the allocation of time and where the knives should fall, in a programming sub-committee.
The other safeguard is equally important. In the proposals put to the House on 29 October, there was a deliberate link with pre-legislative scrutiny. It was said that that was one way of ensuring that the time of both Houses was put to good use. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and his Committee did some good work on pre-legislative scrutiny, but let me put this to the Leader of the House. We now know that a lot of new material will come before the House and its Standing Committee. Will the Select Committee be given an opportunity to carry out more pre-legislative scrutiny?
Some of these issues are extremely significant. If the link is between pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over, the full exercise must be undertaken rather than the Committee's being left to try and work its way through new material in a way that has been described as haphazard—which is putting it pretty mildly. We should note in passing that the other place has built into its agreement to any carry-over the explicit promise that pre-legislative scrutiny will have occurred.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that paragraph (3) of the Standing Order of 29 October 2002 says:
"A carry-over motion shall not be made in respect of more than one bill",
so only one Bill can be carried over under the procedure. Does he agree that this Bill, having had huge pre-legislative scrutiny, is an inappropriate candidate for that? A Bill that had not had pre-legislative scrutiny should have been carried over. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will look carefully at that aspect when the order has to be renewed after this Session.
Mr. Tyler: I stand to be corrected but the order simply says that there has to be a motion for each carry-over. That does not mean that there will not be any more motions between now and the end of the Session.
Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, strictly speaking, there was not pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill? My Select Committee looked at the Government's White Paper and at what the

557
Government were proposing. There were changes when the Bill was published but strictly speaking, pre-legislative scrutiny did not happen.
Mr. Tyler: I accept the point. Strictly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is right. Pre-legislative scrutiny implies a draft Bill coming before a Committee and then going through the normal legislative process.
Dr. Reid: In case there is any confusion, may I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Standing Order is correct? It is one carry-over per motion, not one per Session.
Mr. Tyler: The reason that I am so concerned that we look at the principles is that it is the first time that this particular procedure has been followed. It is extremely important to get it right. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for endorsing my interpretation.
As I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair in the subsequent debate to deal with details of the Bill. I and my colleagues believe that there is an opportunity and a need for carry-over in certain circumstances to avoid the confusion that we have often had when there has been a great bunch-up of legislation at the end of the sessional programme. We believe that there are great opportunities for developing consensus across the House on the handling of our business. That will benefit not only hon. Members but those whom we represent, who are clearly looking for a better product than we have been able to produce in recent years. However, we require full consent and endorsement, and full implementation not just of the letter of the recommendations put to the House on 29 October but of the spirit.
As I say, I hope that the Leader of the House will revisit the full report of the Modernisation Committee and the full assurances given by his predecessor to the House on 29 October, not only so that we can have positive assurances about what the Bill will do, and what will be done in the coming Session to improve its evident inadequacies, but so that we can have cross-party agreement about the way in which our business is handled in the House. There is much room for improvement.
1.33 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: When the Bill disappeared off the face of the earth, or at least I thought that it had, there was considerable relief. I thought that finally, despite the Minister's protestations, he had bowed to the people sitting behind him. The Bill was a mistake. Sadly, it has reappeared today. My second, hopeful choice is that there will be major changes to the Bill, taking some notice of the opposition: I mean not just the Opposition in the House but that outside. However, it does not sound as if that will be the story. It looks as though new bits will be added and that a complex and difficult Bill will be made several times worse.
Apart from the Ministers by those who were heavily whipped, the Bill as it relates to England has been accepted as centralising and extremely bureaucratic. It is
558
slowing planning and planning procedures. It is yet another blow to local government. As its Chairman has mentioned, the Select Committee essentially condemned it. He said that we favoured organic change—I think that that was the phrase. That is a delicate way of putting it. Perhaps his memory is a little like Nelson's eyesight, conveniently. The Bill was shredded by many of those who reacted to the Select Committee's request for information and consideration, and by many of those who protested when it received a Second Reading and went on to the Committee stage.
What perhaps intrigued me most was that, when the Select Committee was looking at the Bill during the inquiry, one morning, the planning Minister from the Welsh Assembly arrived and made it clear that, from her point of view, essentially, the planning procedures as they stood worked. A few minor changes around the edges here and there were mentioned but a total shake-up was not called for. After that lady finished speaking to the Select Committee, the Minister from the other place spoke. He was typically dramatic. Anyone who knows him would anticipate that from him. There was much arm waving. Adjectives were used heavily. He said that the Bill was going to sweep away all before it.
Many of us had anticipated that, because we had seen that Minister in the Back-Bench local government committee. He told those interested, who included many ex-planning Ministers, that the Bill was the best thing since sliced bread, it was going to rejuvenate everything and that he understood planning now because he had been planning Minister for six weeks. At the very best, there were wry smiles and many wishes of good luck. When the Bill was introduced, an awful situation was landed upon us. My reason for opposing the motion is that there is an opportunity for the Bill to disappear for a total rethink and for Ministers to recognise that dogmatically to push ahead with it is to go against the clear thinking and reaction of local government, which will have to implement it.
Local government planners are dismayed. The House Builders Federation and the builders themselves are dismayed. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is dismayed. Quietly, many of the Minister's Back Benchers are dismayed. Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been notoriously bent on centralisation. Similar warnings were given on the best value Bill, the Local Government Bill, the funding formula and other measures but they have been ignored. Interestingly, if one looks at those previous Bills, many of the predictions are slowly being recognised by Ministers. Those of us who are protesting today and who will vote against the motion are asking Ministers to recognise that they have made a mistake, that there is some genuine and thoughtful opposition and to take the opportunity to forget the Bill and to come back again with something infinitely more sensible that will speed up planning procedures rather than delay them.
1.37 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: I can, I hope, be reasonably brief because much of what I was going to say has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Certain facts about the Bill are beyond dispute. In Committee, we had only 12 short sittings. A

559
sitting lasted not more than two and a half hours. Only 24 of the 90 clauses were considered; of the other 66, 64 at least were not considered at all. I think that it is beyond dispute—I hope that the Minister will back me up on this—that there was no filibustering. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was not on the Committee. Because of his vast experience in these matters, he would have been a considerable help to the Committee. He would have seen that there was no filibustering. The only disruption, if my memory serves me correctly, was when we had to adjourn the Committee to vote on the Floor of the House. That time was taken off the two and a half hours.
In case there is any misunderstanding, I have been an advocate of every Bill being timetabled ever since I first came to the House in 1970. My quarrel with the Government is that, with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, as with so many others they have introduced, there has been totally inadequate time to consider the provisions in Committee. The Bill is important as well as controversial. During the all too short Committee stage, the Government indicated that they had second thoughts and would look again at certain important issues.
I want to make my point by asking some short, direct questions, and when the Minister sums up, I hope that he can give the House the answers. If the Bill is to be recommitted, will it be possible to consider all the provisions? If not, will not only the new provisions introduced, but the 66 clauses that were not adequately discussed—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the recommital, rather than the carry-over. Perhaps he could address his remarks to the motion.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg both your pardon and the House's pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; perhaps I got a little confused by the three separate motions that we are considering this afternoon. However, the Government are clearly going to add provisions to the Bill, and I want to know whether they are going to change any of the existing ones in the light of the discussions that have taken place.
The best course of action that the Government should take, and indeed could take, is to withdraw the current Bill and publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by either the Select Committee or even a Special Standing Committee. Given that there are probably only eight or nine weeks of this Session to go, they should introduce the revised Bill in the new Session, subject to what is said about the draft version. I am sure that that would be the best way to proceed on what is a very important and controversial Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is one of the most knowledgeable people in this House on planning and associated matters. He is not only a qualified architect, but a member of bodies such as the Royal Town Planning Institute. Does he agree with me that the Homes Bill, which ran out of tame, constitutes a good precedent for what he has just said? It was not particularly good and contained controversial measures in respect of the seller's pack. The Government started
560
from scratch and brought it back as a new and much better Bill—the Homelessness Bill—in the next Session. Should that not be a precedent for this Bill?
Sir Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend has recorded the precept for what I believe should become a very good practice. There have been four months between consideration of the Bill in Committee and today's debate, with no consideration on Report. A lot has happened to me in that time. My hon. Friend kindly referred to my being a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, but in fact I am now a retired fellow of that organisation. I ask the Government seriously to consider withdrawing the current Bill, even at this eleventh hour, and introducing a new one in the next Session.
1.43 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: I wish to amplify the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), about the uncertainty that carry-over of the Bill will give rise to among borough councils. In particular, I cite the example of my own Fareham borough council, whose existing local plan expires in 2006. In April, officials from the Government office for the south-east advised the council that it needed to use elements in the Bill before us to go through the process of drawing up what they said should be a local development framework, thereby mirroring the language in the Bill. They also highlighted the fact that various other elements of the Bill should be incorporated as part of the preparation of the LDF. They referred to the need for the regional spatial strategy, the potential of a sub-regional strategy for south Hampshire in informing LDF preparation, and the need for an accompanying statement of community involvement.
For some borough councils whose plans expire in 2006, the carry-over of this Bill raises the issue of what they should do next. Do they follow the guidance set out in previous planning legislation, or the guidance set out in the Bill? There is no guarantee that the Bill will be passed in its current form, or that these components will still be there when it becomes law. Councils throughout the country will be seeking an assurance from the Minister today on what action they should take. It is certainly the view of Fareham borough council that the Bill needs to be in force in March 2005—the scheduled date for publication of the draft LDF for Fareham. Along with other borough councils, developers and residents, Fareham borough council is looking for certainty from this process. The carry-over of the Bill puts that certainty at risk, and the Government need to provide much greater explanation of their intentions for its future shape, particularly in the light of the Chancellor's comments during yesterday's statement on the euro.
1.45 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This debate justifies our very worst fears about the whole concept of carry-over, which, of course, was introduced under the ghastly rubric of modernisation. Some of us have come to despise that word, because it is reached for increasingly readily by those who want to diminish the effectiveness of this House of Commons with regard to the Government of the day.

561
In a peculiar way, this motion has managed to combine cock-up and conspiracy. We used to think that they were alternatives in the political lexicon, but this motion involves a combination of the two concepts. What started as a legislative cock-up has had to be translated by the Government into a conspiracy in order to try to persuade us that it is all supposed to be for the good, which it patently is not.
I want to refute in the clearest possible terms the reasons that the Leader of the House gave for this motion. He began by saying that there was enormous pressure of business; indeed, it was one of his main arguments. Any of us who spends time in this House—I wish that all Members did so, but sadly they do not; these days only a proportion do so—will be all too well aware that the one thing that the Government have not experienced in the calendar year of 2003 is pressure of business.
Goodness knows, we seem to move effortlessly from one recess to another. Friday sittings, other than those for private Member's Bills, have been abolished. We now all rush to go home early every evening. So although the Government say that we have pressure of business and pressure of time, that is patently not the case. Even when we are here, we have an endless succession of undoubtedly important—and to many, undoubtedly welcome—debates on all sorts of subjects. Yes, there were debates on Iraq, as there should have been, and there were other debates as well. But pressure of business is the one thing that the Government do not have in this Parliament, particularly in this Session.
The Leader of the House then said—with impertinence, if I may say so—that he wants to give greater opportunity for scrutiny. In an admirable opening speech for the official Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out that the very opposite is the case, and that generically and systematically, under the so-called modernisation process, the Government are determined arbitrarily and increasingly to restrict the amount of debate available to Members of Parliament—Opposition Members, and, indeed, Government Members—in properly scrutinising Bills.
That was added to by the impertinence of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who said with complete insouciance and with an absolutely straight face that the Opposition's job is to fit their deliberations into the artificial straitjacket imposed by the Government. That may be welcome to modernisers, but it is certainly a new doctrine as far as I am concerned. Arising directly from this motion appears to be the idea that we should do things very differently from how we did them in the good old days, when the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the then Opposition. The idea then was that the Opposition determined the timetable of legislation. Only when some 150 to 200 hours had been spent on major Bills—the hon. Gentleman will remember this—did the Government reluctantly reach for the guillotine. Now we have the systematic use of the guillotine, viciously timetabling Bills from the outset.
Matthew Green: I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but if that is the case
562
why was there no request from the Conservatives to extend sittings in Committee beyond 7 o'clock, given that some sittings could have been so extended if the Committee had wished?
Mr. Forth: I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that there was such a request, and I would hope that he systematically asks for extra time in all Committees, in order to provide for more scrutiny. However, I am not going to get involved in a factual dispute; my hon. Friend will doubtless sort this out later with the Minister—outside, in the traditional way.
My point is more fundamental. The Government—in the shape of the Leader of the House and, doubtless, in a moment, the Minister—stand before us and arbitrarily restrict the time available for scrutiny in Committee. The Bill is then allowed to lapse and sit idle for months on end while the Government are twiddling their thumbs and offering any number of recesses. The Leader of the House then says that the motion is necessary and that the Bill has to be carried over into another Session because it has not been adequately scrutinised. We certainly agree with that. The Government claim that they are being generous and provide more time in a new Session. That amounts to, and has confirmed, the very worst of our fears about what the carry-over concept would produce.
We then heard the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Liberal Democrats are known for many attributes, but I shall not go into many of them today. However, the hon. Gentleman rather touchingly displayed one that I have noticed in him before—a sort of generous naivety. He complained that when he signed up to all this modernisation nonsense, he thought that the Government would consult him about what would happen.
Mr. Tyler rose—Mr. Tyler rose—
Mr. Forth: Just a moment, I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman then said, rather pathetically—I almost felt sorry for him—that he felt that he had not been properly consulted, that the Government seemed to be doing exactly what they pleased, and that he, a representative of the Liberal Democrats, had been cut out of the whole process. All I can say is that he and his hon. Friends started out believing, from 1997 onwards, that they were partners with the Government, but it has come to a pretty pass now, has it not? I shall now give him an opportunity to deny my accusation of naivety.
Mr. Tyler: I would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of generosity, let alone naivety, but has he actually read the Modernisation Committee's report? If he had, he would know that his hon. Friends took exactly the same view as I did.
Mr. Forth: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that I did not serve on that Committee? I have never regretted that decision for a moment—though I have no doubt that it does admirable work.
Mr. Tyler: Faint praise.
Mr. Forth: That will look okay in Hansard.
The chain of events are all closely and causally related, and they all come back time and again to the fundamental fact that the Government have been determined systematically to reduce the House's ability properly to scrutinise legislation. The Government also want to combine the restriction of time available in Committee with the flexibility to allow them to carry Bills over from one Session to another whenever they see fit. This is the first explicit example, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out in his opening speech, it has come about for the worst reasons. That is why we are compelled to resist the motion.
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend fails to mention the double-edged sword: the Leader of the House says that more time is available, but there is more to look into.
Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The facts are clear. Sadly, in respect of this large and important Bill, the Committee was able to scrutinise only a small proportion of its contents. That pattern is repeated time and again and ever more systematically. The reason for it is not filibustering by the Opposition. We do not need to filibuster. Goodness knows, some of us are perfectly capable of it from time to time, and I have made a modest contribution to it myself, so I know whereof I speak. However, we do not have to do it any more. All we have to do is the proper and responsible job of the official Opposition—attempting to scrutinise legislation, representing legitimate outside interests, looking for mistakes and errors and trying to improve legislation. Yet on almost every occasion, we run out of time because the Government have already taken a view at the beginning of every Bill about how much time it should take to consider it. According to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the Chairman of the Select Committee, we the Opposition should fit ourselves into that Government time. That is not how I envisage the relationship between the House and the Government, or, indeed, the Opposition and the Government.
It is perfectly clear that the motion is before us for the wrong reasons. If we were to agree to it, we would be endorsing the views of the Leader of the House, which we most certainly do not. We would also be setting a precedent, whereby the Government could declare that carry-over is passing seamlessly into the proceedings of the House and can therefore legitimately be returned to time and again. That is not the case. We resist it strongly.
I shall now conclude in order to give the Minister the maximum possible time in this short debate, which I hope he will use to the full to answer the substantial questions put to him by my hon. Friends, by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the eminent Chairman of the Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
1.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I start by thanking the Opposition for their magnanimity, which is very refreshing. I shall try to deal—if not by the tail of this debate, then at the start of the next one—with the issues that have been raised and to provide detail on the specific questions.
This is not by any means a deeply flawed and poorly drafted Bill. The Opposition can have their day on that, but it is not. When the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about Lord Lucan being reported missing, I thought that he was referring to the Plaid Cymru contribution to the Standing Committee, which had 12 sittings without the Plaid Cymru Member once showing his face. That is a matter of some regret.
There has been a degree of confusion about whether pre-legislative scrutiny took place. In fact, what occurred—the White Paper, consultation and passing responses to the Select Committee—worked well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) suggested, it informed the Bill in many respects. The hon. Member for Cotswold traduces the consultation process, but the professions and everyone else applauded us for the whole process from Green Paper to the Bill and for many of the changes therein. I shall return to the transition period later.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) who, I freely admit, is the leading expert in the Chamber on planning in the professional sense, as he showed time and again in Committee. I recall that we had great fun on the Greater London Authority Bill, which went on for a considerable period. The notion of having a consolidation Bill at some stage is attractive, in view of the many changes made, but that is not a matter for me.
The hon. Member for Cotswold and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made an important point about the transition. We originally expected commencement to come into force in spring 2004, with hoped-for Royal Assent by March 2004. If the subsequent motion is passed, we expect the new system to be up and running by June, so commencement should be but a couple of months delayed. Reasonable points were made about the problems of local planning authorities in the coming months or years in respect of transition. We cannot presume the will of Parliament, but if the motions are secured, we will write to local authorities in the next couple of weeks to set out clearly the detailed transitional arrangements for the new system.
Before I move on to the substance of the reasons why we need a roll-over, I want to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that, far from slowing down the delivery mechanisms for the Thames gateway and sustainable communities, what we are doing will speed up the process and bind any number of partners in the public or private sector into the process. I shall return to that matter shortly or, if necessary, in the next debate. As an aside, I might mention that although my visit has been cancelled twice, and I have yet to get to the glory that is BedZED down in Sutton, I agree with my hon. Friend that building regulations are an appropriate way, among others, to secure ecologically and environmentally sound developments.

565
I note the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but as the Leader of the House said, this is an exception to the spirit of our Standing Orders relating to roll-overs.
I admire the consistency and honesty of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I assume that he opposes this and the subsequent motion because he thinks that this is a horrible little Bill. That is a perfectly reasonable position, but I have to tell him that local government does not agree and certainly does not greet the £350 million planning delivery grant with dismay.
In answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—although this is a matter for debate, which does not get us anywhere and is certainly not germane to the motion—let me be polite and say that the extent to which we dwelt, at length and ad nauseam, on terminal 5 at Heathrow in Committee could by some less than generous souls be called filibustering, at worst, or at best irrelevant. We had a tad too much of that in Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the roll-over would mean that the whole Bill would be recommitted for decision, and the answer is yes. We could have been pernickety and said that only the clauses that will be affected by amendment and concession, and the new clauses, will be recommitted, but we have said that we will send the whole Bill back. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether any changes had been made to the substance of the Bill since the end of the Committee's consideration, and again the answer is yes.
I shall pass on the invitation from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to talk about the confluence of cock-up and conspiracy, but I admire his consistency. He is against timetabling and against modernisation in all its forms and glory, and that is a reasonable position.
I shall go into more detail on the substance on the next motion, as I explain why we need the extra six months, but the bulk of the amendments that we will table for the consideration of the reconvened Standing Committee will be technical amendments to the existing Bill—as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said—including my final and grudging concession that "complusory" and "satisified" are not proper words. The Bill has been trawled for other spelling mistakes, and I promised a vicious attack on parliamentary counsel, but there were no others. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) who has done the House and the planning profession great service by recognising those two spelling mistakes.
Matthew Green: Will the Minister now concede that he should have accepted my amendments at the time?
Mr. McNulty: Absolutely not. Call me a purist, but there could have been 12 mistakes. Far be it from me to assume that the subsequent Government amendments would be accepted. It was far more appropriate that the hon. Gentleman showed us the way, and we have now gone through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb. As one might have anticipated from the Liberal Democrats, they have elevated pedantry to an art form. That is not a huge surprise.
566
Most of the amendments to the Bill will be technical or tidying up ones, but I am more than happy to go through the detail with Opposition Front Benchers at a later stage.
Sir Sydney Chapman: If the motions are passed, can the Minister tell the House when the new revised Bill will be printed?
Mr. McNulty: I shall come to that point in a moment. About a third of the amendments will be technical or drafting. A further third will be as a consequence of some of the concessions that I said that we would look at, such as the issue of local development orders that lift planning restrictions in a particular area. When the local development order was lifted, the question was at what point the restrictions would be reimposed if parts of the zone were at various stages of development and building. The hon. Member for Mole Valley and others made that point. In the context of the joint system that may or may not be in place between statement and development principle, and outline planning permission, there was some confusion, not least in my mind, and some concern was expressed by the professions. We will consider that issue. We will also consider the period of consent, the loss payment changes in compulsory purchase cases and other issues. I would be happy to talk through those changes with hon. Members.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, to some extent the delay has allowed us to consider Crown immunity in detail. We have wanted to legislate on that issue for some time, and it has been in our manifesto since 1994. A dozen or 15 clauses will be added on that subject, and some six or seven further will tidy up—at the behest not least of the hon. Member for Cotswold—the compulsory purchase element of the Bill. We will perform all the tidying up that can be done this side of the Law Commission reporting. There will also be one, or at most two, new clauses on unitary development corporations and what they can do to be far more responsive to local authorities.
I would envisage that all that hangs on the Bill—such as guidance, circulars and statutory instruments—will be presented in draft form for consideration early after we return from the recess, and certainly well before the Bill is recommitted.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) raised an important point. If the Government's intention is to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee as soon as we return in September, it is important that the Bill be published before we start the recess, so that we can table amendments.
Mr. McNulty: I am not sure when the Bill will be printed, but I will find out and pass the information to the hon. Gentleman. I will ensure that the Bill is printed in good time, because I accept his point. I would envisage that the statutory instruments and other elements will be published by September and that all the necessary Government amendments will be tabled then, to allow time for consideration. [Interruption.] Yes, we are. We are sitting for two weeks in September, because of modernisation. I envisage that the recommittal of the

567
Bill will happen in October, so that there will be plenty of time. I am more than happy to meet Opposition Front Benchers in September or before the end of the recess to give further details.
The Committee will consider technical amendments and Government concessions, compulsory purchase orders, unitary development corporations and Crown immunity. That is four elements, rather than six, as the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested. It is in the Government's interest that the new elements, which will constitute about a third of the overall package of elements for consideration—[Interruption.] I have been passed a piece of paper and it has thrown me entirely. I apologise.
It is in our interests to secure the new elements in Committee, but it is not for me to talk about the consideration of proceedings motion. I used to be a member of the dark brotherhood, but I am no longer involved in the usual channels. However, in this case, I would argue for a less rigorous approach than the way in which the traditional 12 sessions were carved up the first time. My only caveat would be that the Government should secure discussion of the newer elements, after which we would be fairly relaxed. We can also discuss that point.
The main question is whether the Bill will be much better after a further eight sessions of scrutiny and some Government amendments. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Will the planning process be better for the carry-over being passed? Again, the answer is yes. When the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House on Report, after recommittal and Committee stage, I hope that it will be as clean as possible and that we will have no Government amendments, let alone whole screeds of them. Obviously, however, I cannot guarantee that. That must be a consequence of significant further scrutiny in Committee.
Mr. Forth: Dream on.
Mr. McNulty: I freely accept that I am generously naive. Generosity may be difficult for me, but I can do naiveté quite well.
At the end of the process of carry-over and productive scrutiny, the Bill in all its glory will be far stronger, as will the planning system. If the Opposition join me in that scrutiny, I will welcome that. I should love to be able to say that the 12 weeks that we spent in Committee were terrific fun, but they were not. It was reassuring that Plaid Cymru Members did not bother to turn up at all. I should be interested to be a fly on the wall when they use the usual channels to ask for representation for nationalists in the eight sittings that will be held but, again, I am pleased to say that that is not a matter for me.
The order is an exception to the normal interpretation of Standing Orders in respect of carry-over, but it will mean that an important piece of legislation will receive greater scrutiny by the House. As a consequence the Bill will be far better—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [29 October 2002].
The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 162.

Division No. 221]

[2.11 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Edwards, Huw

Alexander, Douglas

Efford, Clive

Allen, Graham

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Etherington, Bill

Atherton, Ms Candy

Farrelly, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Austin, John

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Bailey, Adrian

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Barnes, Harry

Follett, Barbara

Battle, John

Foster, rh Derek

Beckett, rh Margaret

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Begg, Miss Anne

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Bell, Stuart

Bennett, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Berry, Roger

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Best, Harold

Gardiner, Barry

Betts, Clive

Gerrard, Neil

Blackman, Liz

Gilroy, Linda

Blears, Ms Hazel

Godsiff, Roger

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bryant, Chris

Grogan, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Burden, Richard

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Burgon, Colin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Burnham, Andy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cairns, David

Hanson, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Casale, Roger

Caton, Martin

Healey, John

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Challen, Colin

Hepburn, Stephen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heppell, John

Chaytor, David

Hermon, Lady

Clapham, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hinchliffe, David

Hodge, Margaret

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clelland, David

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Coleman, Iain

Colman, Tony

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cranston, Ross

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Crausby, David

Hutton, rh John

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jamieson, David

Davidson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Denham, rh John

Jowell, rh Tessa

Dhanda, Parmjit

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dismore, Andrew

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Dobson, rh Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Donohoe, Brian H.

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Khabra, Piara S.

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kidney, David

569

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rooney, Terry

King, Andy (Rugby)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ruane, Chris

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Ruddock, Joan

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Lammy, David

Salter, Martin

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lazarowicz, Mark

Savidge, Malcolm

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sawford, Phil

Linton, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Love, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Sheridan, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McCabe, Stephen

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

McCafferty, Chris

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McCartney, rh Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacDonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McDonnell, John

Southworth, Helen

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Spellar, rh John

McIsaac, Shona

Squire, Rachel

McKechin, Ann

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

McKenna, Rosemary

Steinberg, Gerry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stevenson, George

McNamara, Kevin

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

McNulty, Tony

McWilliam, John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mahmood, Khalid

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Stoate Dr Howard

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Stringer, Graham

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Sutcliffe Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Tami Mark (Alyn)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Taylor Dari (Stockton S)

Taylor David (NW Leics)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Taylor Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Thomas Gareth (Harrow W)

Martlew, Eric

Timms, Stephen

Meacher, rh Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Merron, Gillian

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Milburn rh Alan

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Miller, Andrew

Trickett, Jon

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Truswell, paul

Moffatt, Laura

Turner Dennis (Wolverhton SE)

Mole, Chris

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Moran, Margaret

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Morgan, Julie

Twing, Stephen (Enfield)

Morley, Elliot

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Mountford, Kali

Munn, Ms Meg

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Ward, Claire

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Wareing, Robert N.

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Watts, David

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

White, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Olner Bill

Wicks, Malcolm

Organ, Diana

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Owen, Albert

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Perham, Linda

Wilson, Brian

Picking, Anne

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Pollard, Kerry

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Woodward, Shaun

Pound, Stephen

Woolas, Phil

Prescott, rh John

Worthington, Tony

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Purchase, Ken

Purnell, James

Wright, David (Telford)

Quinn, Lawrie

Wyatt, Derek

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Tellers for the Ayes:

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

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Mr. Ivor Caplin

570

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Allan, Richard

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Jack, rh Michael

Baldry, Tony

Jenkin, Bernard

Barker, Gregory

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Keetch, Paul

Barrett, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bellingham, Henry

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Beresford, Sir Paul

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Blunt, Crispin

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Boswell, Tim

Lansley, Andrew

Brady, Graham

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Brazier, Julian

Lilley, rh Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela

Llwyd, Elfyn

Bruce, Malcolm

Loughton, Tim

Burnett, John

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Burns, Simon

Mackay, rh Andrew

Burstow, Paul

Maclean, rh David

Burt, Alistair

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Malins, Humfrey

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Maples, John

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Carmichael, Alistair

Maude, rh Francis

Cash, William

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

May, Mrs Theresa

Mercer, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moore, Michael

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cotter, Brian

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Cran, James (Beverley)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Curry, rh David

Öpik, Lembit

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Djanogly, Jonathan

Paterson, Owen

Dodds, Nigel

Pickles, Eric

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Doughty, Sue

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Randall, John

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Redwood, rh John

Evans, Nigel

Rendel, David

Ewing, Annabelle

Robathan, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Fallon, Michael

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Flight, Howard

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Forth, rh Eric

Roe, Mrs Marion

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ruffley, David

Fox, Dr. Liam

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Francois, Mark

Salmond, Alex

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Sanders, Adrian

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gidley, Sandra

Selous, Andrew

Goodman, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Grayling, Chris

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

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

Greenway, John

Grieve, Dominic

Soames, Nicholas

Gummer, rh John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hammond, Philip

Spicer, Sir Michael

Harvey, Nick

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hawkins, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Heath, David

Streeter, Gary

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Stunell, Andrew

Hendry, Charles

Syms, Robert

Hogg, rh Douglas

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Holmes, Paul

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

571

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Thurso, John

Willis, Phil

Tredinnick, David

Wilshire, David

Trimble, rh David

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Wishart, Pete

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Viggers, Peter

Young, rh Sir George

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Weir, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Mr. Mark Hoban and

Wiggin, Bill

Angela Watkinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Extension of Period for Proceedings)
2.25 pm
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move,
That if the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is carried over to the next Session of Parliament, the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (10) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 shall be extended by the period of six months.
In explaining the need for a six-month extension, I shall return to some of the detail that I thought more appropriate to this debate than the one that we have just held. First, however, I shall give some background.
In paragraph 39 of its report, the Modernisation Committee recommended
"that, for the experimental period on carry-over, if a Bill is not completed or arrives from the Lords more than twelve months after its introduction, it should not be further proceeded with in the Commons unless a fresh programme motion, debatable for one and a half hours, had been passed."
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated earlier, we do not anticipate that the Bill will have completed its passage through the other House by 4 December—its one-year anniversary, the year after its introduction. We are, therefore, asking the House to agree to an extension motion to allow proceedings on the Bill to continue for up to a further six months, until 4 June 2004, although, as I mentioned earlier, in practice we hope that the Bill will achieve Royal Assent by the end of March.
Mr. Forth: If by some ghastly mistake or accident the Bill had not completed its passage by the six months now being set down, is the Minister able to say whether it would fall?
Mr. McNulty: I do not think that is the case according to the procedures of the House. I shall do all in my power, as will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to ensure that the March date is met rather than waiting until June.
Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell us what has been happening since 14 May and his announcement today of this rather prolonged timetable? I asked him if he could tell us when the House would consider the Bill on Report. He replied:
"It is certainly still our intention to get that Bill approved and on the statute book as soon as we possibly can."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 298.]
What has changed?
Mr. McNulty: Clearly, given the motions that we are discussing, not a lot. It remains the case, none the less, that I would like the Bill to be dispatched from both Houses at the earliest possible opportunity.
With the indulgence of the House, may I explain the need for the six-month extension by reference to two things? First, as I promised, I shall go into more detail about the amendments and, secondly, I shall talk about the timetable that we envisage, although—heaven knows—as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggests, any number of things can happen at any time.
Mr. John Redwood: Following the Chancellor's extraordinary announcement yesterday that we have to concrete over the south-east in order to get ready for the euro, is it not the case that the whole Bill will have to be rewritten to drive even more houses on to reluctant south-eastern councils? That is the true reason—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is not the subject of the motion under discussion.
Mr. McNulty: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right to put on record that the Chancellor's statement was extraordinary. Indeed, it was; it was historic. However, the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's comments do not gel terribly well with those made by his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues—they think that we are already concreting over the south, whatever the Chancellor said yesterday. The point is not helpful, and it is certain that the debate on Second Reading and in Committee will be of a far higher calibre than that intervention.
As I said, currently we have it in mind to table about 70 amendments on four themes: technical and concessionary provisions; Crown immunity; compulsory purchase; and urban development corporations. I shall take them in reverse order.
Lembit Öpik: Is there any scope in the Bill to devolve planning decisions on energy production to the Welsh Assembly? I am not sure whether that is possible; I ask for the sake of clarification.
Mr. McNulty: I suspect that, even though the Bill has a Welsh section, that suggestion is not appropriate, but I shall consider it with my colleagues in the Wales Office and get back to the hon. Gentleman about it.
All that we seek to do with our delivery mechanisms in relation to urban development corporations and the Thames gateway is to reconfigure the legislation so that the UDC is able to delegate to the lowest possible level in its areas of activity, rather than having a UDC area-wide focus. That will work very well with what we anticipate doing in terms of household and routine planning applications staying with the local planning authority and only the most strategic decisions going up to the UDC.
Mr. Davey: The Minister has told the House what new measures the Government intend to add to the Bill when it is re-committed, but will he tell the House whether the Government intend to make any change to those items that are already in the Bill?
Mr. McNulty: With the greatest respect, I have already said, in the previous debate and now that the amendments relate to four areas, which is why we need the six-month extension—first, technical and concessionary changes to the existing Bill; secondly, Crown immunity; thirdly, compulsory purchase; and fourthly, UDCs. With the indulgence of the House, I shall take them in reverse order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would keep up and listen.
Andrew Bennett: I wish to ask for an assurance. When those of us who serve on the Select Committee went to
574
Dartford eight or nine years ago, we were concerned that very little progress had been made in the first five years after the creation of the gateway in that part of it covered by Dartford. More recently, Dartford appears to have got its act together. Can the Minister assure us that the establishment of the UDC responsible for the Thames gateway will in no way slow down the building of extra housing in Dartford?
Mr. McNulty: At the risk of my straying beyond the extension of the period for proceedings, my hon. Friend can have that absolute assurance. Thurrock and the east London elements of the gateway are the only two areas covered by the UDC, so it will not delay anything in Dartford. Indeed, much of north Kent has opted for the urban regeneration company and partnership model.
We envisage that such changes to the relevant part of the Bill will involve two clauses at most and, probably, just one. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said in the previous debate and in Committee, there is much more still to do in relation to compulsory purchase. Sadly, we cannot do much more this side of the Law Commission report, as I said earlier, but we further tidy up compulsory purchase, having been afforded this opportunity to do so. We shall push forward the compulsory purchase elements of the Bill, with perhaps a further seven clauses. They may be substantive and complex, like those in relation to the UDC, but again, their scope will be fairly limited.
Crown immunity is another complex issue about which we have had much to-ing and fro-ing with Crown authorities in general, but we now have the opportunity to deal with it in the context of the Bill. The measures relating to it are probably the most complex of all the new material that we want to introduce and will probably account for something in the order of 15 changes. I give those rough figures in the context of some laxity as and when we reach consideration in Committee. I do not want anyone to hang me, saying, "You promised only 15 Crown immunity changes, and there are 16," or whatever the number is. So I give such figures just as a rough estimate, but there may be about 24 clauses on new material not discussed thus far.
The remaining 45-odd clauses to be introduced are either technical or involve concessions. Forty-five is a large number, but at least 24 or more—a good half of them—relate to the "its", the "developments", the apostrophes and the words "conclusory" and "satisfasciation", or whatever they were. Those absolutely technical amendments relate purely to such things and nothing more. So half of those 45 amendments simply relate to technical, tidying-up changes. Although they are of no substance at all, they are technically necessary.
Mr. Forth: I hope that the Minister is not implying that, simply because he, the Minister, or the Government designate clauses or amendments as technical or involving concessions, they need have no consideration or scrutiny in Committee. I hope that he would agree that even if he simply describes them as such, others might take a different view—but in any case, they too need scrutiny.
Mr. McNulty: Absolutely. I do not disagree. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I am more than happy for the whole Bill to be recommitted. Many Government amendments to many clauses will go entirely unscathed, but I thought that it would be churlish, pedantic and, probably, an abuse of the House to say that we should not discuss them further, irrespective of whether they were discussed in the previous 12 sittings. The whole Bill will be recommitted as it is, and it will be entirely up to the Committee to decide whether the technical changes or those involving concessions, as I describe them purely for shorthand, are worthy of extensive scrutiny. So I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davey: I wish to ask the Minister something for the sake of clarification. If I understood him correctly, he said that he would table 45 new clauses to deal with technical problems, including spelling errors. Did he mean 45 new clauses or 45 amendments?
Mr. McNulty: Given that savage intervention in terms of Liberal Democrat scrutiny, I hope that the hon. Gentleman serves on the Committee that considers the Bill. Of course I meant amendments, not new clauses—so well spotted and congratulations.
Tom Levitt: I spotted that long before.
Mr. McNulty: As my Parliamentary Private Secretary says, he spotted that long before the hon. Gentleman. He was about 10 seconds ahead of him. "Yah-boo," is perhaps an appropriate response to the Liberal Democrats.
As I suggested earlier, the last element is made up of concessions—again, 20-odd clauses—but those who serve on the Standing Committee will know that they range from adding the words "the planning office development" to simply "development" in clause 15. As I said earlier on the revocation of local development orders, there was a useful debate in Committee about what happens when a local development order is revoked but planning or development was already ongoing when the curtain came down and the planning powers were restored. We shall consider that issue again, and will make some progress. The same will apply to lost payment charges and the notion of statements of development in principle against outline planning permission, about which there was also a robust debate and, as I said earlier, a good deal of confusion—not least my own—so we have looked at that too, because the professions have asked us to do so.
Some of the suggestions have come from stakeholders, but many have come from the hon. Member for Cotswold or others. Those changes will involve not new material, but concessions in that regard. However, I fully accept what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said: it is not for me to say what level of scrutiny or otherwise those amendments should receive, save for the caveat that I mentioned at the end of my previous speech.
Mr. Tyler: In the previous debate, the Minister described himself as a former member of the dark brotherhood of the Government Whips Office. I was assured during the Division that in fact, he is an honorary life member. Can I ask him please to turn his back on his past? When he comes to discuss which parts of the Bill need most scrutiny, he should listen very carefully to his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who said in terms in the previous debate that it should be up to the Opposition parties, rather than the Government, to discuss what time should be allocated to which parts of the Bill. Will the Minister accept that as a general principle?
Mr. McNulty: That leads me neatly to the caveat from the previous debate that I was about to repeat. I am more than happy and extremely relaxed about how much time in the eight sittings is afforded to which parts of the Bill. That is a matter for the House, the respective parties and the usual channels. The only caveat that I added was that it is appropriate that we work to secure a set amount of time in those eight sittings for the new business. Beyond that, I am very relaxed, so we can talk about such things further in the usual channels and in extensive consultation before consideration in Committee. I am more than happy to do that too, but such things depend on the issues' complexity.
In the context of the various degrees of novelty involved in all those issues, I will undertake to find out whether it is at all possible to introduce the 45 technical amendments at the earliest opportunity—I hope, before the House rises for the summer—so that hon. Members can at least consider them in some detail before we return after the recess.
I want to listen to what other hon. Members have to say, rather than going on at length myself, but I wish to make two further points. First, I repeat that those hon. Members who served on the Committee will understand that this was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, like previous planning legislation, in the sense that a number of circulars, statutory instruments and regulations follow from its provisions. I will also undertake to make sure, as far as possible, that all of those are introduced by September and prior to the Bill being recommitted, which is important in the context of the six-month extension. In terms of the six-month extension, I would envisage tabling all the amendments that the Government need to dispatch to the recommitted Committee by September, although that is a matter of discussion with programme managers and the usual channels. Eight further sittings of the Committee are to take place in October.
I do not envisage that the remaining stages of the House's consideration will happen this side of the Queen's Speech, but as soon as possible afterwards—which is why the extension of the period for the proceedings is necessary. Subsequently, I hope that it will be committed to the other place for safe dispatch and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent by February or March. I hope that that sort of timetable, allowed by the extension of proceedings, permits sufficient time for hon. Members to explore amendments to the existing Bill and new materials. I repeat that I am more than happy to discuss those at length with the respective Front-Benchers. I reserve the right—this will probably get me into trouble—not to talk to Plaid Cymru

577
Members about it, as none of them could be bothered to turn up for the 12 sittings on the existing Bill. I would prefer the Liberals—I might regret this, too—rather than the nationalists to take those two spots on the Committee. God knows, one Liberal is enough on a Committee, as everyone will agree.
I would agree gently with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that one never leaves the brotherhood, and I am more than happy to be an honorary life member. As far as it is in my power, in discussion with the usual channels on my side and more generally, I foresee a limited Committee stage, with the caveat that some time will be secured at the start for new business. In that context, I commend the motion—it will be met with approbation and consensus, I am sure—to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise right hon. and hon. Members that the terms of the motion are narrow, and while it would be appropriate to discuss the volume of the contents of such a Bill, it would not be appropriate to discuss the merits of those contents.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is helpful advice, for which I am sure that all Members are grateful. Can you confirm, however, that it would be in order to cover the points made by the Minister in his helpful opening speech, and that responses to or questions about those points would be appropriate and in order? I hope that you are able to confirm that within the constraints that you have set out.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can reply to the right hon. Gentleman that as long as those remarks are somewhat restrained, that would be appropriate.
2.43 pm
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this second carry-over motion. We have already discussed the first carry-over motion, which allows 12 months for all proceedings on the Bill to be concluded. We are now adding to that a further six months. If the Bill has not completed all its legislative stages, including that in the other place, by 4 June, as the Bill had its First Reading in this House on 4 December 2002, an interesting question arises as to whether the Bill falls or whether the Government can bring forward a further motion giving themselves another six months. Greater experts than I am will have to answer that at some stage.
A little light has been cast in the previous debate, which is helpful, and the Minister has helpfully told us what is likely to be in the new Bill. To reiterate, the Bill has been subject to some of the greatest scrutiny that I can remember in the 11 years that I have been in Parliament. Four huge tomes of consultation were introduced as long ago as December 2001; the Bill was subject to its Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny last year—I remind the House of my quote in the previous motion—and it received no great approbation from that all-party Committee. The core part of my earlier quote was that 88 per cent. of respondents to that
578
Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny did not support the replacement of local plans and unitary development plans with local development frameworks, and the abolition of county structure plans was supported by just 10 per cent. of respondents. Therefore, the Bill was highly contentious before it even went into Committee.
The Bill received its First Reading on 4 December 2002, as I have said, and according to my recollection, the Government were in a huge hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. From 4 December, they moved to getting it through 12 Committee sittings by 28 January. Since 28 January, we have heard nothing. The reason for that is nothing to do with external events—the Leader of the House referred to the war, and cited and prayed in aid every other excuse—but because the Government have finally twigged. They would not listen to us in Committee, but they have listened to the outside experts who have begun to point out to them the huge number of flaws in the Bill.
It is no wonder that this second motion is being brought before the House, as I do not see how we will get through the timetable that the Government have set us. As the Minister has just told us, the Government are going to include four major extra facets in the Bill: the technical amendments, the Crown immunity, the extra mechanism in the compulsory purchase section, which is highly technical, and changes relating to the urban development corporation. The Minister said that the Crown immunity and compulsory purchase elements—just two matters—would make up 25 amendments, and the remaining two would make up 45 amendments. Those are major technical amendments. Effectively, those amendments amount to almost as much as is currently contained in the Bill. We are being asked to consider all those, however, plus the whole of the existing Bill, in eight sittings, not 12, which the Government gave us previously. I have already told the House that less than a third of the existing Bill was scrutinised in Committee—30 clauses of 70 and only one schedule of seven—and some very important parts were never scrutinised. I am not surprised that the Government need a further six months.
The problem is that there is already uncertainty in the planning community in relation to these huge changes, which, as all the experts acknowledge, virtually amount to rewriting the planning system rather than modifying it, which we would have preferred. Providing this extra time is creating further uncertainty. As I pointed out time after time in Committee, if I were a planner working in a county council—knowing that my strategic planning role would be abolished by the Bill—and I received an offer from the private sector or elsewhere, given the uncertainty surrounding the whole system, I would be tempted to move into an alternative job. That would be disastrous for the planning system, which is already grossly understaffed in many authorities, such as mine in the south of England, which has great difficulty in recruiting people of sufficient technical merit. This Bill, with the timetable and carry-over, will cause great difficulty to our planning system.
Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even worse in the counties, which feel that they may be abolished under the Government's plan for regional government—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of this motion.
Mr. Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason why I asked that question was that my hon. Friend had rightly said that people in planning offices might find other jobs. I merely wanted to point out that that would be exacerbated where there were other pressures, too. I think that that was at least ancillary to what was being said.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I remind Members of the narrowness of this debate.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The principle of the Bill is laid out clearly by the Government, however, in the document that they have just produced, "Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning—Progress Report". In a recent letter, which I quoted previously, the Minister said that one aspect of the Bill would be some amendments on sustain able communities. Unless those provisions are somehow buried within the four categories, it looks as though measures on sustainable communities have been dropped.
Mr. McNulty: That simply refers to the urban development corporation amendments that are required to secure much of what we need for growth areas under the sustainable communities plan. May I also point out that if the order lapses by 4 June, the matter is in the hands of the House? It could consider a motion to extend proceedings for another three or six months, but we shall not reach that stage.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I like the Minister's predictions because he is giving himself more hostages to fortune. He said illuminatingly that he does not expect any Government amendments to be tabled on Report. I suspect that those words will come back to haunt him in no uncertain manner, but we shall see what happens whether we have an extra six months or not—that will depend on whether the motion is passed.
The Government intend the Bill to address four principles but it is likely to address only one, irrespective of whether we have extra time. They say:
"We are simplifying the plan structure"
but the Bill will not do that because they are introducing a new raft of provisions on regional planning. They say:
"We will ensure local plans will be in place more quickly"
but that will be difficult to achieve. Given the complexity of a Bill containing provisions on local development frameworks, local development documents, local development plans and a raft of other documents, it is unlikely that such plans will be in place more quickly.
I agree with the following objective of the Bill:
"Teams of inspectors will be used for concurrent running of inquiries into major infrastructure projects, thereby saving time".
580
I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be teams of inspectors. There was criticism about the time that the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry took, which I agreed with. From a national perspective, we need to speed up major infrastructure projects, which is a key aspect of the Bill.
The Government's fourth aim is to introduce
"reforms to development control processes intended to streamline the system, give greater certainty over development which may be permitted, and deal with abuses."
I am sure that that is their genuine aim, but the Bill will not achieve it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made a point that we shall have to address in Committee. The Chancellor is clearly interested in the amount of building that will occur in the south-east but the Bill does not address properly that subject, which is one of the most crucial planning issues that we currently face. Irrespective of whether we have extra time, how will the Bill deliver the size of development that will be needed in the south-east, where will such development take place, and will we have the proper infrastructure to achieve that?
There will be uncertainty and the Minister must do all that he can to end the uncertainty experienced by businesses and the planning community. I hope that he will reconsider the time allowed in Committee because if the usual channels agreed to allow more time, we might be able to facilitate the Committee more sensibly so that its parliamentary scrutiny could be much better organised. Given that there will be 70 major amendments and new clauses and that all Opposition parties will table amendments, as we should, I do not understand how we will have sufficient time in Committee.
Are the Government so keen to get the Bill on the statute book that will they give it top priority after the Queen's Speech? I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) in hoping that they will drop it altogether and come back with something more sensible—pigs might fly. I suspect that the Government will proceed with the Bill, but will the Minister reassure me that if the motion is passed—I strongly urge my hon. Friends to oppose it—Report and Third Reading will quickly follow the Committee stage? The planning and business communities would like such an assurance.
That point brings us on to the next problem. There are no similar carry-over provisions in the other place. Given the technical nature of the Bill, I would not be surprised if the other place wanted to subject it to considerable scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, I hope that it will receive considerable scrutiny in the other place because that will be needed if we are so constrained in Committee that we can do only a quarter of the job, as happened before. I assure the House that I shall give every possible assistance to Members of the other place by pointing out the Bill's omissions and lacunae.
Will the Minister consider invoking the Parliament Act? There is considerable doubt about how it would operate following carry-over. That point is probably outside the remit of the motion but it is important given the Bill's timetable and the time at which it might reach the statute book. Many people are scratching their heads about today's proceedings and wondering why we have reached this position. The Government were in a

581
dreadful hurry for the Bill to be given its Second Reading and to be considered in Committee, so I cannot understand what has happened since the end of January.
The Standing Order, which must be renewed in the next Session, might need to be examined. Given that we are almost at the end of this Session, there is no way in which the Bill's stages could be completed under the 12-month procedure—by 4 December 2003. If we intend to carry over Bills, the Standing Order should allow for the whole of the next Session to be available for their consideration. Carry-over provisions would be complete nonsense if the motions that we are considering today were not accepted. If the House did not pass this motion—it has already passed the first motion—the Government would be in considerable difficulty because the Bill would not complete all its stages by 4 December 2003. We need a sensible examination of the drafting of the Standing Order to make it more practical.
The Government hope that no amendments will be tabled on Report, so they will no doubt produce a timetable to allow only an hour or two on Report and an hour on Third Reading. I signal in advance that if the Government severely constrain scrutiny in Committee, we shall need plenty of time on Report, so I hope that they will not constrain the time allowed for it.
I hope that the Government will make progress on the Bill. People outside who will have to operate under its provisions want progress because uncertainty is bad for everyone. The Government should give the Bill momentum, produce some certainty and publish the amendments as soon as possible. I hope that at least some amendments will be published before the recess. It is only reasonable that we have time to examine them because several of the provisions that we must consider, especially those on compulsory purchase, will be highly technical. I should have declared an interest as a charted surveyor who has practised in planning. I know that compulsory purchase is highly technical and I have no doubt that I shall want to take technical advice on the amendments relating to it.
Will the Minister give us a little clarification on compulsory purchase? There was a rumour that the Law Commission was working on the nuts and bolts of compulsory purchase whereas the Bill deals only with the mechanism of compensation. The rumour was that the Government were thinking of introducing a separate compulsory purchase Bill to deal with the Law Commission's recommendations. Does the Minister intend to incorporate those into the Bill, which would make a further Bill less imminent?
Mr. McNulty: As I suggested earlier, we will go further than we did in the existing Bill, but we cannot involve the Law Commission recommendations because the report will not be completed in time. We still anticipate the need for a fuller, more complex, compulsory purchase Bill to deal with the detail, as I think I said in Committee. The Bill under discussion will go further than the original Bill and tidy up aspects of
582
planning and compulsory purchase before the report is published, but I anticipate that we will still need the second Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister's reply is helpful in that it clarifies the situation. However, it destroys part of the argument for delaying the Bill. As I understood it, one of the reasons for the delay was to give sufficient time to assimilate the Law Commission's recommendations. If that is not the case—
Mr. McNulty: It was never the case.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: But it was never the case that the Bill would be carried over. As I understood it, the huge rush to get the Bill through Committee was to get it on the statute book. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions. The Government may have had good intentions in the first place, but they have not been realised.
We need to consider carefully something that has not been discussed enough. We have concentrated on the new material that will be in the Bill, which is obviously important because it will probably double its size, but we have not focused on whether there will be sufficient time to deal with what the Minister calls technical amendments. Those are highly important. We mentioned them time and again in the context of many issues, with the support of some of the foremost experts on planning, and they need proper scrutiny.
There are a number of technical aspects, which I have touched on. Local development orders were barely discussed—if at all—in Committee. Concurrent planning applications, statement of development principles, outline planning permission, urban development corporations and simplified planning zones are all relevant. A raft of issues and technical subjects on compulsory purchase were not discussed in Committee because the timetable meant that the knives came down and the number of sittings was inadequate.
Incidentally, we voted against the programme of 12 sittings. I can assure the Minister here and now that unless I am given different instructions from those more senior than I am, we will vote against the Government if they offer only eight sittings because those, too, will not be adequate.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend can count on it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I now have instructions from the shadow Leader of the House, so I am in a better position to give a firm commitment that we will vote against the programming of the Committee.
We have a huge amount of work to do. We must consider whether the scrutiny that their lordships will undoubtedly want to give the Bill will mean that it can get on the statute book by the date set out in the timetable. The Minister has improved on the motion. It gives a deadline of 4 June 2004, but he anticipates it being on the statute book by March 2004. He is constraining their lordships even more.
Mr. McNulty: I stick to the March deadline, but I mentioned it before I anticipated the idea of two Liberal Democrats serving on the ommittee.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not sure whether that will double the number of amendments, but we shall see. It will probably treble or quadruple the amount of time taken up by Liberal Democrats. They have never knowingly undersold themselves when it comes to speaking. What could be said in one sentence takes the Liberal Democrats many sentences to say. However, no doubt you will rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I continue down that path.
The core question is whether and when the Bill will be on the statute book and whether the extra six months will be sufficient. Their lordships will not begin to consider when they will scrutinise the Bill until after the Queen's Speech. Perhaps the Minister is more clairvoyant than the Opposition because we do not know when the Queen's Speech will be. Last year it took place towards the middle of November. No doubt their lordships will want to take a week or two before considering their own parliamentary timetable. It is my guess that they cannot start to consider the Bill before Christmas.
The Minister is living by an unrealistic timetable if he really believes that the Bill will come back to the House and be on the statute book by March 2004. The timetable is unrealistic not just for March 2004, but for June 2004. I might be wrong, but if their lordships scrutinise it as they should and take their time, I would not be surprised if we need another six months, which might not be possible under the Standing Order. That would cause even more uncertainty in the business and planning communities.
To my mind, one big lacuna needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government will consider how we deal with PPG3, social housing and section 106 agreements. As I understand it, the Government are consulting on section 106 agreements with the idea of introducing a new statutory instrument or Bill to deal with section 106-type compensations. Hon. Members will recall that before the original Bill was scrutinised by the Standing Committee it contained unworkable tariff proposals. The Government listened to the Committee and dropped those, but so far the planning community and the wider community have no idea what, if anything, is to replace section 106 agreements.
I am sorry that I am beginning to get a little technical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know from when I practised planning law that it took longer to negotiate a section 106 agreement in a complex multifaceted development than it did to get planning permission. The Bill does nothing to deal with the section 106 issue. If the Government are not—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets more technical, perhaps I can remind him of the narrowness of the motion and the debate. He referred to six months. I was somewhat reassured by that and hope that we can concentrate on it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That ruling is very helpful.
If we have an extra six months and do not produce an effective Bill because it fails to deal with section 106 agreements, we will not be doing the House, the planning community or the business community any favours. I simply flag it up as an issue for the
584
Government. If they cannot deal with that in the Bill, I hope that they will address it expeditiously in another way.
We are totally opposed to carrying over the Bill even for 12 months. However, we dealt with that when we voted on the earlier motion. We are certainly opposed to giving it an extra six months. The Bill is bad. It should be scrapped. We should start again and modify the existing planning system rather than introduce a wholesale new planning system. If the Government will not do that, let us ensure, whatever the political aspects of the motion, that when the Bill reaches the statute book it is better than it is at the moment. With the greatest possible grace that I can muster, I must tell the Minister that we will not achieve that if he offers us only eight sittings in Committee, and the reputation of the House will be tarnished. I appeal to him: if nothing else is achieved today, for goodness' sake please give us more than eight sittings and we will do our best to ensure that the Bill is a better Bill when it emerges from Committee. We will oppose the motion, but we will also try to use the time wisely if the Government give us extra sittings.
3.9 pm
Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to six months. I think he thought that that was going to be the length of his speech.
It is important to consider what has gone on so far and some of the consequences of giving the Bill extra time. As we heard, the original Bill contained 90 clauses, 64 of which were not debated in Committee. We have heard that the rush to get the Bill out of Committee in January, with nothing happening afterwards, was due to other commitments. In an earlier debate today, the Leader of the House mentioned the war. I am slightly confused, as I did not realise that the Under-Secretary played any role in running the war in Iraq—if he did, perhaps he should own up to it. Clearly, however, the Bill got stuck after January for no apparent reason. Several months down the line, the Government have suddenly come up with a series of excuses for needing more time.
We should remember that the Bill has been introduced to speed up the planning process. The Government, however, are proposing to do so by taking another year. If that is how they try to speed things up, I would hate to see them try to slow something down. However, the extra time will have serious consequences in, for example, social housing. In a debate on 10 April, the Minister, replying to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), said:
"There is no target for new social housing in terms of our decent homes target, and there is no target in terms of the build for social housing—that is a matter for local plans, regional plans, and everything that will follow when Royal Assent is given to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill."—[Official Report, 10 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 112WH.]
That means that there will be another 12 months before the Government have a strategy on social housing of any consequence. I am afraid that those areas suffering from a great lack of affordable housing will discover that the Government have done little to help them. The 12-month delay will certainly not help them at all.

585
I am concerned that the extra 12 months will take us very close to the July 2004 deadline by which the UK must comply with the strategic environmental assessment directive, which covers all planning strategies. I realise that some Conservative Members are not going to get excited about that because it is, after all, a European directive. In Committee, however, the Minister was dismissive about that point—he was sure that it would all be sorted out by then and there would not be any problems. However, we will get close to the deadline, and I would be grateful if he could give us an assurance that the changes that he will make to the Bill will comply with the directive.
In a previous debate, the Leader of the House said that there was an opportunity for the Bill to be improved by scrutiny. I am a little confused because, even though the Under-Secretary recently described himself as generously naive, in Committee he did not accept a single amendment.
Mr. McNulty: I accepted one.
Matthew Green: I believe that was a Government amendment—I stand corrected. We now know what a generous Minister does—he accepts his own amendments.
I am concerned that the Government will approach the extra eight sittings, which seems rather a short time, with exactly the same attitude and not accept any amendments. If we do make pertinent points, perhaps they will have another eight sittings so that they can introduce their own amendments to incorporate such changes. Either that, or we will need a long Report stage. It has already been pointed out that there were a couple of spelling mistakes in the original Bill, but the Minister is about to introduce a further 25 clauses. He has assured us that there are no spelling mistakes left in the Bill, but can we be sure that there will not be any such mistakes in those 25 clauses? I tabled an amendment to change the two spelling mistakes, which amounted to only one sentence.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but he is now wandering very wide of the motion.
Matthew Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The extra month will allow more time for the consideration of amendments. That is worrying, given the standard of some amendments, such as the one in which the Conservatives managed to put Wales and London next to one another.
Tom Levitt: As I recall, we threw that one out.
Matthew Green: Yes, and rightly so.
Perhaps the longer period will permit greater reflection so that amendments can be drawn up more accurately in the first place. I hope that Members will be more succinct. In our previous debates, one Member mentioned Heathrow about 200 times, and it would not be desirable to repeat such behaviour. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, and the Government clearly
586
need an opportunity to introduce change. On the face of it, the removal of Crown immunity is good, and it is also welcome that the Government are trying to sort out the mess of the stated development principles and outline planning permissions, especially as the Minister freely admitted—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat once again that the merits of particular aspects of the Bill are not under discussion today?
Matthew Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The six-month extension allowed by the motion will permit the Government to make substantial changes. I thought that it might have been in order for me to touch on those changes, but clearly it is not. That is a shame, because others managed to do so. Unfortunately, the Government will not use those six months to include other matters in the Bill—but I clearly cannot touch on them either.
We shall oppose the motion for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in a previous debate. When the Standing Order was introduced to allow extra time and enable Bills to be carried over, it was intended not for the use that is being proposed today but for draft Bills that had been scrutinised in Committee. That has not happened with this Bill, despite what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about the amount of scrutiny. The Standing Order has not followed the route envisaged for it. The first time that the Government have had a chance to use it, they have corrupted what the House intended. That is a strong reason why Members should not support the motion, although I suspect that the Government will whip it through.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something that we will not have enough time to discuss when we debate the next motion, which will simply be moved by one Member and opposed by another? If the Government offer eight sittings in Committee, will the Liberals vote against that programme motion?
Matthew Green: Yes, we will. Some of those eight sessions, for reasons that I should have liked to explore but did not, will be far too short. I hope that we can have more time to discuss the Bill because at least half of it was not even touched on first time round, when there were 12 sittings. To be fair to the Minister, a few of the 64 clauses that were not touched on were brushed over rather than not discussed. There were some clauses that the Committee chose not to discuss but, even so, about half of the Bill was not discussed. At that time we had 12 sittings, so eight sittings will hardly be sufficient to debate another 24 new clauses, 45 new Government amendments and the remaining half of the Bill that we did not get through the first time. I can therefore confirm that we will vote against the programme motion when it arrives, and against the motion tonight.
3.19 pm
Mr. Gummer: I shall confine my remarks entirely to the time involved.

587
I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State, and as someone who writes and advises on planning, particularly that which relates to environmental matters. In the past, it was always thought proper to give the House plenty of time to debate planning Bills, not because they were necessarily party politically controversial but because the issues are technical, and what happens on the ground, so to speak, is often very different from what Parliament may have thought in its theoretical discussions. I start with a concern about the timetable originally presented to us, and about the fact that so much of the Bill has not been discussed.
There is a reason for that, and it is not a party political reason at all. There is no subject more important to individuals than how the technical details of planning permission affect them. If they go to their Member of Parliament and ask, "Why on earth did you pass that clause? Did you not see that it might have this effect?", it is extremely galling for us to have to admit that we, or our colleagues who served on the Committee, never reached the clause.
It is reasonable to suggest that as the Government propose to give themselves more time, they should do the House the courtesy of giving us enough time. Hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree that part of the quid pro quo for the Government using the new Standing Orders for the first time might be that they should ensure that we have enough time to discuss the issues, not because we want to trip the Government up or make party political points, but because the detailed examination of the issues by people who understand the subject from constituency or professional experience is helpful to the Government, and because it is not appropriate for the Government to rely on what may happen in another place.
That brings me to my second point. The idea that the other place will be happy to fit in with the way in which the Government have decided to arrange matters seems not entirely likely. The other place is not always as easily cajoled or corralled as the Minister suggests. It may be worth considering rather more carefully the interrelationship between the two Houses of Parliament in the circumstances with which we are faced.
That leads me to the third point. This is the first use of the provision, and I have a constitutional worry about the way in which it is being used. It is not for me to suggest the motives behind the pause. We had considerable discussion about the difficulty that the Minister had in combining his role in fighting the war in Iraq and in the planning Bill. We realise that. It is one of the mysterious elements that we have not yet entirely unwound, but we understand that there were all sorts of reasons why the Bill was not brought to fruition. However, I fear that none of them is the reason that the Government advanced for the change in the law.
When the Government advanced the not unreasonable proposition that there were sometimes circumstances in which the due process through the House meant that, in order to give enough time for discussion of a draft Bill, it might take longer than is circumscribed by our parliamentary Sessions, they suggested that it was only on rare occasions that the nature of a Bill and its proper discussion made the longer time scale sensible.
588
That is not the proposition before us today. We have had a most interesting dance, very fast for a very short time, and then the music stopped. We listened in vain: there was no sound at all. Just when we think that it might begin again, we are told that it will not begin until after this Session. Why? It is because the band is engaged elsewhere. That is the point—it is not because of anything to do with the motion, but because the Government want the time to do other things.
I realise that the Minister has been brilliant. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude, because he has fought a good battle with those who organise these matters, by saying, "If you are going to put me in the embarrassing position of having to explain to the House why we have to do this, I want some recompense. I want to put back into the Bill some provisions that you got me to take out of the Bill previously because you wanted it through quickly."
The timetabling of the Bill was already arranged by the Government to remove from it the bits that they thought would make it a long Bill. That was what the Minister was fighting for originally. Let us not think that the Government have suddenly invented the need to deal with Crown immunity or to extend the detailed arrangements for compulsory purchase. They tried to put those in the original Bill, but they were told that they could not do so by the powers that be—now a power that was, he having resigned over the war. That might be part of the war issue. Perhaps the former Leader of the House was the key figure in all this. The Government therefore dropped those clauses, because the Bill had to complete its passage quickly. There were to be a small number of meetings of the Committee, a short referral to the House of Lords, and then back to this place and the Bill would be through. That is what the Government were told.
That is not quite what happened, owing to some large Lacunae—holes, we might say—in the middle. The Bill was held up while the Government thought about what to do. It was held up to such an extent that the powers that be told them that it would have to be held up further. Very cleverly, the Minister and his colleagues argued that if they were to be embarrassed in that way—the Minister is obviously embarrassed, as he is a decent man—they had to be able to say that the Government would put back into the Bill the provisions that they had taken out when matters were to be arranged differently. That is where we are now. Those aspects that I may not discuss, but which certainly contribute to the length of the Bill, will be put back in.
When those things are put back in, what will it mean in terms of time? I must refer to one substantive issue in order to speak about time—Crown immunity. I was the Secretary of State who started to try to get rid of Crown immunity, as it always seemed to me an outrage and scandal that a certain kind of operation was immune for no good reason. I discovered that the difficulty—in terms of time, this matter needs detailed discussion—was simply that, amidst all the things that do not need immunity, there are some that need some immunity. Therefore, trying to write that into a Bill is much more difficult and complex than anybody thought when starting out.
We know why that is the case. We already have a planning system that is, in a sense, pretty peculiar. When the IRA kindly put me on its list for the second time and

589
a certain amount of protection was necessary, planning policy said that we had to advertise in the newspaper and supply pictures of the protection that was given. That did not seem a frightfully good idea, and my local authority kindly said that the pictures could be as blurred as I liked. That was very kind, but it does not feature in the Bill. The fact is that the provisions will be very complex and detailed, and some anecdotal information of that sort will be valuable in our discussions. It is not something to be missed.
I say to the Minister that the Crown immunity element—I am very pleased that he is going to introduce it and I am sure that it is necessary—has been a long time coming. That is not a criticism of him; it has taken a long time because it is very complicated. The time involved in discussing it in the House of Commons will therefore be very considerable, so I ask him to think again about the amount of time that he will provide for those discussions, simply because if he does not give proper time, I am afraid that we will get the Bill wrong.
There is no doubt that there is a growing feeling outside the House that the revising and detailed role of the House of Commons is being eroded. Many years ago, I argued with Enoch Powell—I was on the wrong side of the argument—about the effect of Select Committees. He argued that once we gave Members of Parliament other things to do that they thought were parliamentarily useful, we would cease to do here what we were here to do. I did not think that that would be so, but I was wrong. Although Enoch Powell was usually wrong, at least on that occasion he was right. He was right on that issue because he understood so well the nature of this House. Part of the nature of this House is the dull and boring business of trying to make our legislation as good as it can be, given that none of us can be expert in everything, and those who are experts in something are usually selected to serve on a Committee dealing with a subject about which they know nothing at all.
That is the nature of the House, but we get quite good at looking at the phrases that are used and seeing whether all the possibilities have been thought through. Governments sometimes become impatient with that process, but all the lessons have shown that impatience at that moment leads to a great deal of frustration afterwards and that it is better to be frustrated while the Bill is passing through the House, when there is time to discuss it properly, than to use the ability of a Government with a large majority to force matters and then find that the very clauses that have not been discussed give them problems thereafter.
It is that which concerns me about what is proposed today. I believe that this Government are giving themselves problems. Of course, I should say, "For goodness' sake, shove the Bill through and get all the trouble; we'll point it out and tell people who did it." However, in the end, planning is about people's futures. It is not all about great developers or huge housing estates; it is very often about individuals doing with their own land what they want to do, and the community saying that there must be a restriction. People therefore need the opportunity to feel that this House, in
590
representing the community, individuals and the interests of our constituents, has looked at such matters in detail.
The Government are not giving us that opportunity. I am therefore not prepared to support them on this occasion, and I will wish to vote against them because they are not doing themselves justice. If ever an Opposition have a job, it is to remind the Government when they are failing themselves.
3.33 pm
Mr. Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who made very powerful speeches against the six-month extension. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the Opposition would be much happier with an entirely different sort of Bill producing a much better planning system than the one envisaged. Anyone who takes that view must vote against the extension of time, to kill the Bill, but my case is to the Minister. I think that he has been placed in an extremely difficult position by chopping and changing well above his rank in government and by indecision and lethargy alternating with brief bursts of speed and enthusiasm for the Bill. It is extraordinary that a measure that was thought so crucial in January as to be rushed through with improper consideration has been languishing ever since, and is still languishing and must await the next Session.
I therefore say to the Minister that he, too, should be against the motion and that at this eleventh hour he should cancel the idea of a six-month extension. He will have a miserable time trying to cobble together all the new clauses and amendments. He told us that he already thinks that he will need 69 new clauses and amendments to a 90-clause Bill. My guess is that we will end up with more than 90 Government amendments and new clauses before the process is finished, and that the Committee will be asked to consider, in a very short space of time within the six months, effectively a new Bill. Would it not be better if the Government admitted that today, went away and constructed a proper Bill based on the Government's common policy objectives—if it is possible to find any—then presented a new Bill in the normal way without the need for this strange procedure of a six-month extension? My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal powerfully made the case that the original Bill received insufficient scrutiny in Committee and that it is beyond belief that that could be made good in the eight short sittings that will be allocated within the six-month period, given that what is required is the proper scrutiny of a large number of very technical measures.
I make no secret of the fact that my constituents and I do not welcome the Bill because it means building over the south-east to an even greater extent than is already the case. That requires proper scrutiny and proper debate in this Chamber on a substantive motion—an honest motion, following the Chancellor's statement yesterday—followed by detailed and lengthy scrutiny in Committee to see whether the Government are changing the planning system and whether we can stop them

591
doing so in an undemocratic direction. That is why I asked the Minister about the Chancellor's involvement. Had the Chancellor concentrated properly on the issue, he might have wanted to oppose the six-month extension. We heard only yesterday that he was impatient to revolutionise the planning system to meet his eight-month deadline for a reconsideration of the housing market prior to next year's Budget. Surely, given that the Bill is the "concreting over the south-east" measure that the Chancellor has in mind to try to get nearer to the euro, he must be arguing to the Minister that six months is too long to wait and that the Government should produce the amendments and new clauses now and drive them through. On those counts, there is a strange community of interest. Those of us who want to kill the Bill do not want the six-month extension, the Chancellor should want to end it to try to speed the whole process up, and the Minister would be well out of it because his patience has been sorely tested for a long time by all the chopping and changing and extreme changes of pace from high speed to dead stop.
It is, I believe, common practice in competitive soccer competitions that if no one has scored in normal time, extra time is played. I guess that that is in the Minister's mind. He thinks that if extra time is played, he will be able to score. Having listened to him this afternoon, however, it is clear that there is absolutely no chance of his being able to score for his political cause. The existing contents of the Bill are dynamite, and although his suggested new contents may have some good bits—for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, on Crown immunity—they will not change or improve the workings of the dreadful planning system inherent in the current draft of the Bill, which will lead to the concreting over of much-loved parts of the countryside. The Minister should not ask for extra time for this measure, because there is no chance of his scoring with it.
My final points relate to the general problem of democratic accountability in the House of Commons. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, I think that this place matters a great deal. There should be detailed scrutiny from all angles and perspectives, not on a party political basis, but on a practical working basis as hon. Members bring their skills and experiences to bear on legislation. I fear that six months and eight sittings represent far too short a time and far too puny a contribution to proper scrutiny and debate. Consequently, the measure will make bad legislation, and large elements of it will never have been debated properly in the Chamber or taken apart and put together again in Committee.
On such a crucial issue, which touches the heart of the lifestyles of all our constituents, we deserve much better. The Government say that they now believe in democracy and that they value our parliamentary system. They should show that by withdrawing the motion, apologising to the House, admitting that six months is not enough to improve the Bill, reconsidering, starting again and introducing a proper Bill when they have a sensible policy.
3.40 pm
Mr. Forth: It is becoming obvious that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues are serial offenders. We are considering today's motions because they imposed a
592
ludicrously tight timetable on the original Committee stage, thereby ensuring that the Bill could not be properly scrutinised. They allowed the measure to lapse and be delayed for several months, thus placing unnecessary and artificial time pressure on themselves and, subsequently, on the House and the parliamentary process.
The Under-Secretary made it clear that the timetable under the motion means that he will produce amendments in the period up to July and for the extraordinary sitting in September, and that he will then generously allow the Committee eight sittings in October to reconsider the entire Bill and the new clauses and amendments. He said that he did not envisage Report and Third Reading taking place until the new Session. He does not know when the new Session will begin; I venture to suggest that even you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not know that. However, we can guess that it will not start until well into November. If one takes into account the normal time for debating the Queen's Speech and so on, it is doubtful whether the Government will manage to conclude Report and Third Reading before Christmas, despite the extension of time that they are asking us to approve. It is therefore doubtful whether the measure will be sent to another place even in early January.
The Under-Secretary, having restricted the amount of time in Committee originally, and intending to do that again, has the gall and impudence to suggest that their Lordships will complete their considerations by March. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, we all expect that the other place will want to examine the Bill with special care because we have been able to give it such scant attention. It is unacceptable and insulting for the Under-Secretary to expect their lordships to whiffle the Bill through to meet his artificial deadline.
What will happen if we have some ping-pong, to use our highly technical term for describing the shuttling of a Bill backwards and forwards between the two great Houses of Parliament? Has the Under-Secretary considered that? He appears to expect the whole thing to be wrapped up neatly in the six-month extension that he asks us to approve. Moreover, he has the gall to say that if that is not enough time, we shall have another extension.
In other words, the Under-Secretary claims that any constraint on the Government that may have existed in the past is now long gone. Governments are no longer subject to discipline and constraint, and such motions allow them to restrict Committee stage, dally, delay and mess things up because they can subsequently say, "We'll change the rules, adjust and demand more time." It would appear that one of the few checks on the Government when they introduce excessive or paltry legislation has sadly disappeared. Today's apparently innocuous and simple motion demonstrates that the Government acknowledge no discipline for themselves in the legislative process. That is not only sad but dangerous. Every time we are asked to approve such a motion, we take a further step along a dangerous path and inch further down a slippery slope. That is why I hope that we will resist this motion now, and that, one

593
of these days, we will be able to bring the Government back to some sort of accountability to the House and the parliamentary process. If we do not, I hope that their Lordships will.
3.44 pm
Mr. McNulty: First, may I say that, if there was any gall or impudence—implied or otherwise—in what I said, it was unintended? If I thought that I or the Government could control those at the other end of this building, I would have said March and had done with it. March is my aspiration; June is the more realistic expectation. That is precisely why the measure refers to six months rather than three. I was not presuming there to be any control on my part or on that of the Government, or any control or direction of their lordships up the other end—far from it.
Some hon. Members went away from the core elements of the motion on the extension of the period for proceedings and introduced other elements, bemoaning their absence from the Bill. It is important to note that many of those elements were never intended to be in the Bill. In the very first speech that I made on Second Reading, which seems a long time ago, I said that we had a clear planning reform agenda and that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was but part of that agenda. So, although the important points that hon. Members made on circular 6/98 on affordable housing, for example, and on section 106 and the whole vexed area of planning obligations, were all germane, those issues were never intended to be part of the Bill. Bemoaning their absence, with or without a further extension of time, therefore seems rather strange.
I know that the Opposition must have their fun, but I do not believe that this measure has left the reputation of the House tarnished or sullied in any way. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that uncertainty is a bad thing, which is why I am pleased to reiterate that I am more than happy to work with those on his Front Bench and the other Front Benches to ensure that many of the amendments that we need to introduce are tabled before the summer recess—certainly those on the technical elements and the concessions, for want of a better word, relating to material already discussed. If I can, I shall push that further into other areas, because I accept what has been said.
I bow to the experience of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) of the intricacies of Crown immunity. I would only hope that time, thought and the civil service have moved on, in terms of those complexities, in the 10 or so years since his time at the then Department of the Environment—the death of whose building I glory in, I must say. Marsham street now has a lovely big hole in it, which looks quite pleasant. What the Home Office will do with it is none of my business.
It is a little churlish to suggest that if we extend for six months, eight further sittings will not be enough. The Opposition do not yet know what their own load will be in terms of amendments and new clauses to the Bill, let alone the form, rather than just the number, of amendments that the Government will want to
594
introduce. I would prefer people to wait and see what follows, and to make the necessary arrangements through the usual channels.
I have promised faithfully to be as generous as I possibly can—I thought that I was in that mood and character in Committee, but clearly I was not—both prior to the recommittal and subsequently in Standing Committee, should the Bill secure this motion to carry on, but some very strange arguments have been put forward. It was hard to follow the logic of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who spent some time bemoaning the lack of scrutiny up to this point in the Bill's progress, yet, when offered this motion to secure further scrutiny, seemed to suggest that it was an absolute parliamentary disgrace. He also said that he would vote against the motion proposing eight sittings. His logic was tortured, as was his speech, and I was delighted when Madam Deputy Speaker brought him to book. Despite his churlishness, however, I remain committed to bringing forward as much as possible in the interest of making legislation as good as it can be—a point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—because I agree, on a non-partisan basis, that that is our task.
I must upbraid the right hon. Gentleman just a little. As I have said before, I did not suggest that the House of Lords should be cajoled or corralled into doing anything; I merely referred to a timetable to which I aspired. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, I was not fighting in any war in Iraq. I did not consider that a very useful analogy, although I should add that it was first introduced by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The progress of the Bill depends not on my time but on the Government's time, and the use of that time by this Parliament. It was unnecessary, and not very respectful, to make comments about fighting in Iraq.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: While the Government are allowing themselves an extra six months, they are only prepared to give the House an extra eight sessions in Standing Committee, which amounts to two weeks. Surely they could be more generous and allow more effective scrutiny.
Mr. McNulty: This may sound churlish, but what the hon. Gentleman says rather implies that extra time means extra-detailed scrutiny. That does not necessarily follow.
As I have said before, although I am an ex-member of the brotherhood—Liberal Democrats assure me that I am an honorary life member, but I should have to check that—I am no longer part of the usual channels. This is a matter for the usual channels and not one for me. Nevertheless, I accept what has been said about uncertainty. I was a member of a planning committee for 11 years, largely under the yoke of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, and I know that planning is important at an individual level, before we start to deal with grandiose schemes, huge developments and major infrastructure projects. It must be afforded due scrutiny, and we must get everything right now that we have enough time to do so. However many sittings take place between now and the summer recess—and

595
subsequently, if this motion and the next are passed—I will do all that I can to ensure that Opposition Members have sight of all the amendments as early as possible, and can speak about them in some detail if the Bill is indeed recommitted.
I will resist the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to vote against my own motion. I did not have to think about it for long. I suspect that the Chancellor will resist that exhortation as well. With or without the motion we are discussing, this is not about putting concrete over the south-east. The right hon. Gentleman condemned the existing planning system for doing that—a terrible rebuke to his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who is largely responsible for most of the beneficial change in the planning framework over the past 20 years or so.
The Government have always believed in democracy; they are not recent converts, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham implied. We have said that this is not our ideal solution, but let me echo the words of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. Now that we have the opportunity afforded to us by the three motions, it is incumbent on all of us—because of the importance of planning, and to end the uncertainty mentioned by the hon. Member for Ludlow—to make the legislation as good as it can be. On a cross-party, consensual basis—I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for that—we can secure much better legislation and a far superior planning framework if this motion and the next are passed.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 181.

Division No. 222]

[3:54 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainger, Nick

Casale, Roger

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Caton, Martin

Alexander, Douglas

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Allen, Graham

Challen, Colin

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Chaytor, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clapham, Michael

Atkins, Charlotte

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Austin, John

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bailey, Adrian

Baird, Vera

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Battle, John

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Bennett, Andrew

Coffey, Ms Ann

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Coleman, Iain

Berry, Roger

Colman, Tony

Best, Harold

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Betts, Clive

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Blackman, Liz

Cooper, Yvette

Blears, Ms Hazel

Corston, Jean

Boateng, rh Paul

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cranston, Ross

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Crausby, David

Bryant, Chris

Cruddas, Jon

Buck, Ms Karen

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Burden, Richard

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Burgon, Colin

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Burnham, Andy

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Caborn, rh Richard

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dalyell, Tam

596

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davidson, Ian

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kemp, Fraser

Denham, rh John

Khabra, Piara S.

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kidney, David

Dismore, Andrew

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Andy (Rugby)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Drew, David (Stroud)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lammy, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Edwards, Huw

Lazarowicz, Mark

Efford, Clive

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Linton, Martin

Etherington, Bill

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Farrelly, Paul

Love, Andrew

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McCabe, Stephen

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McCafferty, Chris

Follett, Barbara

McDonagh, Siobhain

Foster, rh Derek

MacDonald, Calum

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McIsaac, Shona

McKechin, Ann

Foulkes, rh George

McKenna, Rosemary

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McNamara, Kevin

Gardiner, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

MacShane, Denis

Gilroy, Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mahmood, Khalid

Goggins, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Grogan, John

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hanson, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Martlew, Eric

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Merron, Gillian

Michael, rh Alun

Healey, John

Miliband, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Miller, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Heppell, John

Moffatt, Laura

Hesford, Stephen

Mole, Chris

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hinchliffe, David

Moran, Margaret

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Morgan, Julie

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Mountford, Kali

Munn, Ms Meg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hutton, rh John

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Illsley, Eric

O'Hara, Edward

Ingram, rh Adam

Olner, Bill

Irranca-Davies, Huw

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Organ, Diana

Owen, Albert

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Perham, Linda

Jamieson, David

Picking, Anne

Jenkins, Brian

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

597

Purchase, Ken

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Purnell, James

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rammell, Bill

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Timms, Stephen

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Tipping, Paddy

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

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Trickett, Jon

Truswell, Paul

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Salter, Martin

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Sarwar, Mohammad

Walley, Ms Joan

Savidge, Malcolm

Ward, Claire

Sawford, Phil

Wareing, Robert N.

Sedgemore, Brian

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sheridan, Jim

Watts, David

Short, rh Clare

White, Brian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wills, Michael

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Soley, Clive

Southworth, Helen

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Spellar, rh John

Woodward, Shaun

Squire, Rachel

Woolas, Phil

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Worthington, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Stevenson, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, David (Telford)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Straw, rh Jack

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stringer, Graham

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Joan Ryan

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Chidgey, David

Allan, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Ancram, rh Michael

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Baker, Norman

Collins, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Barker, Gregory

Cotter, Brian

Baron, John (Billericay)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Barrett, John

Curry, rh David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Blunt, Crispin

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Brady, Graham

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brazier, Julian

Dodds, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Burnett, John

Doughty, Sue

Burns, Simon

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Burnside, David

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Burstow, Paul

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Burt, Alistair

Evans, Nigel

Butterfill, John

Ewing, Annabelle

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Fabricant, Michael

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Fallon, Michael

Carmichael, Alistair

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Cash, William

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Flight, Howard

Forth, rh Eric

598

Foster, Don (Bath)

Paice, James

Francois, Mark

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Pickles, Eric

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Gidley, Sandra

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Goodman, Paul

Pugh, Dr. John

Grayling, Chris

Randall, John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Redwood, rh John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Rendel, David

Greenway, John

Robathan, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Gummer, rh John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hammond, Philip

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hancock, Mike

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hawkins, Nick

Ruffley, David

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heath, David

Sanders, Adrian

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hendry, Charles

Selous, Andrew

Hermon, Lady

Shepherd, Richard

Holmes, Paul

Simmonds, Mark

Horam, John (Orpington)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Howard, rh Michael

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Hunter, Andrew

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Jack, rh Michael

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Jenkin, Bernard

Spring, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Stanley, rh Sir John

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Streeter, Gary

Stunell, Andrew

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Syms, Robert

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Taylor, Ian, (Esher)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Letwin, rh Oliver

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Thurso, John

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Tredinnick, David

Lilley, rh Peter

Trimble, rh David

Llwyd Elfyn

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Loughton, Tim

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Tyrie, Andrew

Mackay, rh Andrew

viggers, Peter

Maclean, rh David

Waterson, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Watkinson, Angela

Malins, Humfrey

Webb Steve (Northavon)

Maples, John

Weir Michael

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Maude, rh Francis

Wiggin, Bill

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Willetts, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Mercer, Patrick

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Willis, Phil

Wilshire, David

Moore, Michael

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Moss, Malcolm

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Norman, Archie

Wishart, Pete

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Young, rh Sir George

Öpik, Lembit

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Ottaway, Richard

Mr. Mark Hoban and

Page, Richard

Hugh Robertson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That if the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is carried over to the next Session of Parliament, the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (10) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 shall be extended by the period of six months.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (ReCommittal)
4.8 pm
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move,
That the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill be recommitted to a Standing Committee.
I thank the House for the enthusiasm with which it supported the carry-over motion and the extension of the period for proceedings motion. The logical consequence of passing them is that the Bill now be recommitted to a Standing Committee. We can debate the point, but the relevant Standing Committee could be either the existing one or a new one: it does not matter too much, because in either case, it can be adjusted appropriately by the Committee of Selection. The Bill will be recommitted to a Standing Committee firmly in the context that I have outlined. First, I will endeavour to ensure that by September—long before the Bill is recommitted to the Standing Committee, should that be the wish of the House—all the statutory instruments, circulars and other germane elements are published. As hon. Members will recall, in the initial stages of the Bill, the regulations were published, but we have lost track of that simultaneous unfolding of the appropriate regulations and statutory instruments. I will endeavour to ensure that they are all in place before recommittal.
Secondly, I will seek to ensure that as many as possible of the Government's new amendments—including all those that would make technical changes to the existing Bill and the concessions that the Government agreed to make—will be tabled and published before the House rises in the summer. Thirdly, I will also endeavour to publish the amendments on other issues—compulsory purchase, Crown immunity and urban development corporations—at the earliest opportunity. If I can, I will do so before the House rises, but if not, by September at the latest, to facilitate hon. Members who wish to prepare for their role in Committee.
I hope that the House will accept unanimously the recommittal to a Standing Committee. Whether one was for or against the two previous motions, it must follow that the Bill should be recommitted to a Standing Committee for further scrutiny. It will be a matter for debate between the usual channels whether that is for four sittings, as I would prefer, or eight or even 12. However, no one who has listened to the fair debates that we have had on the two previous motions could do anything but fully support the recommittal of the Bill to Standing Committee so it can be afforded further scrutiny. I commend the motion to the House.
4.12 pm
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I contend to the Minister that as I have cajoled and pleaded with him in the debate on the previous two motions, the Bill should be recommitted to Standing Committee without any guillotine—let alone the measly and inadequate eight sittings that the Minister is prepared to offer us—I should, and will, urge my colleagues to oppose the motion. [Interruption.] The Minister told me off the record that there would be eight sittings. I pleaded with him to give us more sittings, but I have had no indication from him that he will grant that request. Therefore, I have no alternative but to urge my colleagues to vote against the motion.
600
The Minister has already told us that 70 major new clauses and amendments will be tabled, to a Bill that was originally 90 clauses long. In other words, the amendments and new clauses will probably double the size of the Bill. The original 12 sittings were not enough, so we cannot possibly give the Bill proper scrutiny in only eight sittings.
Standing Orders say that the Bill should be recommitted
"in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the bill in the first Session, to a standing committee of the same Members as the members of the standing committee on the bill in the first Session".
I have taken advice from the Clerks and they say that that should be so, all other things being equal. By golly, I hope that we do not have the same Standing Committee. I do not wish to do anybody an injustice, but from a quick scrutiny of the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, it appears that four Labour Members—the hon. Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt)—and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), a Welsh nationalist, said nothing or almost nothing. I hope that all members of the Standing Committee will make a full and proper contribution.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend consider that, if what we read about a cull of junior Ministers in an imminent reshuffle is true, it is possible that half of the junior Ministers who were on the Committee will not be there if the Committee is reformed?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes his own point. However, I am sure that there will be plenty of applicants.
Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way to the Minister, but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I shall not give way to anyone else.
Mr. McNulty: I want to make two quick points. First, Parliamentary Private Secretaries traditionally do not speak in Committee, and at least two of the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman referred held that office. Secondly, it is very unkind of the hon. Gentleman to besmirch the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for not saying anything. The hon. Gentleman was not there, so how could he say anything?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise to the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). He was indeed the PPS.
Ian Stewart: What about the rest of them?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The rest of them had every opportunity to speak.
Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) was also a PPS on the Committee.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am now informed that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) was a PPS on the Committee, but there was no excuse for the rest of the Committee members not taking a proper part in the proceedings.
Why should the Committee not be guillotined? That is the real issue for consideration this evening. We are dealing with unprecedented parliamentary procedure. The motions passed earlier allow the Government to carry the Bill over into the next Session. That is unprecedented. Surely, if the Government are going to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee, that Committee should not be guillotined and should have every opportunity to carry out line-by-line scrutiny. There will be a huge number of new clauses and amendments—70-odd—and no doubt there will be goodness knows how many new schedules as well. However, the existing Bill is highly flawed and needs extensive scrutiny. It is a bad Bill, and it needs lots of amendment, so that the people of this country get the planning system that they want.
Matthew Green: I just want to confirm that Liberal Democrat Members will join the Conservatives in the Lobby to oppose the proposal, as we believe that eight sittings will be insufficient to scrutinise the changes to the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course we need to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the hon. Gentleman is right. My prime concern is that the House is beginning to get a reputation for passing unsatisfactory legislation because insufficient time for scrutiny is being allowed in Committee or on Report. I do not seem to be anywhere near getting a commitment from the Minister that there will be no guillotine on the Committee, and so the Opposition have no alternative but to oppose the motion.
I want to raise another point. What happens if the Government recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee and then have other ideas for additional things that they want to include? What is to prevent them from coming to the House and asking for a further recommittal motion? This is a very bad way to go about Government business. This Bill received a huge amount of public consultation. Three huge documents were produced, starting as long ago as December 2001, and there have been 16,500 responses. There was also pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, yet the Government still managed to publish a bad Bill before it went into Committee. The guillotine meant that Committee scrutiny was inadequate, as was the Bill that emerged.
There used to be certainty in the planning system before this Bill, for example in connection with obtaining outline planning permission. Now, there is confusion about the new concept of the statement of
602
development principles. Many developers have said that they expect difficulty in getting funding for large developments if that sort of nonsense remains in the Bill.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Nothing would give me greater pleasure, but I have only 10 minutes to debate this motion. If my hon. Friend will allow, I shall make progress.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: With difficulty.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Through the previous motion, the Government have given themselves six extra months on the Bill, but they are proposing to allow only eight extra Committee sittings. That means that two weeks will be spent in Standing Committee, out of six months. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, especially with a highly technical Bill such as this, about which there has been a huge amount of representation and interest from outside bodies. There is now uncertainty about the planning system, and the Government's wholesale amendment of the Bill is like starting from scratch. The measure needs a lot of scrutiny and if it does not receive the scrutiny properly due to it in Committee, an enormous amount of case law will ensue. I predict that that will happen anyway; it will be a lawyers' paradise, as many experts have already told us.
This is a poor way to run Government business. Surely, the Government should set out their programme in the Queen's Speech in the normal way and then decide which Bills are more important so that they can be dealt with properly in the parliamentary Session. Only in exceptional circumstances should a Bill be carried over in this way. Such a procedure should certainly not apply to a Bill as technical as this one, which has received such a large amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. Such a Bill should not be a candidate for carry-over. The only candidates for carry-over should be Bills to which the House, for one reason or another, has not had time to give proper scrutiny. That is not the case for this Bill; the Government simply want to introduce a raft of extra proposals.
When we debated the previous motions, the technical nature of the additional material proposed was made clear—for example, on Crown immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) probably has more experience of such matters than any other Member. He has already given us a clue about the difficulty of abolishing Crown immunity for Departments. What will happen in national emergencies? What about the Ministry of Defence? We shall have to deal with all those matters in considerable detail.
We shall also have to deal in considerable detail with the technical merits of compulsory purchase. It will be extremely difficult to deal with 70 new clauses or amendments in the time available, so, in the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion. It is a bad principle and a bad precedent.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 74 (Recommittal of bill):—
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 168.

Division No. 223]

[4:21 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Ainger, Nick

Drew, David (Stroud)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Alexander, Douglas

Edwards, Huw

Allen, Graham

Efford, Clive

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Etherington, Bill

Atherton, Ms Candy

Farrelly, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Austin, John

Fisher, Mark

Bailey, Adrian

Filzpatrick, Jim

Baird, Vera

Filzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Barnes, Harry

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Battle, John

Follett, Barbara

Begg, Miss Anne

Foster, rh Derek

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bennett, Andrew

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Berry, Roger

Foulkes, rh George

Best, Harold

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Betts, Clive

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Blackman, Liz

Gardiner, Barry

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gerrard, Neil

Boateng, rh Paul

Gilroy, Linda

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Godsiff, Roger

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Goggins, Paul

Bryant, Chris

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Buck, Ms Karen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Burden, Richard

Grogan, John

Burgon, Colin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Burnham, Andy

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Casale, Roger

Hanson, David

Caton, Martin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Challen, Colin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Healey, John

Chaytor, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clapham, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Heppell, John

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hermon, Lady

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hinchliffe, David

Hodge, Margaret

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Coleman, Iain

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Colman, Tony

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Cooper, Yvette

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Jean

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cranston, Ross

Hutton, rh John

Crausby, David

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cruddas, Jon

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Ingram, rh Adam

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dalyell, Tarn

Jamieson, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jenkins, Brian

David, Wayne

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Dawson, Hilton

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Denham, rh John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dismore, Andrew

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

604

Kemp, Fraser

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

Khabra, Piara S.

Kidney, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby)

Rooney, Terry

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Ruane, Chris

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

Lammy, David

Russell, Ms Christine (City of of Chester)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Lazarowicz, Mark

Salter, Martin

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Linton, Martin

Savidge, Malcolm

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sawford, Phil

Love, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Shaw Jonathan

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheridan, Jim

McCabe, Stephen

Short rh Clare

McCafferty, Chris

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith rh Andrew (Oxford E)

MacDonald, Calum

Smith rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

McDonnell, John

McIsaac, Shona

Smith Geraldlne (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McKechin,Ann

McKenna, Rosemary

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Southworth, Helen

McNulty, Tony

McWilliam,John

Spellar, rh John

Mahmood, Khalid

Squire, Rachel

Mallaber, Judy

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mandelson, rh Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Stevenson, George

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Stewart Ian (Eccles)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Straw, rh Jack

Martlew, Eric

Stringer, Graham

Merron, Gillian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Michael, rh Alun

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Miliband, David

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Miller, Andrew

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Tavlor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Moffatt, Laura

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Mole, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Tipping, Paddy

Moran, Margaret

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Morgan, Julie

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Mountford, Kali

Truswell, Paul

Munn, Ms Meg

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

O'Hara, Edward

Walley, Ms Joan

Olner, Bill

Ward, Claire

O'Neill, Martin

Wareing, Robert N.

Organ, Diana

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Owen, Albert

Watts, David

Perham, Linda

White, Brian

Picking, Anne

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Wicks, Malcolm

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Pound, Stephen

Wills, Michael

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Wilson, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Purnell, James

Quinn, Lawrie

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Rammell, Bill

Woodward, Shaun

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Woolas, Phil

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Worthington, Tony

605

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Wyatt, Derek

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Wright, David (Telford)

Joan Ryan

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Allan, Richard

Ewing, Annabelle

Ancram, rh Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fallen, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Barker, Gregory

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flight, Howard

Barrett, John

Forth, rh Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Blunt, Crispin

Francois, Mark

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Brady, Graham

Gidley, Sandra

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodman, Paul

Burnett, John

Grayling, Chris

Burns, Simon

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burnside, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burstow, Paul

Grieve, Dominic

Burt, Alistair

Gummer, rh John

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hancock, Mike

Carmichael, Alistair

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heath, David

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Chidgey, David

Hendry, Charles

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, rh Douglas

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howard, rh Michael

Collins, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jack, rh Michael

Cotter, Brian

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, rh David

Keetch, Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Dodds, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Doughty, Sue

Leigh, Edward

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Letwin, rh Oliver

606

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Sanders, Adrian

Lilley, rh Peter

Sayeed, Jonathan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Selous, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Shepherd, Richard

Mackay, rh Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Maclean, rh David

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

McLoughlin, Patrick

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

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Spring, Richard

May, Mrs Theresa

Stanley, rh Sir John

Mercer, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Stunel1, Andrew

Syms, Robert

Moore, Michael

Tapsel1- Sir Peter

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Norman, Archie

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Öpik, Lembit

Thurso, John

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Page, Richard

Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Paice, James

Tyrie, Andrew

Paterson, Owen

Viggers, Peter

Pickles, Eric

Waterson, Nigel

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Webb Steve (Northavon)

Weir, Michael

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Whittingdale, John

Pugh, Dr. John

Wiggin, Bill

Randall, John

Willetts, David

Redwood, rh John

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Rendel, David

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Robathan, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Young, rh Sir George

Roe, Mrs Marion

Ruffley, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Mr. Mark Hoban and

Salmond, Alex

Angela Watkinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill be recommitted to a Standing Committee.

Sustainable Energy Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
4.34 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Energy Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who is in the Chamber. On Second Reading, the Government said that they were content to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee, which was agreed by the House. They also said that several amendments would have to be made if the Bill was to receive their support.
Clause 1 would require the publication of an annual report on sustainable energy policy. As the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with responsibility for small firms, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), said on Second Reading in my absence, the Government accept the need to report progress made toward the goals set out in our energy White Paper. However, we would prefer a less prescriptive approach on the content of the report and have tabled a suitable new clause for consideration in Committee tomorrow. However, the resolution is appropriate to the clause.
Clause 2 would require the appropriate authority to take steps to improve domestic energy efficiency and would provide a power to set improvement targets for local authorities. It would also impose a duty on energy conservation authorities to implement measures set out in their existing reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We cannot support the imposition of new burdens on local authorities without prior assessment and thus intend to table amendments to reflect that on Report.
The cost of setting any targets for local authorities under the clause or of imposing any duties on them as a result of the proposed duty on the Government and the Executive of the National Assembly for Wales cannot be assessed at this stage. However, the cost of meeting such targets and of undertaking any duties imposed on local authorities would need to be met by Government with funds provided by Parliament, and under section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 in the case of Wales. The resolution covers both possibilities.
Clause 3 includes measures to support combined heat and power—CHP. We set out several measures in the White Paper to encourage the development of CHP but we cannot support the specific proposals in the Bill. The cost of the measures would be met by the support for renewable energy that is already provided through the renewables obligation. It would rise to around £1 billion a year in 2010 and definitely threaten our renewables objectives. We shall move an amendment on Report to provide for a duty to set CHP targets for the central government estate.
608
Clause 4 would require the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the electricity and gas market regulator, to publish environmental impact assessments under the Utilities Act 2000. The Government wish to replace the clause with a requirement for Ofgem to produce regulatory impact assessments, which would include environmental impact assessments. Ofgem's expenditure under the Utilities Act 2000 is paid out of money provided by Parliament and the resolution accordingly provides for such expenditure.
Clause 5 would require Ofgem to make such payments as the Secretary of State directed to beneficiaries of schemes to promote sustainable energy. The Government have tabled a new clause that would allow the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to pay £60 million into the Consolidated Fund and thus enable the Secretary of State to use those moneys to promote renewable energy, as set out in the energy White Paper. That would ensure that expenditure was properly accounted for to the House. The resolution provides for both the expenditure and the matching payments into the Consolidated Fund.
Finally, clause 6 would require energy conservation authorities to perform their functions in a way that promotes the fuel poverty objectives specified in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 through an amendment to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. After consulting the Local Government Association, it is our view that that would impose additional burdens on local authorities that should first be properly assessed. The Government intend to table an amendment on Report to reflect that, which would link the provision to clause 2. As with clause 2, any additional costs would need to be met by the Government from funds provided by Parliament. The resolution also provides for that.
We look forward to discussing the Bill further in Committee tomorrow and I commend the motion to the House.
4.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We support the Bill in general and look forward to discussing it in Committee tomorrow. We hope that it will come out of Committee in better shape than when it went in.
I was interested in much that the Minister had to say about the money resolution. He did not mention the non-fossil fuel obligation. I understand that money left over from that may be used to support the Bill. If that is the case, perhaps he could say how much money is left over from the NFFO scheme, which is being wound up to be replaced by the renewables obligation.
I disagree slightly, in that I want more detail in the annual report that the Government will be required to put to Parliament. In particular, I want the Government to judge their performance against the ambitious targets that they have set. They not only set a target of 10 per cent. of energy capacity to come from renewables by 2010, but set a target of 20 per cent. by 2020. The current estimate of the Renewable Power Association is that those will be undershot, to be 7 per cent. by 2010 and 12 per cent. by 2020. We will have to discuss that in Committee tomorrow.
The Minister mentioned CHP, which I think is dealt with in clause 4. Although the Government might not want to be prescriptive on CHP in the money resolution

609
or the Bill, the target for 2000, which they inherited, was 5 GW of capacity produced by CHP, which was not reached. The target for 2010, which they set, is 10 GW. There is no likelihood of that happening yet.
We look forward to tomorrow's Committee and support the resolution. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the ambitious targets set by the Government will or will not be fulfilled. In particular, I want to know about the NFFO money.
4.41 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and we congratulate him on the success that it has achieved so far. As a consequence of that, we will support the money resolution so that we provide the Bill with the means to be effective. It could be the first important building block in an effective energy conservation strategy for this country. We look forward to the work in Committee and on Report.
I note that the explanatory notes issued with the Bill claim that very little public money will be needed beyond that which is already allocated by other legislation and existing budgets. That draws attention to the fact that the Bill is comparatively modest in its purpose and is not revolutionary. I listened with some concern to what the Minister said about the changes that he intends to make. I hope that he will confirm, if not today, then at the start of the Committee tomorrow, that the Government remain committed to implementing a strategy of sustainable energy and energy conservation. I hope that he does not simply see the Government's actions as steps to block and fillet a modest and necessary piece of legislation.
In summary, we support the Bill and money resolution. We shall be vigilant in preventing them from being blocked, diverted or diluted by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)
As amended, considered.
Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)
  Schedule 1

    AMENDMENT OF THE 1980 ACT: LEVYING, REVISION AND APPLICATION OF TOLLS
    4.44 pm
    Mr. Ben Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'November 1999' and insert 'November 2003'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 3, line 15, leave out '1999' and insert '2003'.
    No. 22, in page 5, line 31, after 'every', insert 'fifth'.
    No. 23, in page 5, line 38, leave out '12 months and insert: 'five years'.
    No. 35, in page 5, line 47, leave out from the first 'percentage' until the end of line 3 on page 6 and insert—
    'as the Retail Price Index for the base month minus X where X is a percentage to be decided by the Secretary of State on the making of every third order to ensure the efficient and cost-effective management of the tunnels after sufficient provision has been made for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) above, and for which purpose the Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State accounts for the tunnels for the three years preceding the making of the order and outline its objectives in accordance with paragraph (e) of subsection (3) above.'.
    No. 24, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'retail prices index for the month of November' and insert—
    'mean average of the retail price indices for the months of November in the five years.'.
    No. 25, in page 6, line 36, at end insert—
    '(c) all or any of the tolls fixed by or by virtue of this Act should be increased prior to 5 years having elapsed since the making of the previous order.'.
    No. 18, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
    '(1A) The Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority may freeze toll prices when the provisions of subsection 91(3)(e) have been met and the revenue needs of (a), (b), (c) and (d) can be met without an increase in the toll. If appropriate, tolls shall temporarily cease to be demanded where the revenue needs of (a), (b), (c) and (d) can be met without revenue from such tolls.'.
    Mr. Chapman: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from earlier debates on the Bill, that I am not its greatest fan. In its current form, it would remove from the people of Merseyside the decades-old promise that the tunnel debt would be paid off and tolls reduced over a period of time. It would allow the Merseyside passenger transport authority to increase tunnel tolls by the rate of inflation whether or not it had demonstrated the need to do so or introduced efficiencies. It would allow the MPTA to use tunnel profits to support other transport projects from tunnel receipts. The one aspect of the Bill to which I have

    611
    no objection whatsoever provides for the soundproofing of certain dwellings around the Kingsway tunnel, which I very much support.
    Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there must be a much clearer definition of which houses will be included in any sound insulation improvements in the Bill and which would be excluded?
    Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has a detailed knowledge of the Bill's provisions, and I defer to him on that point.
    Mr. Frank Field: That is something that we will wish to debate. However, there is a black cloud hanging over our proceedings. When we were going through the Lobby to vote on an earlier motion today, the Whips told Labour Members that everyone could go home except the payroll vote, which suggests that although we are going to have a debate and give the Bill serious consideration, other Members may need to be brought in later. I just hope that the payroll vote is watching my hon. Friend on television and can experience his eloquence.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not have anything to do with the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Some of the amendments bring us up to date and recognise that the Bill has been around for a long time. One of them requires the tolls to be increased every five years, rather than every year, as the Bill proposes. Another one includes a proposal to increase efficiency. They result from the fact that, in my view at least, Merseytravel is a substantially unaccountable body with a propensity to spend money.
    Mr. Field: I obviously do not want to guess what my hon. Friend will say when he introduces his amendments. My objections have a much narrower focus than his, but I am intrigued by his arguments about efficiency. Will he deal with that more effectively and at greater length in his introductory remarks?
    Mr. Chapman: I intend to do so briefly but in some detail, as my proposed formula is quite complex.
    Dr. John Pugh: A few seconds ago, the hon. Gentleman said that Merseytravel was a substantially unaccountable body. Is he not aware that it is the only body left over from Merseyside county council that is full of elected members?
    Mr. Chapman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall deal with that in detail later.
    Mr. Field: For the record, I thought that Liverpool city council, Wirral council and every other council was directly elected. We are talking about a body with indirectly elected representatives, but there is a galaxy of elected bodies in Merseyside.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is about the question of tolls and inflationary
    612
    increases? We would make better progress and better use of the time available if we remained strictly within the terms of the amendments.
    Mr. Chapman: I hope to demonstrate that there is no need to raise tolls every year—hence one of the amendments—if, indeed, at all.
    Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the title of this group of amendments suggests, we are discussing what Mr. Deputy Speaker just referred to—inflationary increases, which will not be good for Merseyside?
    Mr. Chapman: That is parliamentary shorthand. We are covering wider matters than that.
    The formula that has been mentioned, retail prices index minus X, would bring increased efficiency to the operation of Merseytravel. The existing legislation requires the Merseyside passenger transport authority and the Secretary of State to take into account the effect of revising any tolls. The provisions enable and require the authority and the Secretary of State to take into account any revision on the basis of financial, transport or social considerations.
    Those considerations are wide and would include the impact of the revision on travel patterns and on local businesses, for example. They are of considerable significance, as an increase in tolls is likely to deter users from using the tunnel concerned and cause them to use other routes. Increased tolls are likely to increase the operating costs of, and may affect the viability of, local businesses. They will certainly deter investment in Merseyside. Although the effect of the diversion to other routes such as the Runcorn bridge is of necessity limited, as it would entail a 50-mile round journey, such diversion as does occur is likely to exacerbate existing congestion and safety problems.
    As I read the Bill, once the provision is removed, Merseytravel would effectively be accountable to no one. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1985 specifies that the MPTA should comprise two members from Knowsley district council, six from Liverpool, two from St. Helen's, four from Sefton and four from The Wirral. That is it. There is no mention of expertise, experience or suitability, no requirement for a mix of management, finance and accounting skills, and no direct representation for trade unions or users. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the competence of Merseyside councillors; far from it. I am sure that they are hardworking and thoroughly capable. Certainly, those whom I know are. I am not criticising specific people, merely the failings of the system that leads to their appointment to the MPTA.
    In effect, posts are allocated as between the police authority, the passenger transport authority and other authorities. As I said on Second Reading, people are given posts on the principle of Buggins' turn. That was taken by some as being offensive, but what I mean is that allocation is on a random basis, rather than on the basis of skills. One might argue that the councillors can rely on those skills from the executive, but if that were the case, it would effectively be the executive that ran Merseytravel. If there is no counterbalance on the

    613
    authority, it surely follows that the organisation is run by an executive that has even less accountability or democratic mandate.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fail to see the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks to the amendments. I should appreciate your advice.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully. As I have had to intervene from the Chair on a couple of occasions already, I am trying to give a little leeway to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), but I am listening to what he is saying, and if I am not satisfied very shortly that what he is saying is relevant to the terms of his amendments, I shall intervene to say so.
    Mr. Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to stick by your guidance. I am attempting to demonstrate, among other things, that there is no need for the rises, certainly not on an annual basis, and that there is no accountability. We need to build in efficiency mechanisms and a five-year period, because there is no direct accountability.
    Stephen Hesford: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rises are not necessary even in terms of internal consistency on the part of Merseytravel, as the tunnels already break even and cover their own costs?
    Mr. Chapman: As I shall seek to demonstrate later, the tunnels not only break even, but make a fair margin of profit. That is another argument for restricting ourselves to a five-year review and to RPI minus X, and for greater accountability on the part of the authority. The general public have a right to demand that large sums such as those going into the authority—there is a budget of £80 million a year—are properly accounted for. If the public are to face year-on-year increases simply because the cost of living has increased, there will be a need to demonstrate that some effiencies have been achieved in the operation of the organisation.
    Stephen Hesford: I have a question that my hon. Friend may explore further later. Is he saying that there is a hidden profit in the tunnels, that it is not demonstrated as such and that some of the so-called debt is a paper exercise? Is that the point that he is making? If so, I encourage him to develop it later.
    Mr. Chapman: I should certainly like to develop that point later, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now move quickly through the points that I want to make, in view of your guidance.
    It is true that Merseytravel consults regularly, but the problem is that it does not always take account of the results of that consultation. Under the Bill, it has basically unfettered powers to pursue its own ends, more or less irrespective of the strength of its case. It is obliged to consult in respect of the local transport plan, but not necessarily to take heed of the consultation. While it may appear that there is an elected mandate, that is not so in reality. I think that there is a substantial democratic deficit.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does my hon. Friend apply the same argument about accountability to the other residuary bodies? Does he feel the same way about the waste disposal, fire and police authorities? Does he fully understand the history of how those bodies were established with regard to the abolition of the county council in the first place?
    Mr. Chapman: By and large, I take the same view about those bodies, but they are not the subject of this debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will enlighten me about that issue outside the confines of the Chamber.
    It is a maxim that there should be no taxation without representation, and it applies particularly in this context.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As a former member of Merseyside county council, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, I can say that one great difference was that we had a forum of people who could be consulted whenever there was a policy change, including in relation to the Mersey tunnels toll increases. The Bill contains no suggestion about such a body, but there is tremendous opposition to it on Merseyside from business interests and trade unions.
    Mr. Chapman: That is absolutely so, which is why I want to build in the amendments.
    Mr. George Howarth: While my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was right in an historical sense, will my hon. Friend confirm that the trade unions, with the possible exception of the self-appointed Wirral trades council, are now supportive of the Bill? At least, they did not object or continue their objections when it was considered in Committee, and the same is true of all the other objecting bodies.
    Mr. Chapman: That is a matter of record, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure 'whether withdrawing objections is the same as giving support, but it is certainly a fact that the objections were withdrawn, as my hon. Friend said.
    In brief, we should not have a system of taxation without representation—that is one of the cornerstones of our system—but here we have a situation in which taxation will be applied by people who cannot be voted out by those who are being taxed. Passenger transport authorities are, by their nature, political animals, yet they do not have the direct franchise given by the electors to the district council that elects their members. Although the authority comprises councillors who have been directly elected to represent a borough ward, the electorate have no control over who sits on it, and they cannot be removed. The PTA's responsibilities are probably little understood by those whose council taxes contribute a greater part of its revenue.
    5 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman drafted the amendments that we are discussing, so he should know better than anyone that he is now moving beyond their scope.
    Mr. Chapman: I hope that I have made my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I honestly suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be touting for business; he should get on with the prosecution of the case for the amendments.
    Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you guide me on that ruling? I am genuinely puzzled by it. I, too, tabled amendments in this group, and, like my hon. Friend, I am worried that if we are not successful in our amendments we will give a non-elected body the power to tax. That is the case that he was putting. I am worried by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to put a similar case, should I manage to catch your eye.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that his remarks about accountability must be very closely related to the particular content of the amendments, which concern a mechanism by which tolls may or may not be increased. The more general arguments to which some of the speeches and interventions have so far related are matters that are encompassed by the Bill, but not necessarily by the amendments that the hon. Member for Wirral, South has brought to our attention.
    Mr. Chapman: In the light of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move on to the technicalities.
    Bob Spink: Is not the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendments that they go some way towards making it more difficult for the body that is not directly accountable to those on whom the taxes would fall to impose those taxes? That is why, for instance, he wants to move from 12 months to five years and why he tabled the amendment on RPI. For my part, I do not think that he goes far enough, but I certainly support him in his general direction.
    Mr. Chapman: That is precisely my point. Because the PTA is not accountable to the public, it becomes accountable to itself. Because it becomes accountable to itself, it becomes internally focused. Because it becomes internally focused, and does not see the outside argument, it tends to be profligate and to increase its resources and staff, to the extent that it now has 900 employees. In the light of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not stay on the point, but I think that the public have the right to expect that the body should be properly accountable, and that is what my amendments are about. Whether it be in the course of our deliberations today or on Third Reading, we need to make that point and to get it across, because the situation is not doing a service to the people of Merseyside.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the passenger transport authority is profligate in its use of resources. I object to the implication that the 900 people who work for the PTA are employed for reasons that are not necessarily related to the activities of the authority, which serves the people of Merseyside well.
    Mr. Chapman: I must beg to differ. Merseyside passenger transport authority operates five miles of tunnels and three modest and elderly ferries. It administers various matters, but it is responsible for only two operations. I find it difficult to understand why that requires 900 people. Doubtless, Merseytravel will send me a message, as it usually does, asking me to explain that.
    Mr Kilfoyle: If the authority is inefficient and profligate, will my hon. Friend explain why the chairman was voted chairman of the year out of all the transport authorities and why the chief executive—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is another matter that should be explained outside.
    Mr. Chapman: I am sorry not to have the opportunity to explain that.
    My proposal to constrain any tendency to profligacy and to encourage efficiency is based on two ideas.
    Mr. George Howarth: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument as closely as I can, although he has a tendency to skip a few pages at a time. He appears to advance the argument that the mechanism is necessary because he does not believe that the PTA is an efficient, accountable and proper body for undertaking the tasks. Does he accept that many of us do not agree? Let me give one example. Councillor Robbie Crummie from Knowsley, who happens to be here at the moment, ensures that he is accountable not only to the borough council but to his electorate. He covers such issues in his election address. He makes himself very accountable.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one who is not an hon. Member can be here at the moment.
    Mr. Chapman: My alternative proposal is based on two ideas. In some respects, the amendments appear to contradict each other because they apply to the same clauses. However, I do not believe that they could be as damaging as the Bill. Under the first model, tolls would be increased every five years rather than every year.
    Mr. Wareing: In view of the indirect choice of the PTA, what difficulties does auditing the accounts of the tolls solve? I get the impression that there is no adequate auditing of the revenues from the tolls or the way in which the money is spent.
    Mr. Chapman: I shall deal with that later, but it is my impression that the accounts are only partially audited and that some inventive accounting goes on.
    The first model that I propose would increase tolls every five years rather than every year. It uses Merseytravel's methods in that the RPI forms the basis

    617
    for the increase. However, I propose the use of a mean average figure for the five years that precede making a new order, to provide a more equitable increase.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend proposes changing the date in the Bill. Is he linking that change to other amendments or does the proposal stand alone?
    Mr. Chapman: To the best of my recollection, it stands on its own. I shall try to explore that issue later.
    I am proposing a mean average figure for the five years preceding the making of the new order, to provide a more equitable increase. I doubt, however, that a rise is justified at all, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has begun to elucidate.
    Stephen Hesford: I am prepared to accept that my statistics are not as good as those of other hon. Members, but will my hon. Friend explain what he means by a "mean average"? Why did he choose that particular calculation as opposed to a median average or some other average for the five-year period?
    Mr. Chapman: I shall have to work this out. What I think I mean is that, if the figures over a period of five years were variously three, four, three, four and eight, the sum total would be 18, which, when divided by five, would give the mean average. I hope that that is right; that is certainly my intention.
    Mr. Field: The Chancellor is changing the basis for calculating price increases.
    Mr. Chapman: What I am proposing here is a five-yearly rise. I want to limit the rises as far as possible because, to tell the truth, I do not believe that rises are justified at all.
    Mr. Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend is an honourable man, and I know that he would not wish deliberately to mislead the House. In view of some of the statements that he has already made, therefore, will he confirm the following three points? First, Merseytravel employs 824 staff—not 900 as he said—many of whom are employed in such activities as ensuring that there is disabled access.
    Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in the Chamber when the figure of 900 came up, and it did not come from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), but from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South then adopted it.
    Mr. Howarth: I was indeed. Just for the sake of accuracy—wherever the figure of 900 came from—will
    618
    my hon. Friend confirm that there are 824 staff, many of whom are employed in necessary activities such as ensuring that there is disabled access? Will he also confirm that the audit arrangements, which he and some other hon. Members have criticised, involve the district auditor auditing the accounts of Merseytravel or the passenger transport authority, that they have been done like that for 15 years, and that they have never been qualified? Finally, will he confirm that what the Bill proposes, and what he is seeking to amend, are not annual increases but an annual review? Those two things are not necessarily the same.
    Mr. Chapman: First, the figure of 900 people, which my hon. Friend suggests is not as it should be, is a figure that I obtained from the Library of the House. I therefore thought that it would have sufficient collateral attached to it. On my hon. Friend's point about the accounts, I shall come to that issue in a moment and I intend to cover it as far as I can. If my hon. Friend intervened on me again, he could remind me of his second point.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has tempted me, but he has dealt with my first and second points. It was the third point that he missed, which was that the Bill provides for an annual review—a provision that he seeks to amend—and not necessarily an annual increase, and that the two are not necessarily the same.
    Mr. Chapman: On that point, it is my firmly held view that, although Merseytravel built into the Bill a provision to review the increase every year and to decide whether or not to implement it, the idea of Merseytravel not implementing an increase would be similar to turkeys voting for Christmas. After all, this is the body that introduced the Bill, the body that promoted the Bill and the body which, in my view, has shown a tendency never to resist spending or raising tunnel tolls.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Wareing: As always, my hon. Friend is being generous in giving way.
    Whether we are talking about an annual review or an annual increase, the fact remains that the Bill allows for an annual increase. If toll increases, inflationary as they would be, are regularly imposed annually, businesses will be subject to a great deal of uncertainty. A five-year period would help them to plan.
    Mr. Chapman: I entirely agree.
    Mr. David Marshall: I apologise for intervening on discussion of what is principally a Merseyside matter, but as I intend to take advantage of the opportunity to vote, I should be grateful for some clarification. Coming as I do from the only passenger transport authority area in Scotland, I am interested in passenger transport authorities. Would the amendments have an adverse effect on the maintenance and refurbishment of the tunnels, and on Merseyside's public transport in general?
    Mr. Chapman: Certainly not. Ample money is available in Merseyside PTA, and indeed on

    619
    Merseyside, which—unlike my hon. Friend's area, I suspect—benefits from objective 1 status. Money is now chasing projects rather than projects chasing money.
    I want to limit the increases not to place a burden on business, but to take account of the profits said to be inherent in the accounts of Merseytravel. It is said, for example, that any surpluses may have been transferred to reserves or appropriated, so that the bottom line does not show the full extent of the profit.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is, as I have said, an honourable man, who would not wish to mislead the House. He should, however, reflect on the answer that he gave our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The amendments would limit Merseytravel's revenue-raising capacity, and a delay of, say, five years could well lead to the circumstances described by our hon. Friend. Wise though he is, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South cannot stare too far into the future. The restriction of revenue could, over a number of years, affect the amount available for improvements, alterations and even safety measures.
    Mr. Chapman: I do not think so. I think there is enough money in the tunnels, in the authority and in Merseyside to cater for almost any eventuality. What we should perhaps do is explore those sources of funds more than we have hitherto, rather than expecting users of the tunnel to pay for services when they have no practical alternative to the use of those services. That is unjust and immoral.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that objective 1 money cannot be used to fund revenue-based projects, which include health and safety projects. Moreover, in the absence of toll increases, the burden of financing substantial health and safety improvements will fall on Merseyside's ratepayers, including vast numbers of people who do not currently use the tunnel. Hence the need for the Bill.
    Mr. Chapman: I do not accept that argument. We have been told that there is an obligation to repay money to the districts but my understanding is that, at least in some circumstances, that money has not been repaid but gone into the general accounts of Merseytravel.
    We need to explore, which I am attempting to do, how much money is around. I do not think that it is right in economic terms or any other terms that the users of the tunnel should fund transport schemes on Merseyside. I am content that the users of the tunnel should fund the tunnels and improvements to them, as well as better facilities in them—and, if need be, fund more tunnels—but I do not think that it is right and proper to use money raised from tunnel tolls to fund other projects.
    Mr. Field: Has not the sponsor of the Bill let the cat out of the bag? The objection that many of us have to the Bill is that it taxes the limited number of people who use the tunnel and that the money will be used to finance transport projects far away, which our constituents will not use. If the amendment were carried, there might not be enough money in the tunnels' budget to pay for basic repairs and health and safety work. The sponsor of the
    620
    Bill says that it would be unfair if taxpayers who never use the tunnel had to foot that bill, but the point behind all our amendments is that those who support the Bill wish to tax our constituents for the benefit of other constituents who never use the tunnel.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must again advise the House that issues of general principle in connection with the Bill are most appropriately discussed on Second Reading and on Third Reading. At the moment, we are discussing a particular group of amendments. The debate should be confined to those.
    Mr. Chapman: I hope that you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept my line of argument. What I propose to argue is that a five-yearly review is more appropriate than an annual review, or annual increase, whichever hon. Members prefer, because there is no need for increases in the first place. Part of that results from the accounting practices of the Merseyside passenger transport authority.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend makes much of the argument that there is loads of money sloshing around on Merseyside. He has repeated the claim that, hidden away within the accounts of Merseytravel, there is money that is either being wasted or not used for the purpose for which it was designated. Is he also saying that the five local authorities on Merseyside have money to spare that they can throw at the tunnels, disproportionately—I am one of the first to admit it—for the benefit of some constituents rather than others? Is the gist of his argument that the cost can be met from within the existing funds of the five local authorities, including Wirral?
    Mr. Chapman: I think that it can be met from the resources of Merseytravel and that there is scope for making more use of the ample resources that are available in Merseyside. I will develop that point later, I hope. I do not think that tunnel users should be expected to pay for other transport projects. It is a tax on them and it is not fair. My point, which is not a constituency one, is that, overall, if a tunnel toll is particular to the Merseyside economy, it will serve as a considerable competitive disadvantage to that economy because it deters investors, it deters foreign direct investment, and it costs people.
    For example, if John Lewis were to take a lorry through the tunnels four times a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, according to my calculation the overhead would be £10,000 in that lorry alone. If we multiply that figure by the number of lorries going to and fro from the docks, the number of delivery vans going through and all the people who are legitimately trying to get to work, we realise that we are talking about a considerable disadvantage to the Merseyside economy. If we then increase that considerable disadvantage year on year, whether we need to or not, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

    621
    Liverpool has just won the title of capital of culture, which will allow its development in various ways. Why, then, should we hinder that development by passing this Bill? Hindering that development is precisely what this Bill would do.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's amendment proposes a five-year review, yet he keeps referring to annual increases. What he means is annual reviews, which are not necessarily the same thing.
    Mr. Chapman: I thought that I had already answered that point, so I will not repeat it. What I am trying to say in my own awkward way is that it is said that Merseytravel goes in for some creative or unusual accounting, which allows profit from the tunnels to appear to be less than it really is. One difficulty with this issue is that when we try to raise it, somebody always tries to shut us up. When people raise it publicly, they are threatened with action. We may not be exclusively right in the views that we hold, and there may be nuances of error; but it is surely right and proper that we discuss these things openly and freely.
    Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend mentioned an internal loan and accounting practices. Does he agree that the internal loan appeared to be—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This cannot have anything to do with the amendment at all. The only threat to the free discussion of this issue by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) is from the Chair, in that I have to uphold the rules of the House to ensure that debate is strictly relevant to the proposals that he has placed before the House. He has been speaking for 43 minutes already and he is in danger of becoming a little repetitious. I simply give a first warning on that.
    Mr. Chapman: I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to deal with some other points. I have probably covered the point about Merseytravel's accounts, although not in the detail that I would have liked. However, there will be further opportunities to discuss it.
    The tunnels are in profit and there is no sign of them ceasing to be so. A five-yearly rise seems perfectly adequate to me, and, taking into account the fragility of the Merseyside economy, my amendment would limit the damaging effects on local industry and business of an opportunity to apply a year-on-year toll rise. The current arrangements are thoroughly bad, and a five-yearly review would be better.
    Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend might like to consider one aspect of the memorandum to the Bill. Merseyside passenger transport authority said that the
    "two cornerstones of this Government's policy on integrated transport are to develop public transport and reduce road traffic".
    If it is really true that Merseytravel wishes to reduce road traffic, it is going about it the wrong way. An increase in tolls will not be like a congestion charge, because demand to use the Mersey tunnels is inelastic. In
    622
    fact, such an increase will simply raise the authority's revenue without cutting traffic, because there is no alternative and there are no plans to help public transport going through the Mersey tunnels.
    Mr. Chapman: That is absolutely right. The fact remains that, judging by the bus services in my constituency and the letters that I receive about train services, switching to rail or to public transport in the form of coach journeys is not a practical alternative. Similarly, as I said earlier, switching to the Runcorn bridge is undesirable and not a practical alternative. It is already chronically congested to such an extent that proposals for another Mersey crossing as a response to the problem have already been made. Although the Bill is presented as a means of controlling traffic, it has nothing to do with that. It is simply another means of raising dosh—nothing more, nothing less.
    5.30 pm
    I shall proceed by examining the RPI minus X formula, which is specific to my proposed amendment. It uses a formula for raising tolls slightly different from Merseytravel's model. The current framework requires Merseyside passenger transport authority to justify any increase in tolls to the Secretary of State. The removal of that condition amounts to removal of accountability. Tolls could be raised in perpetuity, regardless of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and without the approval of any outside authority or tunnel users. If the MPTA is to maintain any semblance of accountability and credibility, it must either institute a robust and, to some extent, binding system of consultation or adjust its formula to that of RPI minus X.
    The aim is to have X set as a figure by the Secretary of State. The amendment would effectively institute a system commonly used among natural monopoly utilities to provide a regulatory check on rising prices. Price regulation is designed to control the abuse of market power. The aim is to ensure that prices are no higher than would be charged by an efficient company operating in a competitive market. As I have said, I view the MPTA as an organisation with a tendency to profligacy, which necessitates the introduction of such a system in order to enforce efficiencies in preference to allowing the current unchecked growth.
    Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the formula that he is helpfully setting out is similar in effect to the one that was applied to the privatised utilities? It has worked well in respect of the former public companies, to the benefit of consumers.
    Mr. Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend and I was going to make that point in a few moments.
    I have always felt that Merseytravel's chosen formula for annually reviewing tolls was flawed. Putting up prices in relation to inflation may seem reasonable, but inflation may not always be at its present level. During the Thatcher years, it reached 15 per cent., or thereabouts—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong. If we increased tunnel tolls by 15 per cent., without any effective consultative mechanisms in place, it would indeed be disastrous for the economy of Merseyside. It has to be remembered that the retail

    623
    prices index is based on the price of a basket of goods—essentially products such as food and fuel. The MPTA, the Mersey tunnels and other public utilities do not use them—or at least not in any large measure.
    I am not happy about the fact that Merseytravel is asking for an arbitrary power to raise tolls year on year.
    When price increases have been justified in the past, they have been granted, and I can see no reason why they should not be granted in future, provided a case is made for them.
    Stephen Hesford: Is my hon. Friend aware that while the Bill passes through the House, under the scheme for raising charges that currently exists, the Merseyside passenger transport executive—somewhat cheekily—is putting through an order to raise the cost of using the tunnels? That is happening under the old system, as we speak, which demonstrates that it can be used as and when necessary.
    Mr. Chapman: Absolutely, and I have no problem with tunnel toll increases if they are justified. In the past, when the executive has justified increases, it has obtained them. That is why I did not raise any objection in the consultation on the toll increase. If the executive can establish a need to do so, tolls should be increased. However, the Bill asks for toll increases without justification, save that the cost of living index has risen.
    RPI minus X is effectively a price control and a method of bringing efficiency and cost-effective service to a monopoly organisation, which is what the Mersey tunnels are, being publicly owned. It was originally implemented in the 1980s and 1990s to deal with poorly managed nationalised industries and it proved effective. Costs were cut and, eventually, significant price reductions were passed on to customers. Would not we like to see that in relation to the Mersey tunnels? Merseytravel should be made to conform to the restrictions, and efficiency savings need to be made if tolls are not to keep rising. I can see no case for increasing tolls, whether or not there is any cause to do so. In fact, I can see considerable harm being caused to the public of Merseyside and to the economy.
    It seems unfair that Merseytravel expects tunnel users to give and give, while it gives nothing back.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that an annual review based on the RPI, rather than RPI minus X, is the formula used for the Dartford and Severn crossings? Does he think that if it is appropriate in those cases, it is appropriate on Merseyside?
    Mr. Chapman: No, I do not. We are not discussing the Dartford or any other crossing: we are discussing the Mersey tunnels, which are a sort of artery that is peculiar to Merseyside. They are the busiest route in our anthill. They are an essential artery for the economy. The other crossings are national issues, but the Mersey tunnels are different.
    John McDonnell: Surely the point is that we are discussing the Mersey tunnels, not national tolling, so the issue is irrelevant. My hon. Friend said that he saw no cause to increase tolls. What would be a reason for an increase in tolls?
    Mr. Chapman: If there was an effective means of controlling traffic flows through the tunnel, it might be
    624
    one reason. Another reason might be a demonstrated shortage of funds in Merseytravel. Tunnel users have no choice but to go through them, be it to the night shift at Jaguar or to hospitals or other jobs.
    Stephen Hesford: To the theatre.
    Mr. Chapman: Theatre-goers have a degree of choice.
    For the most part, people go through the tunnels because they have to; they have no choice in the matter. On Second Reading, one hon. Member said that he went through the tunnels regularly, just for the pleasure of it. By and large, people do not do that; they make the journey out of necessity.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is overegging the pudding somewhat. I used to teach at Birkenhead tech, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I travelled every day, from Huyton to Birkenhead, on public transport—by train first, then on the underground loop. That is perfectly possible, and people do have choice. My hon. Friend should not be so misleading as to suggest that they do not have alternatives.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, young though he looks, it is a year or two since he worked at Birkenhead tech. I think that that was before the deregulation of bus services, although I may be wrong about that.
    Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether I explain myself badly, or whether my hon. Friend does not listen, but I travelled by train and on the underground loop from Liverpool city centre, and neither option has been affected in the slightest by bus deregulation.
    Mr. Chapman: I did not misunderstand the point at all. My point is that tunnel users have no choice. Bus services have deteriorated since my hon. Friend used to travel to Birkenhead, whether he used them or not. If my postbag is to be believed, the train services are pretty chronic—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. This is a very interesting discussion of the various modes of transport throughout Liverpool and the Wirral, but the hon. Gentleman should return to the fairly precise amendment to which he is speaking.
    Mr. Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    John McDonnell: My hon. Friend has said that an increase in price could be used to influence the flow of traffic through the tunnel. Does he agree with those who argue that alternative forms of transport exist and that increasing the charges in the proposed way is a form of congestion charging? Will that be part of the policy inflicted on the public as a result of the Bill?
    Mr. Chapmanrose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) must not get sidetracked

    625
    by interventions such as that. He was speaking very specifically to a group of amendments. He ought to do that now.
    John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I did not want to lead my hon. Friend astray. My question arose out of his speech.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We ought to get on with the debate.
    Mr. Chapman: At present, Merseytravel must justify increases in tolls. That should not change. Indeed, I think that Merseytravel should also be made to justify properly its spending on other projects, especially when using money from the tunnels. The formula RPI minus X provides an accountable system for that. It brings efficiencies and cost-effectiveness, and prevents wild increases in tolls.
    Across the utilities, the present statutory framework does not prescribe what form price regulation should take, but in practice the regulators have chosen to use RPI minus X. Price caps are set by the regulator for the period of a price review, which is typically five years, on the basis of detailed forecasts of costs and revenues provided by the regulated organisation. I see considerable merit in that, and there is no reason why it should not be applied to Merseyside passenger transport authority.
    In the immediate post-privatisation period, there were concerns over the level of profits made by some of the privatised companies, in spite of the price caps put in place on flotation. That is why the Government levied a windfall tax immediately on coming into power. That dealt with excess profits following the original privatisation. Subsequently, the mechanism has been tightened and there are more effective controls. They give the right incentives to deliver efficiencies and should continue to bear down on prices. If the system is good enough for the majority of our utilities, why cannot it be applied to the tunnels? As I hope I have demonstrated, that regulatory system is effective and flexible and, in most instances, has been used successfully.
    5.45 pm
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously. Will he confirm that his definition of efficiencies in the MPTA means job losses, and, if so, how many such losses would he expect to occur before he is satisfied with the situation?
    Mr. Chapman: No, efficiency does not mean job losses; it means effective operation. I do not have a dictionary with me, but the word certainly does not mean job losses; it means doing things in the best possible way.
    Judy Mallaber: What proportion of the costs would be for staffing? If operating efficiency did not come from staffing cuts, where does my hon. Friend imagine it would come from?
    Mr. Chapman: It is not for me to run the Mersey tunnels or the MPTA; it is for the chairman, the executive and the authority to decide on those things.
    626
    RPI minus X was applied effectively to utilities, so why are people saying that it would mean job losses if it was applied to the Mersey tunnels? That does not make sense.
    Stephen Hesford: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, new schedule 1, which I proposed, was not selected, but it included a short definition of "efficient manner" that my hon. Friend might agree was suitable. It stated that there should be value for money and that the management costs should not exceed—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The reason why amendments are not selected is well known to the hon. Gentleman. We cannot start to discuss amendments that have not been selected.
    Mr. Chapman: Whatever the definition of efficiency, in the absence of a regulator, the RPI minus X system would provide a check on the MPTA in the form of the Secretary of State. Indeed, I understand that the system would allow the Secretary of State to reduce tolls, if he saw fit, simply by raising X to a value higher than that of RPI.
    We need to establish a clear, long-term principle for price regulation that will ensure that consumers receive a fair deal, and that the legitimacy and stability of the regulatory system for the tunnels is maintained. We need to ensure that RPI minus X delivers that.
    The system provides incentives to efficiency in the absence of a regulator, relying on price regulation administered by the Secretary of State. That background both informs the case of the MPTA and carries it forward. It shows us the application of RPI minus X and the importance of transparency, which is sometimes difficult in such circumstances, in the mechanisms that would help to spread best practice and cost-effectiveness through accountability.
    The primary aim of price regulation is to protect consumers. One approach would be to rely exclusively on RPI minus X. An alternative would be to make greater use of error correction mechanisms as a supplement to RPI minus X, thereby providing a clear, built-in means of sharing the benefits when they differ from those envisaged when the price cap was set.
    Price regulation is designed to control abuse by a monopoly. The aim is to ensure that prices are no higher than those that would be charged by an efficient organisation in a competitive market.
    John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend clarify what he defines as a competitive market in this field?
    Mr. Chapman: In this field, there is no competitive market, so there must be a mechanism to arrive at one. That is what RPI minus X does.
    The basic system that I have set out will, I hope, institute accountability and regulation as a means to achieve efficiency and cost-effectiveness—strands that are currently lacking throughout the authority and that will not result from the Bill. That is why I am proposing this important amendment.
    Mr. Howarth: I hesitate to intervene again because I have had to correct my hon. Friend on so many

    627
    occasions, but will he confirm that RPI minus X, which he advocates, is the very formula that led to the bankrupting of Railtrack, that Mersey tunnel debt repayments amount to some £14 million a year—the answer that he was unable to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) a few moments ago—that maintenance, including the staff involved, costs £11 million a year and that capital refurbishment costs £7 million a year?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. Interventions are becoming very long.
    Mr. Chapman: We have been told that Railtrack was driven into bankruptcy by that mechanism, but to the best of my knowledge, it did not go into bankruptcy, and in my view, management, rather than the formula, was the problem.
    Mr. Howarth: I shall try to make this point later, but my hon. Friend is of course right, but the fact that Railtrack ended up having to be saved from bankruptcy proceedings by the then Secretary of State makes my point for me.
    Mr. Chapman: Well, I do not think that it does, nor do I think that my hon. Friend has corrected me in any instance. He has certainly made some contrary points, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be called corrections.
    I shall now finish. This important amendment would transform the nature of the MPTA and its relationship with local people and the local economy, and in my view it would make the relationship very much better and the organisation very much more effective.
    Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I enlist your guidance on this group of amendments? I am attracted by some amendments more than others. In respect of selection for voting, if I wanted to vote on amendment No. 35, for example, would it be in order to ask to vote on it individually in due course?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Depending on how the debate has gone and on how much debate has taken place on that amendment, there is no reason why the occupant of the Chair should not allow such a vote, but that is entirely a matter for the Chair.
    Bob Spink: I was the Chairman of the Committee that considered this, then opposed, private Bill some months ago. After one and a half days of sittings, the opponents withdrew and, therefore, the details—including amendments such as those in this group, which relate to tolls, the timing of the increases in tolls and the basis on which those increases would be determined—were not considered by that Committee in any way, shape or form. They were not scrutinised; the Bill itself was not scrutinised, so I must report to the House that what was broadly a bad and undemocratic Bill was not corrected and that it should now be rejected.
    Let me turn to the amendments in this group. In particular, I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 22, 23, 35 and 24.
    Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am grateful to him for informing
    628
    the House of his position during consideration in Committee. Having looked at the proceedings in Committee, is it his view, as it was mine, that he and other hon. Members were not helped in their inquiries by the answers that counsel for Merseytravel gave in Committee?
    Bob Spink: May I crave your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Yes, I think that it is right to suggest that the Committee did not feel that its concerns and worries were dealt with. In particular, the Committee did not deal with items relating to amendments such as those in this group—Nos. 22, 35 and so on. There were a number of significant problems that the Committee wished to explore, but we were unable to do so because a deal was done behind the Committee's back. It was simply reported to us that the opposition had withdrawn, and the Committee had to fold immediately, without further scrutiny of this bad and undemocratic Bill.
    Mr. Frank Field: Given that the hon. Gentleman chaired the Committee stage of this private Bill, what he has just said is immensely important. I wish him to emphasise it, because there is some criticism in Merseyside of those who wish to scrutinise the Bill properly, and we are dubbed "wreckers". It is important that people back home realise that had those who were lodging objections not done, as he described it, a deal behind the Committee's back, the Committee stage would have taken its proper time, with proper consideration, and would have reported—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. The hon. Gentleman who has the Floor ought now to deal with the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the serious allegations made about the way in which business was conducted surrounding this private Bill, and I seek your guidance. I presume that there is a mechanism in the House whereby the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and other Committee members, if they felt so persuaded, could take up their complaints about lack of co-operation in relation to the promoters' legal advisers on the Bill, and have the matter deliberated on. Could you advise us on what that mechanism is?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are all sorts of ways in which Members can go about their business in this House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. My concern is to preserve the business today. To that end, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor would deal with the amendments before the House.
    Bob Spink: I am delighted to turn to the amendments, which go some way towards removing the power to tax from a body that is not directly accountable to those on whom those taxes would fall. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) was therefore right to table amendments that seek to restrict the power of the Merseyside passenger transport authority to raise taxes through tolls. If the Bill is passed without amendment, the House will be unable to prevent the MPTA from

    629
    raising taxes. The MPTA would effectively have more power even than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at least nominally controllable by this House.
    Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman makes an issue of the power to tax by a body that is indirectly elected. It has already been said that that is not unique on Merseyside. The Merseyside police authority has the power to tax via a precept everybody on Merseyside, regardless of whether they use its facilities. What does he think of that—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is now moving all over the place. It is about narrowly defined amendments, and if the hon. Gentleman cannot address them, I must ask him to resume his seat.
    Bob Spink: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to address the amendments. Let me go straight to amendment No. 35, which relates to RPI minus X. Under that amendment, X is fixed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House, and this House is accountable to the population on whom the taxes would fall. It therefore strikes me that the amendment is extremely democratising and entirely worthy, and is therefore worthy of our support.
    Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday mentioned to the House moving away from the RPI to a more European model? Would the hon. Gentleman like to see a more European model inserted into the Bill?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the Chair.
    6 pm
    Bob Spink: I do not think that the amendment contains a European model, and I would not support such a measure.
    It is not right to say that just because the system contains some anomalies and several non-democratic bodies are effectively able to raise taxation without representation, we should create another such body. The whole point of the amendments is to seek to make the Bill more democratic and taxation procedures more accountable to the people on whom the taxes would fall. I support the amendments, so far as they go, and if possible, I would like them to go further.
    Mr. Field: I support amendment No. 18, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). I shall also speak to amendment No. 35.
    I have a different frame of mind from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). I do not share his views about the transport authority. I have been a Member of the House for a little longer than him and have had eye-to-eye contact with several bodies whose behaviour reflects badly on my constituents' welfare and with which I am unhappy. I rejoice that I am not trying to have an eye-to-eye with the transport authority today.
    630
    Recent changes have been beneficial. I admire my hon. Friend's courage for speaking as he did and saying what he believed to be true while knowing that those views would get back to the people about whom he spoke. I usually find it easier to be rude to people than to be polite, so I have a slightly different role this evening vis-aacute-vis the transport authority.
    It is worth putting on record the fact that amendment No. 35 relates to a different period from that covered by my stewardship of my constituency. It also relates directly to my hon. Friend's questions about efficiency. The amendment and the way in which he spoke to it were attractive.
    I shall tell the House a tale. In my early days as a Member, the tunnel workers held a strike. The then tunnel authorities put out honesty buckets and found that they collected more money from the buckets than they did when the staff were at work and tolls were collected. That might suggest that it is totally proper that the transport authority in our area, as opposed to authorities about which I know nothing, has its mind wonderfully concentrated on finding ways to run the tunnels more efficiently.
    Although I admire the skills of the senior officers who look after the transport authority, we all know what happens if we have a mechanism that concentrates the mind wonderfully—that is what Dr. Johnson said about being hanged in the morning. The RPI minus X provision in amendment No. 35 might well do that, and I hope that we will have the chance to vote on it.
    Bob Spink rose—
    Mr. Field: I was about to address the argument made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I shall give way to him first.
    Bob Spink: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on tabling amendment No. 18, because it would achieve something laudable. It would force the Merseyside passenger transport authority to examine its efficiency and try to find management and operational efficiencies, as every other public body—police forces, educational establishments or hospitals—is forced to do. Leaving the Bill unamended would be a bad thing because it would give the authority the power to raise taxes whether or not it examined its efficiency, and would give the House no means of controlling that.
    Mr. Field: It would indeed, and I wish to address that point. What is so extraordinary about the Bill if it is not amended is that it gives the Merseyside passenger transport authority powers that we have jealously guarded over the centuries because we are unwilling to concede them to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We limit every taxation measure that the Chancellor brings to this place by giving him authority to raise taxes for one year only. The Bill would give to a body that is indirectly responsible to elected bodies in Merseyside powers that far extend those we give to our Chancellor. As soon as I read the Bill, I realised that that was unacceptable. There is much in it that I support, as I shall make clear when I speak to amendment No. 18.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I seek clarification on two points. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he does not believe that the staff of Merseyside passenger transport authority are thieves? Will he also acknowledge that the inflation increases enjoyed by the fire authority and the police authority are awarded without the preamble that the MPTA is expected to pursue to get increases to support its operational activities?
    Mr. Field: I have already learned about the dangers of responding to interventions, partly because I do not want to incur your disfavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and partly because I want to emphasise something that my hon. Friend said when she responded to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was dragging a red herring in the path of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, who did not answer the question that he raised. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) did, and that answer is crucial to the argument that I want to develop.
    I will not respond to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby because I do not wish to attack the transport authority. It is not its fault that it has been set up by Parliament in the way that it has. Bodies such as hospitals, school boards and transport authorities will increasingly be elected directly, certainly before our political lives are over. That is what our constituents will demand of us and legislation will be introduced to that effect. However, we are not discussing that today.
    I have no wish to cast aspersions on the transport authority. I do not want to consider the democratic deficit. That is the body we have. I do not, however, want to give it taxing powers of the nature that are set out in the Bill for the very reason that my good hon. Friend gave when she responded to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. She said how awful it would be if amendment No. 35 were agreed to, because if it forced such efficiencies and sent the accounts into deficit, who would bail out the transport authority? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton suggested that it would be the local authorities, which previously had to shoulder the body's deficits. The point he raised was proper. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said how unfair it would be that those who largely do not use the tunnels would have to make up in their council tax the deficit that might arise if amendment No. 35 were accepted. That gave the game away.
    Of course, we expect hon. Members whose constituents rarely, if ever, use the tunnel to be in favour of the measure. I have had informal talks with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who taught at what he called Birkenhead tech. That shows how long ago it was—it has changed its name twice since its students benefited from his teaching skills.
    Mr. George Howarth: The body in question may well have changed its name, but I have not changed mine. If I may correct myself, it was called Birkenhead college of technology—I was just using a shorthand description.
    Mr. Field: Indeed. Some of my constituents who come to me to talk about their welfare problems refer to the
    632
    unemployment assistance board—a body that was active in the 1930s. They know that the name has changed, but other things have not. My hon. Friend is right; those of us on my side of the river knew perfectly well what he was referring to.
    To return to the substantive point, I share the anguish of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that her constituents who rarely use the tunnel may, if amendment No. 35 is accepted, have to foot the bill for the deficit. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South has the cheek to suggest that her constituents should pay extra money so that people from Wirral, South, Wirral, West, areas further down the peninsula and Birkenhead can use the tunnel. May I make the case for such payments by asking a rhetorical question? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby not understand the anguish of people whom we are trying to represent and who use the tunnels? Why should they pay over and above the cost of the tunnels, and other measures included in the Bill, so that there can be transport improvements in her constituency, where people rarely use the tunnel? Why should my constituents' contributions to the toll revenue pay for those improvements?
    I am all in favour of the transport authority seeking ways in which to improve our transport, but I do not totally share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South about the authority. I have just moved house in Birkenhead, and use public transport more than I used to. Given the constraints on such transport, I am impressed. Of course we want further improvements, but when we make them, the cost of doings so should be fairly shared. People who are clustered around the tunnel entrances on both sides of the river constitute most of those who use the tunnel, and they should not have to pay for improvements in Crosby, Southport and elsewhere. When we come to discuss improvements, we should think about the transport authority's general powers to raise money and the general powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise money and subsidise public transport. We should consider using those broader shoulders to carry the burden of financing improvements in Merseyside overall.
    Stephen Hesford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Field: In a moment. I am not asking people who have to use the tunnel to contribute more than anybody else or pay for improvements to the exclusion of others. I shall give way to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, but I shall then talk about what we should give to the transport authority in the Bill, although I am not in favour of its final catch-all clause.
    Stephen Hesford: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Bill's sponsor is willing to swap what she believes is one iniquity—it arose when the cluster of local authorities that had put money into the Mersey tunnels wanted their money back—for another? The difference is that the new regime, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, will benefit the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) at the expense of ours. When money was loaned by the five

    633
    local authorities to bail out the Mersey tunnel, it was believed that that would have economic benefits for the Mersey sub-region as a whole.
    Mr. Field: I certainly agree with that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will catch the Deputy Speaker's eye so that he can develop that important view. I appeal to my hon. Friends, who are fine representatives, as I try to be in Birkenhead, to examine the issue of taxation that was raised by the previous speaker, and how that ought to override the partial interest that they have in the measure to get my constituents and other constituents who have to use the tunnel to pay for improvements in their constituencies.
    6.15 pm
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The point that I made did not ignore the fact that the people of Sefton and of Crosby have made multi-million pound donations to the development and management of the tunnels, but there comes a point when an ongoing subsidy is difficult to manage and difficult to accept, when 93 per cent. of my constituents do not use the facility. When money is tight, we must look at priorities. That is the view that I have taken on their behalf.
    Mr. Field: I do not dispute that for a moment, but it is separate from the substantive issue that we are debating, or anything to do with the Bill that my hon. Friend has been proposing. When I get on to amendment No. 18—
    Mr. Chapman rose —
    Mr. Field: I want to give way to as many hon. Members as possible, although I know the dangers of doing so. I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the economies of the tunnel do not relate to the users of the tunnel alone? The economies of the tunnel affect people throughout Merseyside and far beyond—people in north Wales, east Lancashire and, in some circumstances, Cheshire—[Interruption]—and Sefton. Adding charges to the tunnels would be detrimental to them.
    Mr. Field: Of course it would. I am sorry that, because of my hon. Friend's urgency in completing his contribution, he did not have a chance to develop that.
    I again appeal to hon. Members to put aside their partial views on the measure and the immediate advantages in favour of the longer-term advantage. In that intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was rightly hinting at the fact that in trying to represent the views of our constituents, all of us have a vital interest in seeing our region do as well as possible. If there is a measure that would make our region less attractive and pull away from Liverpool the huge spin-off of regeneration that came from Glasgow, and the cultural effects of that right down to the north Wales border, it will be to the detriment of all our
    634
    constituents if it takes effect. We should put aside the partial interests represented in the Bill and concentrate on the major issues.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Field: I shall give way in the order in which I saw hon. Members seeking to intervene.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is high-minded of my right hon. Friend to appeal to objectivity and resolve, but none of us is perfect. Will he explain how he thinks I should react, given that of the regular users of the Mersey tunnel—private car owners—23 per cent. come from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman)? I understand my hon. Friend arguing on behalf of those people, but only a small proportion—13 per cent.—come from the entire city of Liverpool, and a very small proportion of those come from my constituency. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is reasonable to feel partial towards those people who get nothing out of the tunnel?
    Mr. Field rose —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) replies to that, I am sure he will appreciate that the argument is starting to widen out again. I know he did not intend that, but I should be grateful if he would gently return to the amendments before the House.
    Mr. Field: I was going to resist answering that question, on the basis that it has nothing to do with the measures before us. If my hon. Friend was saying that all the major local authorities bailed out the two tunnels in the past and that, when it comes to paying back the debts, they should get their money back, I totally support him. When my hon. Friends allow me to get on to amendment No. 18, I shall make that plain. I am not asking hon. Members representing constituents with a vested interest in terms of the money that they sank into the tunnels in order to keep them open, largely for the benefit of constituents on the Wirral—although of course, there is also a general benefit to the economy and culture of our region as a whole—not to take such a position. I have no wish to table amendments to try to rob constituents in other parts of Liverpool of their proper due in repayment of the money that they gave to bail out and keep open the tunnels, which are a primary concern to our side in the Wirral, as a lot of employment used to be over in Liverpool, although that is becoming less so as employment is developed in north Wales. Of course the issue is more important to us. None the less, previous debts have to be met, and that should happen without the imposition on us of a tax for ever and a day until we get around to removing the Bill, should it appear on the statute book.
    Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing his arguments very carefully, as he always does. Does he not regret that amendment No. 18, which seeks to give the MPTA the ability to freeze tolls, was not properly

    635
    discussed by my Committee? Those who opposed the Bill, so that it went to an Opposed Private Bill Committee—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to previous proceedings. We now have the opportunity to debate the amendment, and that is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Field: I know that you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the reason why some of us, in our excitement and the urgency of our wish to discuss the issues, might stray a little beyond any amendment—I have been very careful to resist my hon. Friends' efforts to bring me out of order—is that there was no proper Committee stage. If I had not, in my naive way, thought that those who puffed up their chests and told us that the provisions would be ruthlessly examined in Committee were serious, I would have made some objections to ensure that we had a proper Committee stage.
    Bob Spink: Returning to amendment No. 18, surely the ability to freeze tolls would help businesses in the general locality and region, and thereby enable that region to generate more jobs and economic activity. That was the very point that the right hon. Gentleman was making before I so rudely and improperly interrupted him previously.
    Mr. Field: When I get around to speaking to amendment No. 18, I hope to deal with those points and to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and others that my amendment does not seek to rat on the tunnels authority's historic debt to the surrounding authorities. The money was given and it was most beneficial to constituencies on the other side of the river, and it should be repaid handsomely and with interest to those authorities. However, that is a separate issue from the suggestion that our constituents should be taxed for ever and a day to pay for some good things in Crosby, Southport or even Walton.
    Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend mentioned the benefits that could accrue across Merseyside and referred to cultural and business activities. Does he agree that sporting activities could also benefit? One particular sporting activity that we want to succeed is the open championship that is coming to Hoylake in 2006.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead must resist these interventions. When he says that he intends to resist them, he must genuinely do so.
    Mr. Field: I shall resist responding to the intervention, although I had rather a good way in which to link it to the figures on movements through the tunnels that were given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton.
    I have so far spoken in support of amendment No. 35, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, and supported the very important point on taxation that was made by the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, which would have been probed
    636
    properly had we had a proper Committee stage. We would then have had the Committee's report for the House to consider at this stage of the Bill's proceedings, but we have been denied that. I am therefore immensely grateful for the seriousness of the Chairman's intervention on the whole tenor of the Bill.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it was not possible to have a Committee, as hon. Members would understand it, on the Bill—in fact, a Committee on Opposed Bills sat, but a number of petitioners to that Committee withdrew their objections prior to its taking evidence. Moreover, my right hon. Friend had the opportunity, as we all did—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we are not here to debate previous proceedings. The hon. Lady's comments are quite out of order.
    Mr. Field: I will again resist any temptation to answer my hon. Friend's points directly or indirectly.
    I wish to move proceedings forward by speaking to amendment No. 18, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West. I tabled the amendment because we did not have the consideration in Committee that I would have hoped for, and because of the intransigence of the people who are promoting the Bill. We were denied a proper Committee stage because people withdrew their objections.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman very directly that he now has the opportunity to debate the amendments that are before the House, one of which is in his name, and I think that he should do precisely that.
    Mr. Field: I am desperately trying to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking to amendment No. 18.
    Because of the intransigence of those who are promoting the measure and are not prepared to consider reasonable argument outside this Chamber, and because we were denied a report from the Committee stage that might have helped our deliberations, I tabled several amendments, one of which is amendment No. 18. It relates to schedule 1(1) and (3).
    Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend said that there was no opportunity to debate the measures. Can he tell me how many meetings have been made available between him—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to that is no, he cannot.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As did your predecessor in the Chair, you have properly and repeatedly drawn our attention to what is and is not a proper intervention, yet hon. Friends—and, I confess, on at least one occasion myself—have repeatedly led speakers in the opposite direction. Is it not about time that we all realised that we should be debating the amendment?
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order, but it would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman took his own advice.
    Mr. Field: We are told that if one sinner repents, there is much rejoicing in heaven. If my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East will not try to lead us further astray with his interventions, it will help our proceedings.
    Amendment No. 18 relates to proposed new section 91(3), which has five sub-paragraphs, in schedule 1. I do not object to the transport authority being given the power to vary tunnel costs under the Bill so that the costs and expenses that it incurs in managing, operating and maintaining the tunnels' undertakings are met. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggested that somehow we were trying to move amendments that would mean that the authority could not maintain the tunnels in the way in which people expect. I have no wish for the authority to be without those funds.
    Sub-paragraph (b) would ensure that the authority had the money to pay off the interest on money that had been borrowed to finance the tunnels' construction and some past debt. I do not object to tunnel tolls being set to a level that fully covers maintenance and the health and safety aspects, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby rightly drew attention earlier. We are also not in the business of ratting on people who have lent money. There is a perfect legal right for interest to be paid on the debts and for the money to be repaid.
    I do not object to the authority having the power to change tolls under the Bill and thus ensure that payments to the reserves and renewals fund are maintained in respect of tunnel undertakings. I do not want to change the measure in any way that would mean that, in future, our local authorities might again be called upon to bail out the tunnels' operation. I do not wish the transport authority to be without the power to maintain the ferries. We all know that a specific private Bill would be required to get rid of the ferries.
    However, I object to sub-paragraph (e). When we have covered the costs of maintenance, met all the debt interest payments, repaid the debts, got sufficient reserves in the funds to obviate the need ever to call on local authorities to bail the operations out again—the reserves are not defined; we trust the transport authority on that—and covered the costs of ferry maintenance, the PTA should not have the power to levy general taxation, specifically on those who use the tunnels, to pay for other PTA expenditure, however important, necessary or beneficial. That burden should not fall on my constituents, or those in neighbouring constituencies on either side of the tunnel entrances. If we wish to make improvements, which I support, the money should come from general, not specific funds.
    Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. Has he had the opportunity to undertake any research into how long a freeze of the kind mentioned in amendment No. 18 might reasonably be expected to last? How often in any given period does he believe such a freeze might occur? What circumstances in any given period are likely to arise that
    638
    would make it likely that the passenger transport authority would operate the provisions in the amendment, if it were inserted into the Bill?
    Mr. Field: That is the last intervention that I am going to take on this amendment, because most of the time that I have been speaking, I have been replying to interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby, for Liverpool, Walton, for Wirral, West, for Wirral, South, from the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and from the Chairman of the Committee. Obviously, I wish to make my point as clearly and powerfully as possible.
    There is much merit in amendment No. 35, in that it will be a stimulus to running our transport authority even more efficiently than the present incumbents do. It is of great importance to all of us, when we try to plan each day's work—let alone each month's or each year's work—to have guidelines such as these. The freezing that is mentioned in my amendment merely relates to the fact that, if we granted the transport authority the power to raise the toll by 10p—a totally proper thing to do; we do not want people putting bits and pieces of change into the machines, which would make them even more difficult to run than at present—there could not be another automatic 10p increase until the bonus increase from a single 10p increase had been wiped out. That is a small but reasonable part of the amendment.
    My main proposal is to remove schedule 1(1)(3)(e) from the record. The transport authority has a cheek to come before the House—I do not blame it for trying it on, but I hope that we are not going to fall for it—to suggest that we should permanently delegate to it powers that we have jealously guarded from giving to any Chancellor of the Exchequer for more than 400 years. It would be wrong to entrust a non-elected body, even if it has elected representatives on it, with the task—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The words that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to leave out are covered by an amendment in the next group—amendment No. 3.
    Mr. Field: But they are linked to this—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not question the Chair. We shall deal with those matters when we come to amendment No. 3.
    Mr. Field: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I commend amendment No. 18 to the House. I hope that hon. Members realise how narrowly focused it is. Some of the other amendments are much more ambitious and sweeping than mine. I hope that the House will accept this amendment and the one that I hope to be able to speak to later in our proceedings.
    Dr. Pugh: For a private Bill, this one has had a very eventful life. We are all veterans of the gruelling campaign on Second Reading, followed by the equally gruelling campaign for the carry-over, and we are very familiar with the guerrilla tactics of the hon. Members representing the Wirral, who, to be fair, have been steadfast in their opposition, and cunning in their tactics. As matters have progressed, however, it is

    639
    difficult to understand the rationale behind their continued opposition, because argument after argument has been disposed of, and petitions have been withdrawn. Tonight, instead of substantial argument, we have heard a prolonged attack on the staff, the members and the executive of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. To some extent, that is a sign that those hon. Members are losing the argument.
    The Bill is not about having, or not having, tolls. We have tolls. It is not about high tolls or low tolls—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not deliver a Second Reading speech or make general remarks; he must speak directly to the amendments.
    Dr. Pugh: That is exactly what I am endeavouring to do. Primarily, we are discussing a mechanism for the setting of tolls, which is what all the amendments are about, and the revising of that mechanism.
    We suggest the replacement of a toll-setting system that allows each and every rise to be accompanied by a public inquiry with a system allowing the MPTA, with all its faults, to raise tolls in line with inflation—according to choice, and at the time of an annual review—and to raise them above inflation only with the consent of the Secretary of State. There are arguments, into which I will not venture now, about what the surplus should be used for; amendment No. 18 touches on that. We could argue about whether it should be used for transport purposes, for instance. What we are really arguing about in this context, however, is the change in the mechanism.
    I understand that the proposed change is objected to principally because of a fear of economic damage—economic damage to individuals who, according to the hon. Member for Wirral, South, already spend as much as £600 a year on travelling to and fro, and economic damage to business, which has also been mentioned today.
    Stephen Hesford: Is there not a wider case than the "economic damage" case, which the hon. Gentleman and his constituents may wish to consider? Is there not the possibility of a cost to Merseyside as a whole in terms of opportunity?
    Dr. Pugh: In earlier debates Members have emphasised the issue of cultural loss. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) also mentioned cancer patients going to Clatterbridge. The main point people are making, however, is that there will be appreciable costs to the citizens of Wirral, or to the community of Merseyside as a whole, in terms of economic output.
    Labour Members, fearing that economic danger, would obviously prefer to retain the right to a public inquiry, rather than an inquiry involving the MPTA; but it is difficult for Members who are not from the Merseyside area to grasp what is wrong with a local authority body keeping charges in line with inflation., and why each and every protest should end in a public inquiry. Anyone who has served on a local authority body knows that, in the case of capital and revenue
    640
    budgets, fees and charges are reviewed annually—yet involving the MPTA and other such bodies in the process is apparently a reprehensible crime.
    Mr. Field: One of the attractive aspects of the Liberals' standing for election in Liverpool has been that over a period of years they proposed to increase council tax by less than the rate of inflation, and they now propose no increase at all. If such a stimulus to the good management of its affairs is good for the city of Liverpool, why is it not good for the PTA?
    Dr. Pugh: It may or may not be good, depending on the circumstances. I have to say that amendment No. 18 is redundant, because under the current legislation, if the MPTA judges freezing the toll to be in the interests of the economic welfare of Liverpool, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Trying to inhibit it from reviewing the toll annually or raising it in line with inflation is a different matter.
    Stephen Hesford: Can the hon. Gentleman give me a single instance of a freezing of the toll during its life of 70-odd years?
    Dr. Pugh: One would also be hard pushed to find an occasion on which council tax was frozen under past Labour administrations in Liverpool, but it can happen and it might happen.
    6.45 pm
    Whether or not the legislation is passed tonight, an indirectly elected body will still levy a tax. Voting the legislation out will not change that. However, that body can be extensively lobbied, and has some good professional advice and a degree of democratic accountability—a lot more than exists, for example, in the police authority, of which I was a member. Hon. Members need reminding that any plans formulated by the MPTA for funding need to go through the local transport plan process. The community needs to be consulted widely on them: bodies in the community and local councils need to be consulted.
    Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman said that the tolls have always been there. They have; but the reason they were introduced was to pay off the debt of the Mersey tunnels. That has always been the priority. The hope was that, when that eventually happened, the tolls could go altogether. Now the tolls will be used not just to pay off the debt but to provide revenue for services not linked to the tunnels themselves. That is people's fear: the tolls will not be swept away.
    Dr. Pugh: I am not aware that people in Merseyside are counting on the tolls not being levied for their Christmas money. The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that the original purpose of the tolls was to pay the capital cost and that the purpose is being changed. That is conceded. We support the change in purpose because it is a good one. It feeds into an integrated transport system, which I hope all hon. Members support; but however one views the MPTA and local authority bodies on Merseyside, they have no fundamental interest in wreaking economic havoc in the area. They

    641
    have to take on board the interests of the citizens, who elect them in one way or another, and of local business, which they are compelled to consult regularly. The realisation that the MPTA has only a modest objective has led to a reduction in argument and to the general acceptance by most people that the legislation is reasonable.
    The amendment appears to look at a cumbersome and indefensible old system, to look at a simple, better, more rational system that could be defended outside Merseyside, and to suggest instead a series of cumbersome new systems built around the five-year system, which I do not think anyone apart from the supporters of the amendment understand.
    Stephen Hesford: If it is streamlining the system, why does the Bill keep, as well as any new system, the old system?
    Dr. Pugh: I think that a clear preference is expressed in the Bill for the new system. The hon. Gentleman would not argue against it if he thought that the old system was going to persist. Amendments tabled by Labour Members are designed not to make it more workable but to make it unworkable and confusing and to cause delay. If we could assure you that the MPTA was the most efficient body on God's earth and that it was thoroughly accountable and ready to put its head on the block every year for election, you would not withdraw your opposition—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
    Dr. Pugh: I apologise.
    Mr. Field: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so misunderstood my contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). We are prepared to see that delegation of authority. We are not trying to argue for the status quo and the bizarre procedure where, every time the body wanted to change the toll by 10p, we had to debate it in the House of Commons. We want it to behave responsibly in exercising that power.
    Dr. Pugh: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I have cast aspersions on his intentions or those of other Labour Members. I am sure that their intentions are thoroughly honourable, that they would like to have a rational discussion of the Bill, and that they have done all they can to ensure that that takes place—but at no point do they deal with the fundamental concern. The Mersey tunnels have lost £10 million on average; they are not losing that at the moment but they have in the past. Unless the legislation is changed, that will still be a problem for most Merseyside Members.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall try to explain briefly the particular circumstances affecting my constituents that cause me to support the amendments, which seek to create delays, RPI minus X and then stability. My constituents have a special set of circumstances, and all those present accept that they
    642
    constitute a large proportion of the users of the tunnels. Of course, my authority is not one of the shareholding authorities of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. It is argued that the fact that it is not a shareholder creates the logic of no representation without taxation, because it has not been responsible for the debts. However, the reverse is equally true: proportionately, it puts a huge amount of money into the authority, so it is entitled to a say.
    In my view, legislation is required to bring about delay, RPI minus X and stability, thereby creating the five-year period. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will acknowledge that section 1(1)(h) of the Local Government Act 1999, which brought about the concept of best value, refers to
    "a metropolitan county passenger transport authority".
    The Act describes it as a "best value authority" that
    "must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness."
    The Act later states:
    For the purpose of deciding how to fulfil the duty arising under subsection (1) an authority must consult … representatives of persons liable to pay any tax, precept or levy to or in respect of the authority".
    During previous debates on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the argument from Members—including from some of my hon. Friends—that my constituents have no locus in this matter, but the law of the land says that they do. The 1999 Act also places a duty on this same authority to consult
    "representatives of persons who … are likely to use services provided by the authority, and … representatives of persons appearing to the authority to have an interest in any area within which the authority carries out functions."
    If you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our capacity as constituency Members, are not representatives, or if our local authorities are not representatives, I honestly do not know to whom or to what the Act is referring. The position is clear cut: there is a statutory duty on the authority to consult either me—as my constituents' representative—or my local authority, or to create a mechanism. That is precisely why it is legitimate for me to argue in favour of the amendments that would create this delay, or for the specific utility formula described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), which I find slightly more palatable.
    Following the privatisation of some of the utilities, we have witnessed the creation of the RP1 minus X formula and heard arguments in favour of building a stability process into the mechanism. I shall not repeat them, because I appreciate that colleagues are getting itchy feet. However, until I hear that a mechanism has been devised by the MPTA, in consultation with representatives of my constituency, it is perfectly in order for me to argue in favour of these sorts of delays.
    One of the documents associated with the Bill—the promoter's statement—includes an interesting graph, showing future traffic growth. Unfortunately, we do not have the facility to display graphics in the Chamber—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) evidently believes that we should not have it, but never mind. The graph is preceded by a couple of paragraphs dealing with Merseytravel's logic for creating the RPI formula. The

    643
    graph shows traffic flow forecasts both with and without the application of the formula. Precisely the sort of thing that should be discussed in consultation with the local authorities in my area and with me is the logic behind the changing graph—effectively a missing bit. There may be a perfectly sound logic to it. What follows in paragraph 13 on page 3 of the document is, to all intents and purposes, a congestion charge.
    I am not opposed to congestion charging: far from it. I declare a minor beneficial interest, in that I am exempt from the congestion charge in London because my car runs on liquid petroleum gas. If the graph is intended to demonstrate the depressant effect of the clause in the context of congestion charging, it is an argument that should be further pursued. It should also be examined in the context of whether other congestion charging, in the city centre or in Birkenhead, could also apply in parallel. What effect would that have on motorists? We need to ascertain whether RPI in the clause or RPI minus X in the amendment is the legitimate way of proceeding, and I want such a discussion to take place.
    We could examine the history of the debts and find all sorts of reasons why they should not have accrued, but I personally do not blame the current management, because the reasons are much more deep seated. However, in view of the consequences of creating a fixed formula by which the authority should proceed, I am taking the opportunity to plead with the passenger transport authority and the Minister to join up and ensure that the principle set out in clause 1 of the best value legislation to which I referred applies equally to the Bill when it becomes an Act. I stress "when it becomes an Act", because it is not my intention to filibuster the Bill and be called to order.
    The three core principles set out in the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South cannot be understood in the absence of the proper explanation that I have just set out about the future traffic growth scenario. That scenario, shown up to 2027 in the graph, shows an increase of about 4 million vehicles on one assessment and 2 million on another, which amounts to a huge revenue-raising exercise in itself.
    Bob Spink rose—
    Mr. Miller: I am not giving way. How can that justify RPI standing on its own? I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) in an earlier intervention—that it does not have to be RPI and could be something else. However, if it is to be something else, I insist that the Bill, together with best value legislation, requires the MPTA to consult people in my constituency in a proper manner.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I congratulate my colleagues who have spoken so well today on the amendments and I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, which are supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), try to change the time from which indexation would run. The tunnels' tolls were last increased, as hon. Members will know, on 1 December
    644
    1999, and it is only right and proper—and appropriate—that the indexation of tolls should apply from 1999.
    The amendments also ignore the management of the tunnels' future traffic growth, which would be far easier to review on a yearly basis, rather than on a quinquennial basis.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Of course I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend's views, but I wonder why she claims that indexation should go back to 1999, when there is no evidence that the passenger transport authority is short of money. Why should the tunnel users be penalised when there is no demonstrable need for them to be so?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: As I said, the last tunnel toll increase was in 1999. There has been no increase subsequently, which is why it is appropriate for the review to start in 1999.
    7 pm
    Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend will not wish to mislead the House inadvertently on that point. She will know, as I mentioned earlier, that there is an order in the offing to change the toll from £1.20 cash for a car to £1.30. That is happening as we speak, so the situation is not exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend is correct. If the House sees fit to give the Bill good passage, that increase might not be necessary. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the amendments at hand, and we are not here to debate that particular point.
    Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 run counter to the annual review of tolls that forms part and parcel of a regulatory, inflation-related review of toll levels and, if necessary, increases. They are therefore not acceptable. In the permanently low-inflation society that we have enjoyed of late, a review of tolls every five years might be appropriate, but we may not be in a low-inflation society in five or 10 years' time. Management must seek to manage for all conditions. With a review every five years, the revenues would quickly fall behind costs, the traffic restraint effect of the tolls would be reduced, and users would face a large toll increase every five years, which would be difficult to plan for. An increase every five years is far more difficult to accommodate than an annual increase.
    Amendments Nos. 35 and 24 are contrary to the Bill's proposed use of RPI, which is the right index to use, especially given the arrangements that are in place at the Dartford and Severn crossings—as was pointed out earlier.
    Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not take precedence over existing Acts of Parliament, and that it must be read in parallel with other legislation, including the best value legislation?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes. I cannot think of any immediate reasons why it should not be treated in that way. However, I am minded that God took only seven days to create the world, whereas we have spent about 1,000 days on the Bill. For most us, it is complex in the extreme.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Bill is complex and it has taken a long time to consider, but does my hon. Friend agree

    645
    that the normal give and take in debates such as this would have allowed her to secure her Bill this evening? The problem is that the authority that she represents is not prepared to listen to or concede any of our arguments.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically ungenerous. The promoters of the Bill have tried to do everything in their power to meet and reassure those hon. Members who object to the Bill.
    After Second Reading, the Bill went through to a Committee unopposed. That arrangement may not suit some hon. Members, but it is the only procedure available for consideration of a Bill such as this. There was also an opportunity for petitioners to advance their arguments and concerns, but they were withdrawn.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently bring the hon. Lady back on track? She should talk about the amendments.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Amendments Nos. 35 and 24 run counter to the annual review of tolls that form part of the principle of regular inflation-related reviews of toll levels and, if necessary, increases. Therefore, I suggest that the amendments are not acceptable.
    Finally, amendment No. 18 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he proposes to insert a power to freeze toll prices when the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without a rise. The amendment also provides that the toll would be suspended where the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without toll revenue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say whether that is an accurate understanding of the amendment.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is right in her reading of that amendment, and of the others in my name.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I read amendment No. 18 with some interest, and I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks. He attempted to argue that tolls should be increased in ways other than those set out in the Bill. However, the second part of the amendment anticipates a situation that has never arisen, and which is never likely to arise. That situation is one where the tolls can be suspended if the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without toll revenue. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which that wonderful option might arise.
    Mr. Field: Again, I must be careful, as this matter relates to the other amendment in my name. However, it is possible that a stage could be reached when debts have been repaid and reserves accumulated. In those circumstances, the toll would not require a further increase until some time in the future, when additional revenue—over and above the amount previously achieved through tolls—would be needed.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, issues of maintenance and health and
    646
    safety in the tunnels have an impact on the bottom line of the Merseyside passenger transport authority's annual accounts. In light of that, my right hon. Friend and I will be a long time dead before we reach the circumstances that he describes in the amendment.
    Stephen Hesford: If my hon. Friend is right and the situation that amendment No. 18 is designed to meet has not arisen in living memory and is unlikely to arise, what is the objection to the provision? The amendment is not mandatory but permissive. What is the harm in including it, in case—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) argued so persuasively—such a situation were to arise?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but we have to deal with reality. The authority—the promoters of the Bill—tried to envisage all possible scenarios, but that scenario is highly unlikely so it has not been considered.
    I want to deal more fully with the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. It ignores one of the principles of the Bill, which is wrapped up in the RPI-related provisions—that the tunnels' tolls must be used as a means to manage further traffic levels. The first part of the amendment is unnecessary, given that the powers under section 92C—
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend elucidate for the House how increasing the Mersey tunnels' tolls will control the flow of traffic?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Given my hon. Friend's expert knowledge and the expert advice that he has received, it would ill become me to offer him an answer. I think that the answer lies in his hands.
    Mr. Field: It seems that we are extending the Bill from a measure that would give authority to raise tolls to one that will control congestion. That is not in the Bill.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution but I must press on, as we have much more to do.
    In conclusion, I have given substantial thought to the amendments and I do not agree with them. The Bill's provisions are acceptable and have been adequately debated.
    Mr. Kilfoyle rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 70.

    Division No. 224]

    [7:13 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Heath, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Heppell, John

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Hermon, Lady

    Alexander, Douglas

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Hodge, Margaret

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Holmes, Paul

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Austin, John

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Baird, Vera

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Barrett, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Benn, Hilary

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Betts, Clive

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Blackman, Liz

    Jamieson, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Jenkins, Brian

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Burnett, John

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Burnham, Andy

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Burnside, David

    Kemp, Fraser

    Burstow, Paul

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Kidney, David

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Casale, Roger

    Lammy, David

    Chaytor, David

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Chidgey, David

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Linton, Martin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Mallaber, Judy

    Colman, Tony

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Corston, Jean

    Cotter, Brian

    Merron, Gillian

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Crausby, David

    Miliband, David

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Moran, Margaret

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Mountford, Kali

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Mullin, Chris

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Morris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Olner, Bill

    Edwards, Huw

    Organ, Diana

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Perham, Linda

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Pound, Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Purnell, James

    Foulkes, rh George

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Rammell, Bill

    Gilroy, Linda

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Rendel, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hancock, Mike

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hanson, David

    Ruane, Chris

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    648

    Sawford, Phil

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

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

    Watts, David

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Spellar, rh John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Squire, Rachel

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Willis, Phil

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Wills, Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Thurso, John

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. Joe Benton

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Amess, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Barker, Gregory

    Lansley, Andrew

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Berry, Roger

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Blunt, Crispin

    McDonnell, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Burt, Alistair

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Paterson, Owen

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Pickles, Eric

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Chope, Christopher

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Randall, John

    Collins, Tim

    Robathan, Andrew

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Dodds, Nigel

    Selous, Andrew

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Syms, Robert

    Flight, Howard

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Flook, Adrian

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Francois, Mark

    Watkinson, Angela

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Whittingdale, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Hawkins, Nick

    Wiggin, Bill

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Howard, rh Michael

    Mr. Andrew Miller and

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Stephen Hesford

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 165.

    Division No. 225]

    [7:27 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Amess, David

    Berry, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Barker, Gregory

    Cash' William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    649

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnett)

    McDonnell, John

    Mercer, Patrick

    Chope, Christopher

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Paice, James

    Dodds, Nigel

    Paterson, Owen

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Randall, John

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Evans, Nigel

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Flook, Adrian

    Selous, Andrew

    Forth, rh Eric

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Francois, Mark

    Syms, Robert

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Whittingdale, John

    Howard, rh Michael

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Wiggin, Bill

    Jack, rh Michael

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Mr. Andrew Miller and

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Stephen Hesford

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Ainger, Nick

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Alexander, Douglas

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Baird, Vera

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Barrett, John

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Benn, Hilary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Betts, Clive

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Blackman, Liz

    Hancock, Mike

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Hanson, David

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Harvey, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Heath, David

    Burnham, Andy

    Heppell, John

    Burnside, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Burstow, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hodge, Margaret

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Holmes, Paul

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Casale, Roger

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Chidgey, David

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Colman, Tony

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cooper, Yvette

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Cotter, Brian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Jamieson, David

    Crausby, David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    650

    Kidney, David

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Sawford, Phil

    Lammy, David

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Linton, Martin

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

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

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Spellar, rh John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Squire, Rachel

    MacShane, Denis

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Merron, Gillian

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Miliband, David

    Thurso, John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Timms, Stephen

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Moran, Margaret

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Truswell, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    O'Hara, Edward

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Olner, Bill

    Watts, David

    Organ, Diana

    Webb, Sieve (Northavon)

    Perham, Linda

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Pound, Stephen

    Willis, Phil

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Wills, Michael

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Rammell, Bill

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Woolas, Phil

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Rendel, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruane, Chris

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mr. Joe Benton

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we began our debate a couple of hours ago, I consulted the Clerks about whether we would be able to ask you for individual votes on some of the amendments in the first group, and I was told that that would be possible. I very much wish to vote on two amendments in the first group—amendment No. 35, to which I spoke, and amendment No. 18, which I tabled.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It may well be that the Chair would consider that request favourably, but it cannot consider it now because we have not reached those amendments on the amendment paper. They come beyond the next group of amendments, so they cannot be voted on, under any circumstances, at this moment. We move on to—
    Mr. Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that I am clear, is it the case that although we have debated the amendments on which I wish to vote, we will not vote on them now, but we will be able to return to them and vote on them at a later stage?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the discretion of the Chair.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that

    651
    once we reach this stage in proceedings, if an hon. Member is in the process of speaking when the time expires, when we return to the Bill that Member would still be on his or her feet when the debate resumed, and the time allowed would take into account what may have been said? At this stage of the debate, it would be useful if Members in the Chamber were aware of what was possible.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is yes.
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the business, pursuant to Order [4 June].
    Bill to be further considered on Tuesday 17 June.

    Customs Services (Cornwall)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
    7.44 pm
    Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern in my constituency—the future of the customs service in Cornwall and the south-west more widely.
    In March, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise published its business plan for the next three years. It included the restructuring of the service, reducing fixed-location staffing in favour of flying squads responding to intelligence and tip-offs. That was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Minister in a parliamentary answer on 26 March 2003. I believe that the Government's plans will be detrimental to my constituency and raise issues affecting the whole county and country.
    Before coming to the current problems, I should like to remind the House of Cornwall's link with smuggling. Our literature and history are littered with the stories of smuggling, from the Poldark novels to the chimney, known as the pipe, that grows out of our customs house in Falmouth, where smuggled baccy was burned. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is an excellent restaurant called the The Pipe as a testimony to the importance that the chimney played in the history of the town.
    Falmouth is the world's third-deepest natural harbour. For centuries, it has played host to those seeking to ply their trade by sea. Sometimes, those trades were less than honourable—hence, the presence of the Customs in our town. Indeed, smuggling has been a central part of the county's history. Our tourists love nothing more than to visit our historic smuggling coves and areas. The stories add colour to our visitors' visits, but the fictional and rather romantic side of the issue hides a more serious and dangerous side.
    I first visited Falmouth customs house in 1997, after my election to this House. Even then, Inland Revenue officers felt that the service that they provided was under threat. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), now Paymaster General, and urged her to continue to support the service in Cornwall. As a regular visitor to the waterfront, I had frequent updates, both formally and informally, and word reached me after the last election that Falmouth customs house was under threat. Indeed, the whole service was under threat. To be honest, I was at first in disbelief about that. A Cornwall without Revenue presence is like a fish without water, and I put the letter in the green ink file.
    The current customs house is situated on the old customs house quay in the centre of town, overlooking the harbour and the Carrick Roads. It could have come straight out of a set from the Poldark novels and, indeed, it has appeared as such. It dominates the landscape, and it undoubtedly needs renovation and more modern facilities. The service started negotiations locally for a new building. A local company was informally asked to prepare plans for a new customs house, only to find later that the service had changed its mind, that no building was planned, that its plans were not to be used and that it was not going to be paid for

    653
    its work. I have raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister in the past, and I am pleased to say that it has now been partially resolved and that a payment has been made to the company.
    At the same time, I heard again that the entire service was to be removed from Falmouth—and not only Falmouth, but Cornwall. People were telling me that Cornwall, with its long history of smuggling, was to be without any regular Inland Revenue presence. That is good news if one is a smuggler, whether of human beings or illegal goods, a terrorist or somebody engaged in an otherwise illegal activity. It is bad news if one has concerns about those issues.
    I understand that the plan is to have an intelligence-led operation. That sounds very grand, does it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The reality, however, will be that the needs of south-east England will be seen as more important than those of Cornwall. I accept that there are real problems in the south-east, but I do not believe that the answer lies in withdrawing Cornwall's services. In future, the Inland Revenue in Cornwall will operate in the following way. On Monday morning, all the officers—there are currently 17 in Falmouth—will turn up for work, get into a minibus and head off to all parts east. They will spend the working week in that manner, at some considerable cost to the service, and have the following week off. If the service believes that a major ring is operating from Dover or Gatwick, to Dover or to Gatwick the officers will go. That leaves me completely speechless, which does not happen very often. Germany is significantly nearer to Dover than Cornwall is. Cornish officers will spend at least eight hours travelling to Dover, and a similar amount of time returning. Two of the five days of their working week will be spent just travelling. Is that not daft? At the same time, there will be nobody left in Cornwall to provide any intelligence, so the teams will never be able to act on it.
    When I heard those incredible proposals, and after I had picked myself up off the floor, I immediately contacted my hon. Friend the Minister, tabled parliamentary questions and determined to do all that I could to oppose them. The proposals extend to ports across the length of the south of England—the same system will operate from Falmouth to Bristol and along to Dover. For the far south-west, there will be no officers at all in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. Has any Member ever heard of such a smuggler's charter?
    The lunacy of the plan is shown by events that occurred just two weeks ago. The Revenue had a great success in Plymouth when officers found a caravan equipped for smuggling, 400,000 cigarettes and 200 kg of tobacco. Amazingly, there was no publicity about that incredible seizure. Could that be because it might have been slightly embarrassing for the Customs, given its involvement in the changes?
    It would be fair to say that the Public and Commercial Services union was less than impressed with the plans when they were published, and immediately started discussions with management. It is not for me to get involved in those discussions, but I know that it has significant concerns for its members, many of whom are
    654
    my constituents. I understand that some of the staff quite liked the voluntary arrangements, but not the proposed compulsory ones. Can anyone say that they know what their family commitments will be in years to come? To date, only one person has opted to join the mobile teams. I have great sympathy for the staff. They are being asked to leave families, homes, educational courses, pets and social life to lead a life that is not dissimilar to an MP's—that is, away from home for most of the time. The crucial difference, though, is that we chose this lifestyle, whereas they sought a local job serving a local community—they did not join the service to traipse around the country for most of the time. Last week, the union went to the Whitley council, but it was unable to reach an agreement and is now in official dispute.
    What will it all mean? In September, under current plans, the customs house in Falmouth will close. A Portakabin will be located on Falmouth docks and used for those staff who do not agree to join the mobile scheme. The Revenue in Cornwall are being reduced to a Portakabin. That will last for three years, after which the Revenue will apparently operate out of a white van. I thought that those were the guys we were supposed to be chasing. Smugglers—whether of drugs, cigarettes, tobacco, people, animals or even terrorists—will know that there is an open door in the west country. There will be no one around to provide intelligence, and therefore no one around to apprehend smugglers. There is already a thriving local trade in smuggled cigarettes. No doubt some people will not welcome my campaign for the Government to think again, because their cheap baccy will be all the easier to obtain, but I happen to disagree. Local shopkeepers will suffer, legitimate publicans and others will be undercut and the Government—partly due to their folly—will lose their tax income.
    A few years ago, I visited some of the more remote Scottish islands. One island was visited irregularly by Customs, which suited some people. Like Cornwall, it had several remote beaches where one could land smuggled goods. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, the ferry came in and, as it approached, a white van would cruise down to the harbour. At any sign of customs officers or strangers on the ferry, it would gently drive away. If there were no strangers or customs officers, the white van would slip quietly on to the ferry. I saw that for myself, and I predict similar occurrences in Cornwall if the plan goes ahead.
    Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important matter to our constituents. Does she agree that there is also a huge question mark over the Government's commitment to tackling the drug supply in our area? Plymouth has unfortunately experienced a recent increase in drug deaths from crack cocaine. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a critical issue for our constituents?
    Ms Atherton: I certainly do. I remember that, on one of my visits, representatives of Falmouth Revenue took me out on a local boat to show me how they identified the vessels that could be smuggling crack cocaine. I regret that that service will be lost if we lose our local teams.

    655
    I described what was happening in Scotland. I believe that in Cornwall, white vans will quietly meet yachts and ships and travel up the A30 with their contraband. I made that clear to my hon. and good Friend the Economic Secretary during a meeting that he agreed to hold with me recently.
    Let us consider deterrence. It has been alleged that only intelligence works today. However, I wonder whether a deterrent is also valuable. I cannot help but believe that the imposing presence of the customs house overlooking Falmouth harbour plays its part in telling the world, "We are watching you." If smugglers know that there is an open-door policy in Cornwall, they will walk straight in and never go near Dover or Gatwick.
    I feel strongly about the matter and for the people who are affected. As parliamentarians, we understand the problems of working away from home. However, my constituents want to work in their towns and live with their families. They do not want to be away one week and home the next. How can a lone parent or someone with caring responsibilities work in that way? I suggest that they cannot.
    The economy will be affected. The Treasury is doing great things to help us to overcome the disadvantages of peripherality. It would be a tragic irony if it gave with one hand and took away with the other. We would lose 17 jobs from the economy in the long term. I predict that people will not stay in their employment, but leave what I consider to be a good job that pays pensionable, good wages in a low-wage economy.
    Is the proposal a licence for all smugglers to stick two fingers up at the Revenue? I fear that it is. I do not believe that my constituents would do that, but I cannot vouch for visitors from all points of the compass. Falmouth is a lively, cosmopolitan port. The proposal is bad for my constituents; and it is bad for the good publicans, newsagents and tobacconists who struggle to survive and are daily undercut by people who bring in goods from the continent and deprive them of the money. They pay the Revenue while others do not.
    The proposal is bad for law-abiding citizens and the Treasury, which will not receive the money to which it is entitled. However, it is good for smugglers and I strongly urge the Economic Secretary to think again.
    7.59 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the way in which she has represented her constituency on this matter. I have answered her parliamentary questions, her letters, her request to see me and to see the Customs and Excise regional director, and now I am pleased to be able to answer her Adjournment debate as well.
    My hon. Friend set out her criticisms in typically combative style. Let me start, however, with the concern we share, which is to see the UK's frontier effectively protected against threats such as smuggling and terrorist activity. I want to explain why the proposed reforms of Customs and Excise are designed to do just that. As a Government, we are committed to making sure that Britain is better protected and that Customs is more effective in tackling smuggling and security threats. We have demonstrated this from the day that we took office.
    656
    In 1997, we rescinded the cut of 300 front-line anti-smuggling staff imposed by the previous Government. In 2000, we invested an extra £209 million of new money to tackle tobacco and cross-channel smuggling, leading to an extra 1,000 Customs staff. Last year, we provided a further £39 million to tackle road fuel fraud and fraud linked to VAT in the European Union. Most recently, as a result of the extra £330 million that the Chancellor announced in this year's Budget to tackle terrorism, Customs' anti-smuggling and border security resources will see a further overall increase over the next three years. There will be redeployments, as we are discussing tonight, but overall resources and staff will increase.
    The threat of serious crime and the potential threat of terrorism in the 21st century demand the most modern methods of law enforcement. That is why much-needed changes are being made to the way in which Customs works, and those changes will ensure that the south-west, including my hon. Friend's constituency, is better—not less well—protected. Modern smuggling is big business, run by international criminal gangs that are well organised, well financed and highly adaptable. They use ever more sophisticated methods to generate their illegal wealth. Our challenge has been to build a modern customs service to match these criminals. This means not only working in new ways but developing new skills, using new intelligence techniques and investing in the latest technology.
    Our presence in some locations has simply been too predictable for criminals. In my experience, our customs officers are strongly committed to their job and dedicated to their public service role. Nowadays, however, when we have them based at a port "just in case", they are simply not able to produce the results that we need. Nor, with routine duty patterns in low-risk ports and airports, are we ensuring an efficient use of taxpayers' money or best protecting society against smugglers and their activities. This is not the fault of individual staff. The way in which we currently deploy customs officers in the south-west does not match the threat that modern crime poses.
    A thin blue line of static customs officers on routine duties at low-threat ports does not deter the well-resourced criminals who are determined to breach our borders. For this reason, staff in the static detection team based in Falmouth are now being redeployed into mobile brigades. I stress that this is a redeployment, not a redundancy programme. Let me say to my hon. Friend that five—not one—of the 17 Falmouth-based officers have signed up for the mobile team. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) that in her constituency, we will be able to maintain the cover that we need with the two new brigade teams, reinforced as necessary with other teams from the region to safeguard our frontier at Plymouth. All but eight of the 42 Customs staff at Plymouth have signed up for the new arrangements.
    Whatever happened in the Poldark period, intelligence and experience now show that most drugs and illegal goods on the streets in the south-west come through ports in the south-east and the airports around London. Even small-scale individual bootlegging is often routed through the busy ports in south-east England. Last year, for instance, 2 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco and three quarters of a million cigarettes

    657
    were seized, mainly at Dover, from people with Devon and Cornwall postcodes, and 50 kg of heroin seized in Northampton was destined for a south Devon address.
    In contrast, the local frontier team in Falmouth has not detected any illegal cigarettes or crime-related cash in substantial quantities during the past two years. In the past five years there have been only two significant seizures of class A drugs in Cornwall, neither of which resulted from local detection. Evidence shows that customs activities outside the south-west are more beneficial to south-west communities.
    Ms Atherton: Will my hon. Friend say something about deterrence? While I am very ready to accept the figures he has given, I cannot help wondering whether they would be very different in a few years if the people who are smuggling were found.
    John Healey: I know that this is contrary to common sense, but as I have explained, modern smugglers are increasingly sophisticated. Predictable duty rosters involving static staff in low-volume, low-threat ports constitute no deterrent to the organised smuggler nowadays. If our intelligence leads us to detect a change in the pattern and methods of smugglers, and perhaps the reintroduction of 18th-century smuggling routes that use Cornish coastline or ports, we will respond accordingly.
    Customs is building more flexible teams to operate in the south-west and beyond, wherever intelligence tells us there is a threat—whether from drugs, illegal meat or terrorism. The south-west coast, including my hon. Friend's constituency, provides a good example of the way in which intelligence is now the key to the detection and tackling of smuggling. Without intelligence-led targeting, there would be no hope of identifying the few offending vessels among many thousands along nearly 500 miles of coastline between Dover and Land's End. That is why 99 per cent. of drugs seizures from yachts in the south-west have been intelligence-driven rather than a result of routine checks by static officers at ports such as Falmouth.
    Ms Atherton: One of the problems is that we will not have officers in Cornwall, which is surrounded on three sides by water, with intelligence to feed into the system if all the operatives are in the south-east.
    John Healey: In a moment I shall say something about where the mobile teams will be based; but their existence means that more officers, not fewer, will be available to cover the threats from Cornwall, and they will not be based solely in the south-east.
    Results from the flexible teams already deployed speak for themselves. In 2002–03, one mobile team from the south-west, when deployed to a high-risk port or airport, typically seized 2 million cigarettes. Over the same period, three teams permanently based in Plymouth and Falmouth seized only 0.4 million cigarettes between them. In future, flexible teams
    658
    operating from Poole, Plymouth and Avonmouth will be working in the frontier ports throughout the south-west and inland on a threat and intelligence-driven basis. Customs intelligence and detection officers will work in joint teams in Plymouth for that purpose. This summer, special joint operations will be carried out by Customs with the Devon and Cornwall police and other agencies. One of our fleet of customs cutters will be permanently deployed in the south-west approaches. Far from withdrawing from the areas from which staff are being redeployed, under Customs' new plans more officers than ever will cover the region in mobile teams wherever intelligence tells us that there is a threat.
    For the police and the immigration service as well as Customs, our most effective law enforcement against major smugglers and criminals is now led by intelligence.
    Therefore, alongside the deployment of more mobile detection teams across the UK, Customs is investing heavily to increase its intelligence capability—new methods, modern techniques and more staff. It is reinforcing intelligence links with other agencies and setting up new joint intelligence cells with police special branch and immigration staff. Customs already operates such joint intelligence cells in the south-west, based in Plymouth and Exeter.
    I can today confirm that, to reinforce its intelligence cover in Cornwall, Customs will be setting up a dedicated unit of three officers in Falmouth. Those Cornish officers will link with other law enforcement agencies to monitor the threat from smuggling and fraud in Cornwall. They will play an important part in developing the intelligence that will drive the deployment of other Customs teams across Cornwall, both inland and at Cornish ports.
    My hon. Friend raises concerns about the personal circumstances of staff affected by change. Customs managers are very mindful of that. Over 80 per cent. of nearly 350 staff in the south-west division of Customs have signed up for the new mobile brigades, and almost half of the remainder have either been found or lined up for work elsewhere in Customs. In some cases, arrangements have been individually tailored to deal with special family circumstances.
    The Government will do what is needed to reinforce security at our borders and to tackle smuggling.
    Ms Atherton: I am absolutely delighted about the three officers. I hope that, over the years, we can increase their number and eventually get back to the current complement, but where will those officers be located? Will we keep the customs house that has long dominated the landscape and skyline of Falmouth harbour?
    John Healey: Let me be clear. The role of those officers is an intelligence role; it is not a static detection role. Their function, purpose and role in the modern Customs are different. I am conscious—I have seen for myself—how dramatic the customs house is at Falmouth. At present, Customs managers are looking at the possibility of extending the current lease as the operational base in Falmouth.
    Since 1997, the Government have shown themselves to be ready to invest heavily in Customs and Excise but, as the threats we face change, so must our methods. I

    659
    hope that I have been able to offer reassurance that Customs' cover for Cornwall will be reinforced, not reduced. I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed the new Cornish intelligence unit that will be based in Falmouth and will play such an important role there.
    These are major changes. I know that change on this scale is often hard for those affected, but our priority is the protection of the south-west and the rest of the UK
    660
    from serious crime, and ditching outdated and unproductive working methods. We must build a modern customs service. Anything else will fail my hon. Friend's constituents, the people of Devon and Cornwall and all those others who rely on us to protect them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Mineworkers Pension Scheme
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Anne Picking: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remember that my first opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate was in this Chamber under your chairmanship, and I called you by the wrong title; I shall make sure not to do that today.
I am pleased to have secured this long overdue debate on the miners pension surplus. I do not profess to be an expert on the intricacies and technicalities of the pension scheme, nor do I want to get sidetracked into a number-crunching exercise, which is a job for actuaries and a pastime for those anoraks who enjoy playing with calculators. I shall deliberately avoid quoting laborious statistics, because we must focus on the merit and morality of the case—a case that I feel is indisputable. I accept that the Government are acting lawfully in taking up to 50 per cent. of profits generated by the mineworkers pension scheme. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister feels quite passionately about it. However, I do not accept—and I hope that he does not accept—that the Government are acting in good faith or in the best interests of the scheme members.
I accept also that, after suffering the decimation of their industry and the near destruction of their communities by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s, the miners' fear for their pensions was understandable. The deal struck in 1994 between the pension trustees and the Tory Government was probably the best that could be achieved at the time, but I do not accept that it is still the best deal. It has turned out to be costly for the miners, but very lucrative for the Government, who have siphoned off billions of pounds from the scheme—I am sure that Dick Turpin would be proud of them. That money could and should have been used to enhance the pensions, not to shore up other services. That anyone other than miners and their beneficiaries should benefit from those pension contributions is immoral. The modest risk of underwriting the pension scheme does not justify the massive amount of money that the Government are taking. It is a bit like paying to insure a Ferrari when one rides a moped.
I realise that tens of thousands of redundant miners were exploited by private sector pension companies who descended on them like a plague of locusts. I realise also that, since the election of the Labour Government in 1997, the Treasury's take from the surpluses has been reduced. I applaud the fact that millions of pounds have been redirected into mining communities via regeneration programs and compensation packages. The Government also honoured their pledge to those who were badly advised by private financial advisers to opt out of the miners scheme by allowing them to opt back in. That is all very laudable, but 273,000 retired
170WH
miners and their dependents still rely on benefits from the scheme. Those men and women are not living on a king's ransom—they require the money in order to make ends meet—and those benefits were not handed over by benevolent employers or generous Governments, but were conceded only after hard-fought struggles for terms and conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. Many other workers, including MPs, take their terms and conditions for granted, but the mining unions engaged in their struggle not to fill Treasury coffers but to secure financial support and dignity for their members in retirement.
It is worth noting that miners' leaders had to argue hard to convince their members that the significant payments that they were making from low wages were a price worth paying. By being sensible and prudent and recognising that hard decisions had to be taken, they acted responsibly and opted for stability and security in retirement. Does that sound familiar? It is the same mantra that the Government chant now: "Be sensible and responsible. Save and make provision for your old age, for the state cannot ensure your standard of living in retirement." That call rings very hollow to those men and women when they see their pension fund being plundered in this way.
The scheme is now closed, and we know how many claims will be made in future, so it is a disgrace that anyone should deny these people the best deal possible. We all know that a downturn in world stock markets has affected most, but not all, pension funds and that the security of a Government guarantee has given the scheme some flexibility and security. However, even in these turbulent and troubled times for equity investment funds, the miners pension scheme has never needed to call on the Government to invoke the guarantee. Current estimates and calculations suggest that this may be a standstill year for increases to miners' pensions, with adjustments applied only for the retail prices index. The scheme is in good hands. It is robust and healthy and has a stable future. The trustees and advisers have the luxury of not having to look over their shoulder at how a company is performing, or at what dividends should be paid to shareholders. They are concerned only about securing the integrity of the scheme and maximising the amount of money that can be paid out to members in bonuses and pensions. That—not viewing the miners' money as some sort of cash cow for the Treasury—should also be the Government's guiding principle.
I see no difficulty in or barrier to the trustees and the Government coming together in common purpose to reach a fairer deal for all concerned. I understand that independent analysis has already done most of the spadework: it has indicated that a 50 per cent. take of surpluses to guarantee the scheme is excessive and that about 15 per cent. is closer to the going rate for the job. It is worth remembering, however, that this is the very same case that the Government conceded in January 2002, when they agreed to explore with the trustees how the 1994 guarantee arrangements might be altered in the interest of the members. I acknowledge that the unfortunate and ill advised legal action taken by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies, and Shotfirers, South Wales, against the Department of Trade and Industry prevented the talks from going ahead, but NACODS has now withdrawn that legal

171WH
action, so I hope the Minister will agree that there is now no impediment to the talks starting. However, indications are that the Government have moved the goalposts and are now pulling back from their previous commitment to examine the 1994 guarantee arrangements. That is wrong. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this stage.
The only thing underpinning any negotiations should be a fair and better deal for miners that secures the scheme for as long as required and maximises pensions and benefits to its members. I seek two assurances from the Minister who, I hasten to mention, was very keen to respond to the debate, for which I am grateful. First, will he without any preconditions enter into talks with representatives of the mineworkers pension scheme to explore how the 1994 guarantee arrangements can be altered in members' interests? Secondly, will he ensure that any future arrangements that the Government may put in place to protect the interests of pension fund members do not exclude members of closed schemes such as the mineworkers pension scheme?
I shall conclude my remarks shortly, because so many colleagues want to contribute to the debate, but before I do so, I must admit to a vested interest in this subject. My father and other members of my family will gain from any increases in miners' pensions. Like thousands of my constituents, they are proud people who never asked for or expected handouts from anyone, but they were prepared to fight long and hard—for most of their working lives, as it turned out—for what was deservedly and justly theirs. They knew that they had never been properly paid for the work that they undertook, and even now they feel that they have not been justly compensated for the injury and disease that blight the lives of many of them. What really rankles with them, however, is that they have been short-changed and that their money has, in effect, been stolen from them.
What makes the situation even worse is the fact that a Labour Government have chosen to carry on with this legalised but grossly immoral raid on the funds. The Government have taken about £400 million a year at the same time as some miners are being paid a pension of less than a fiver a week. As hon. Members know, there are taxi drivers in London who would look down their noses at a fiver tip, never mind a fiver pension. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is time to stop patronising these proud people and to give them back their money.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that it is the normal custom to start the first of the three Front-Bench winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate, which means that other hon. Members have only until 10.30 to make their speeches. I see that nine hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I counsel everyone to be brief and pertinent in their comments and to be circumspect about accepting, and indeed making, interventions.
9.41 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate. Many hon. Members have pressed to have
172WH
this issue debated, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who would have been here had he not been in Committee.
As we know, and as I am sure we will hear this morning, the Government are claiming billions of pounds from the pension fund surplus as their own. Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party believe that that is wrong and that the money is not the Government's. A substantial part of it should go towards improving benefits for former miners and their families, many of whom make do with low incomes. The miner's pension is not some extra benefit—it is not like a Treasury windfall. Some former miners, particularly those of the older generation, are in real need. The Government acknowledge that fact, as evidenced by the very welcome but modest bonuses targeted at that group.
Now that the stock market is down—it may be only for the short term—the Government are saying to miners, "We are the guarantors, but you will largely pay for any deficit before we touch our share." As Bleddyn Hancock of NACODS succinctly put it,
"Blair and Brown are plundering our tomorrows to prop up New Labour's today".
It is a cruel irony that compensation payments for emphysema and chronic bronchitis had to be dragged out of the Government in the courts when we have a ready means of defraying the cost in the form of the miners' own money.
The 50:50 split is lawful, but it is historically unfair given the low level of risk that the Government have carried and the potential for further improving the benefits paid particularly to miners on the lowest incomes. As we know, the asset liability study says that the proper proportion should be 85:15.
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to NACODS South Wales. The vast majority of people who deal with respiratory and vibration white finger claims deeply regret that it undertook its legal action, given the resulting complexity and the fact that claims cannot be dealt with as part of a scheme. Everyone present will regret the stunt that NACODS South Wales performed in going to judicial review, because it has put discussions on hold for the past year or more. As the hon. Gentleman seems to agree with the general thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), will he join her in condemning the sect known as NACODS South Wales for having undertaken its legal action?
Hywel Williams: As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the action has now been withdrawn. The real issue is access to the moneys in the surplus. Whatever the technical arguments about the surplus—
Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hywel Williams: No, I will not give way. I have been asked to be circumspect about interventions, and I certainly think that I should be, given that other hon. Members are waiting to speak.

173WH
Notwithstanding the technical arguments about the surplus, the Government have a debt of honour. There is money available that could give retired miners and their families a better life. There is money that could revitalise coalfield communities. Money is being withheld—in the name of prudence, we are told, and because the surplus is the proper recompense to the Government for acting as a guarantor. It is being withheld as the Government's reward for carrying the risk, but it is not the Government who have carried the risks of the mining industry. The miners and their families carried the risks during the years of their employment, and they continue to carry those risks during the years of their retirement. They risked their lives to win the coal; they risked their health to win the coal; they risked early widowhood to win the coal; they risked a later life devoted to caring for men struck down by dust, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. They risked a later life disabled by vibration white finger and all the other hidden and not-so-hidden health inequalities of life in mining communities.
Miners and their families risked all that to win the coal, and they are now beset by unemployment, hidden unemployment, make-work schemes, out-migration and mass ill health. They faced all those risks, and now they are at risk of losing what should rightfully be theirs if justice has a home in this House. The Government's risk is nothing compared to those risks carried for so long by the miners, their families and their communities. The least that they deserve is for officials to lift their noses from their ledgers and honour the debt. The miners should benefit from the surplus, not the Government; not the players of the stock markets; not the prosperous men who praised and patronised the miners, then damned them when they went on strike. The new Labour Government should recognise their debt to the miners; they should renegotiate the proportion taken now. The Government should do their duty, and it will be to their eternal shame if they do not.
9.47 am
Diana Organ: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian for securing the debate, which has already been timetabled a couple of times. We wished to have the debate because it raises an issue of concern to many of us from mining or old mining constituencies. I wish to use the opportunity to raise again with the Minister cases that I raised with him in September and November 2002.
The Labour Government have given compensation to miners for ill health, for vibration white finger, and for respiratory diseases. The Government have given millions of pounds to those affected, and they were right to do so. The Government also examined miners pension schemes and on 17 January 2002 announced that compensation would be given to members of the miners pension scheme who had a small—in fact, paltry—pension. Compensation of between £200 and £2,000 was given to those ex-miners. The Treasury allocated a fund of £90 million for that scheme, to be used between 2002 and June 2003. The package was aimed at helping those members on the lowest pensions who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975. It was expected that about 66,000 members would benefit from that funding.
In the Forest of Dean, which once had a coalfield, 57 ex-miners have benefited from the compensation, to the tune of £75,000. As recent records of parliamentary
174WH
questions have shown, £57,000 has been allocated only on the basis of those who have been identified by Paymaster as being eligible for compensation. The problem lies with the criteria that are set down in order to receive compensation. Miners had to have five years of retained benefits from 3 April 1961. Service before that date was not counted for the award because it was thought that most members had taken a refund of contribution with respect to that service, although service before 1961 is counted in the cases of those who chose not to exercise that option and get the contributory refund. Individuals also had to be in receipt of a low pension, or entitled to one, when they reached normal retirement age, that was not more than £5 a week after five years or £10 a week after 10 or more years' service. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian pointed out, that is not a big pension. Many people would describe that as loose change in their pocket.
I come now to the case of the 11 ex-miners in the Forest of Dean, which I have previously brought to the Minister's attention. The last deep coal pit in the Forest of Dean, which was Northern United, shut on 24 December 1965. Some 215 men were working there at that point, and when the scheme was announced, men were contacted to see whether they were eligible. As I said, 57 men in the Forest of Dean have received £75,000, but 11 men were not contacted. They visited me to ask why they were not receiving compensation while their neighbours and brothers were. I campaigned in the press to find out whether any more miners were not receiving compensation and then wrote to the Minister.
I found out that because the miners were made redundant in December 1965 or January 1966, they did not meet the five years' service criteria. They counted as having four years and nine months' service, even although some had service of nineteen years prior to that date. Paymaster, the agent for the Department of Trade and Industry, said that all of the miners had received contributions for their prior service. The miners may be old, but their memories are good, and they question that. They say that British Coal kept poor records that were often lost and sometimes burned. They do not believe that they received any compensation, and they are challenging Paymaster's records.
The miners have four years and nine months in the scheme, but they do not qualify. In a parliamentary answer, I was told that changing the criteria to four years and six months in the scheme would cost an extra £8 million to £10 million. However, of the £90 million that has been put aside for the compensation, I understand from recent parliamentary answers that only £60 million has so far been allocated to the miners. As we are coming to the end of the compensation scheme, we could use the £30 million surplus to reward the members of the scheme who do not quite meet the five years' service criteria.
At present, these old men are receiving between 58p and 65p extra in their pension. That is appalling, and I challenge anyone to think that that is proper compensation for the contribution that they made while they were miners. In the final months of the scheme, will the Minister take up their case and others like it? There cannot be more than a few thousand who would qualify, because we know that it is difficult to trace the men.

175WH
We should do something for those whom we can trace and who are in hardship. We could alter the qualifying criteria to service of four years and nine or six months so that the few miners who are left receive some compensation from a Labour Government who have so far been generous in the compensation for ill health. We have tried to be right in compensation on pensions, so we should not be mean with the few miners that we can trace, especially as the Treasury has allocated money for the scheme that has not been used.
9.53 am
Mr. Roger Williams: I too congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing this debate, which is of great interest to my constituency as an old mining community. Mining no longer creates employment or generates wealth, but the community still suffers from the ravages of opencast mining, and there are historical effects in terms of poor health and a poor education system. The effects of mining continue for a long time.
I welcome the amount of money that has been invested in regeneration schemes, but it is not just the community but individuals who suffer the effects of mining. I am dealing with a number of miners' compensation claims for ill health, and they often tell me that their great sadness is that they may pass away before those claims are resolved. Their concern is that their widows and dependants should have a secure and enjoyable retirement and be taken care of as well. The pensions issue adds to the concern for those people.
Although I do not think that anyone here will query whether the Government are acting legally, the question is whether they are taking the best moral stance that they can with the resources that have been put into the miners pension fund by the miners themselves. Those were the miners' contributions. They made huge sacrifices while bringing up families and working underground.
Mention has been made of the scheme whereby miners who were on the flat-rate scheme before 1975 are given improved benefits. We all welcome that, but by gosh they are on very low pensions. One thing that astounded me when I became involved with these issues was that the pension that the average miner received from the fund was relatively small. Although such pensions make a big contribution to the quality of life that miners enjoy and give them added security in old age, they are not huge pensions by any means. I hope that the Government can look again at the actuarial advice that is being received; it should be updated regularly.
I shall really make only one point. The scheme is closed, and when it comes to an end and there are no liabilities for it to meet, it will be difficult to explain to the miners' families, as it will then be, that a large sum of money—greater than was prudent—was left in the scheme, because that money could have been used to ensure that miners and their widows had a reasonably secure and enjoyable retirement.
9.56 am
David Hamilton: I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on bringing this extremely important
176WH
issue to the Chamber. I am just trying to think whether I have ever tipped a taxi driver a fiver. I cannot think that I would have done that, unless I was really drunk and a long distance was involved.
I want to bring a personal perspective to the debate. Many parties are involved: central and local government, Members of Parliament who represent the remaining miners in many areas, the unions and the board members, who administer the pension scheme and over whose activities there is a big question mark. Major companies have benefited from the miners scheme over many years. One example involves the St. James's centre in Edinburgh. I have always tried to work out how Edinburgh is part of a mining area, but millions of pounds have been invested there. In the same way, if we look at infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom, we find that it has received major investment from the miners pension scheme.
Finally, there is the most important group—the men and women who contributed to the scheme. I started in the mines in 1965. I went down the pit on my 16th birthday—24 October 1966. At that time, we paid pennies to the pension fund. Indeed, it was not until 1975 that we started to pay about 6 per cent. It was only with great difficulty that the unions were able to convince our men, many of whose wages were extremely low, that it was in their best interests to pay that extremely high superannuation percentage. I believe that, at that time, my wages were about £14 a week, and I had a wife and two kids then. The pension contribution was a daunting figure for a young man at that time.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has said that we are now being asked by the Government to go into dual pensions because we must prepare ourselves for the future. If that is the case, the issue is coming back. I recall the two national strikes in the 1970s, following which we asked to pay contributions for the many weeks that we had been on strike. Many members did that over time.
I mentioned the massive investments in major infrastructure proposals, many of which are not in mining areas. Major investments were also made abroad. I seem to remember that substantial amounts of money were invested in South Africa, yet the miners at that time were at the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement. However, we could not argue that our representatives opposed the investments, and we were told that the money had to go there because the law required us to get the best return on our investment. I remember long, drawn-out arguments about that. The union was told that we could only challenge the legality and that we had to accept the situation. I think that we went to court and were beaten.
I am well aware of the Minister's personal commitment to assisting the mining industry. Vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema are the two big issues at present. I must point out, as I have done on a number of other occasions, that the Labour party was the first party in government to recognise those industrial injuries. However, that does not mean that the miners should pay for their own compensation, which is effectively what is happening. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) tabled early-day motion 744, which referred to £3.5 billion being taken from the

177WH
miners scheme surplus. It is important to recognise that there are ongoing campaigns on many issues to right wrongs that have been around for many years.
I want to make one observation. There are two sides to the argument about the miners pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The people whom Plaid Cymru represented earlier are at the top end of that pension scheme, and their argument was about the maximum amount of the pension—there is a ceiling on that. There are people in the superannuation scheme, including NACODS management and white-collar workers, with an upper limit beyond which their pension cannot rise.
The National Audit Office reports that, since members' benefits cannot be enhanced beyond the limit set by the Inland Revenue rules, the schemes particular to BCSSS may be increasingly constrained in later years, which will affect further benefit improvements and future surpluses. That may increase the residual surpluses that are potentially available to the Government. In fact, that means that more money is being taken out—that is what that argument is about.
As I said, however, there are two sides to the argument. People on the bottom of the scale are not receiving enough money, while others are limited by the amount of pension that they can receive. I am particularly concerned by one part of the Audit Commission's assessment, which is that any residual surplus will eventually be available to the Government when the schemes are wound up. I hope that that will not be the case, and that when the schemes are wound up money will still be ploughed into the system for miners and their families.
Yesterday, I picked up from the Library a report called, "The Miners pension scheme surplus". It has headings about the arrangements at the time of privatisation, payments for surpluses, the Coalfield Communities Campaign report, which details the lack of investment in the coalfield areas, and the Government's response, which is in three parts: sacked miners, low pensions and the review of the guaranteed arrangements, and the progress of that review. One part of the report which people might expect me to raise in discussions with the Minister is that relating to victimised miners. That has been a long-running issue, and I hope that money will come out of the miners pension fund for the more than 300 miners who were wrongly dismissed during the unfortunate dispute in 1983–84. That would provide a remedy with which to go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) mentioned her area. I accept her point, but we were paying only pennies into pensions at that time, and that is where the problem lies. Thousands of miners in Scotland are also affected, so I would appreciate it if the Minister reviewed the wider issue of people who were missed out because of the dates involved. Not all those people are old—some left the industry at a relatively young age. The industry had a fluid work force, and thousands of people did not finish their working life in mining but worked in mining for 10, 15 or 20 years before moving to other jobs.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I congratulate the Government on some of the work that has been done, but a wrong must be righted.
10.4 am
Mr. John Grogan: It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on presenting the case with such passion and commitment, which have been reflected in the rest of the debate. I could give a few figures, but I shall not in case my hon. Friend accuses me of being an anorak. Instead, I shall make three brief points.
First, the Coalfields Community Campaign has been mentioned only once. It is worth recording that it has campaigned on this issue for nearly a decade, and it has made a big contribution by briefing MPs who represent mining constituencies and allowing them to explore the issue.
My hon. Friend was right when she said that it is immoral for anybody other than miners and their dependants to benefit from their pension contributions. Those of us who argue for change must be clear about what we are arguing for. There has been a tendency not only to argue for justice for those who contribute to pension funds but to imply that the miners' contributions should be used to revitalise coalfield communities. People who contribute to the mineworkers pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme feel that as much money as possible from their contributions should go towards their benefits. They do not like the idea of their pension fund money being used as a revitalisation tool for coalfield or any other communities.
The amount of money that should go towards coalfield regeneration is a separate matter from the distribution of the miners pension fund surpluses. That has been reflected latterly in the Coalfield Communities Campaign literature. It is an important change, because miners, their families and former contributors feel strongly that the money is for miners and their families and should not be used to revitalise the communities. The Government have a good record in funding work such as that of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
Secondly, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The guarantee is important to miners and their families and to pensioners, and it needs to be maintained. We should look back to privatisation, when the trustees of the two pension schemes
"reached agreement with Her Majesty's Government whereby the Schemes were given HMG solvency guarantees that ensured that pension entitlements at privatisation would rise at least in line with inflation, and will never fall in cash terms regardless of investment performance."
That is a guarantee worth having. I agree with all my hon. Friends that its terms favour the Government, but it must be maintained. It is the ambition of the trustees of the two pension schemes to extend that guarantee from the core pension to some of the additional benefits that the Government have agreed to. With falling stock markets and all the things that have happened to other pension schemes, we must not lose that guarantee to give inflationary increases and never to let pensions fall in cash terms.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian and I urge the Minister to review the split with greater urgency. I acknowledge that the legal action has delayed some of the discussions. A year ago the Government announced that while both the Department and the

179WH
trustees continued to stand by the 50:50 sharing arrangements, they recognised that circumstances had changed since 1994, and agreed to explore options for reflecting the revisions to the 1994 arrangements. Since then, it has been suggested that the MPS and BCSSS make an annual payment to secure the guarantee, and do something other than split the surpluses 50:50. Such things need to be considered. Given that, after many years of complaints the Government have recognised that it is worth having discussions, those should take place urgently.
My third and final point concerns an anomaly that affects areas that still have working mines. At the time of privatisation, members of the BCSSS—the pit deputies—were guaranteed a pension at 50 if they were made redundant. The members of the MPS were not given that guarantee. That has created much resentment in the remaining coalfields.
As the remaining mines close—Selby is due to close next year so it is an immediate issue, but others will close in 10 to 20 years—MPS members will not get a full pension at 50 if they are made redundant, but the pit deputies who work alongside them will. That is a source of resentment and I have discussed with the Minister how the matter could be dealt with. The actuarial estimate is that it would cost £99 million to give MPS members the same rights as BCSSS members, which is perhaps one use of the surpluses. The Government could arrange that through British Coal, which still exists.
There was a contractual redundancy arrangement between British Coal and the two sets of trustees at the time of privatisation. I am not sure who at present is the chairman of British Coal; perhaps it is one of the gentlemen at the margins of the debate. It is usually handed round between different civil servants in the Department. There is also a mechanism to deal with British Coal's remaining liabilities, which could be used to put things right and give MPS members the same rights as BCSSS members.
We have heard tales today about people who have worked in the mines for a long time; at the age of 50, anyone who has been a miner for 30 or 35 years is ready for retirement. Indeed, in some European countries, miners are offered retirement at 50. I urge the Minister to make discussions on the split a priority in the next 12 months.
10.11 am
Rachel Squire: I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) to secure this important debate, and I congratulate her on her excellent contribution to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) spoke about an earlier retirement age for MPS members and current miners as a way of using the funds. My constituents in Dunfermline and west Fife, especially former miners, regularly raise the issue with me. They may have different views on how the surplus could best be spent, but they are unanimous in believing that less should go to the Treasury and more should come to miners, pensioners and their families in coalfield communities.
180WH
Like many of my constituents, I recognise the importance of the Government's guarantee on the benefits payable by the MPS and the BCSSS. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), I welcomed the Government's decision last year to use some of their share of the surplus to pay one-off lump sums to pensioners on low incomes from the MPS, at a cost of £90 million. I support what my hon. Friend said about the injustice still suffered by many of the poorest pensioners in the MPS scheme, and I listened with interest when she said that the allocated surplus had not yet all been used.
Current market conditions mean that this is not the best time to persuade the Government to reduce their share of the surplus, as the Minister indicated in March. However, this welcome debate gives Members representing coalfield communities an opportunity to put down markers for future action. I will concentrate on the call to look not only at the MPS and the BPSSS but at the schemes that replaced them in 1994. The industry-wide pension scheme is relevant to those who stayed in the industry after 1994 and did their utmost to secure a future for the industry.
The industry is shrinking and so are the employer contributions to those pension funds. The Minister knows that Longannet, the last deep mine in Scotland, finally closed last year, despite all the efforts to keep it open. The company, Deep Mining Scotland, went into liquidation. To my knowledge, Scottish Coal, the parent company, is in deficit with its pension contributions. That is of great concern to me, to the National Union of Mineworkers Scotland and to current and future pensioners, because people's pension entitlement is being put at risk, and because the closure of other coalfields is in the offing.
I therefore call on the DTI and the Treasury to consider the whole picture of current pension provision for miners who have already retired or who are looking to retire in the near future. I ask them to consider underwriting the guarantee, perhaps through a standstill for the IWPS, and to agree to look again at the issue of the miners pension fund surpluses. I urge them to take account of the conviction of my constituents and many thousands of others that a greater share should be given to the men, women and their families who worked so hard and endured so much, and who deserve a decent retirement income.
10.16 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate. It is particularly important to my area of south Yorkshire, which has a large population of former miners.
Before I make my two main points, I should declare an interest. I am a member of the MPS and the sponsor of early-day motion 744, which was tabled on 13 February 2003. I also work closely with the Coalfield Communities Campaign.
My first point relates to the guarantee and my second to the historical surpluses. In 1994, I was a member of the Committee that examined the coal industry privatisation Bill. I recall that there were robust exchanges about the MPS and about the Coal Industry

181WH
Social Welfare Organisation. I realise that at the time the trustees of the MPS had to be guided by the actuarial evidence, and on the basis of that evidence they accepted the guarantee and the 50:50 split. However, I believe that the actuaries who gave the advice were overcautious, and that the split should have been different when the guarantee was introduced. As a result of the asset liability study, it has been suggested that that split should be reviewed downwards, perhaps to 15 per cent., so that there is a 15:85 split, with 85 per cent. of the surplus left in the scheme, and the Government taking 15 per cent. I believe that that is a much fairer split, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
I know that the Minister has a great feeling for mining communities. I worked with him on the monitoring group that examined the compensation paid to miners, and I know that he endeavours to ensure that compensation payments are made speedily. He looks with compassion at some of the cases that come forward and I believe that he will consider the issue objectively. I hope that, given the asset liability study, he can be persuaded to move towards a 15:85 split.
However, that still leaves us with the historical liability. Historical surpluses are estimated by the CCC to stand at somewhere in the region of £3.5 billion. The Government could take that sum from the reserve fund, but I ask that they reconsider their position. In 1998, I wrote to the Treasury about the repatriation of the funds to the scheme, but the response suggested that the funds could not be repatriated. The CCC argued that if the moneys could not be repatriated, they should go to mining communities. There has been a change of view since then. I would say to the Minister that giving back the surplus of £3.5 billion to the miners would not be repatriation—they paid into the scheme and would be justified in receiving it. It would be in the nature of an amended payment for an over-cautious assessment by the actuaries in 1994. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, and that the £3.5 billion will be left in the scheme.
The Minister will be aware that the principal sum in the scheme has fallen considerably as a result of changes in the stock market. I understand that during the past two years it has fallen from roughly £14.5 billion to about £9.4 billion. However, over the same period the number of beneficiaries has fallen considerably. When the scheme was first introduced in 1994, it had about 380,000 beneficiaries. That number has been declining at about 1,000 a month, so there are now fewer beneficiaries and a considerable amount of money available to pay them a decent pension. It has already been made clear that, according to CCC research, the average pension is about £38 per week
First, I ask the Minister to accept that there should be a downward review of the Government take, along the lines of the asset liability study recommendation of a 15:85 split. Secondly, given that the average pension is small, he should consider treating the £3.5 billion not as repatriation but as an amended payment to the scheme.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to record my commendation and sincere thanks to all hon. Members participating in the debate for the positive and constructive way in which they responded to my opening appeal. I am sure that all Front Bench speakers, even though they may disagree on the detail, agree that
182WH
the subject has been well covered without exposing the full range of problems with which we are faced. I am highly pleased.
10.23 am
Paul Holmes: I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing this important and much delayed—and, in recent weeks, much rearranged—debate. It is important to some thousands of my constituents in Chesterfield, because the north Derbyshire coalfield no longer has working pits. The last pits were closed wholesale by the Conservative Government in the 1990s, which had a devastating effect not only on employment in the area, which still remains below the national average, but on the social infrastructure.
I was fortunate to be taken down Markham pit by Chesterfield miners a year before its closure. Even if they make only one visit, as I did, all those who experience the awful conditions in which miners had to work know what a debt we owe former mineworkers. That is all the more reason why we should not treat them shabbily in terms of pensions. One of the biggest workloads that I have to deal with in my weekly surgeries—matched only by Child Support Agency cases—is to do with compensation and pensions for miners.
At the risk of being considered an anorak, I will sum up some of the figures involved. We have heard some of them already. The 1994 guarantee for miners' pensions to members of the MPS and the BCSSS was that the Government would take 50 per cent. of all surpluses, but would guarantee the pension scheme in return. Currently, some £5 billion is due to the Treasury: it has already taken £1.5 billion, and £3.5 billion remains in the funds. At the current rate, the Treasury is taking almost £400 million a year in surpluses.
The Minister may well argue that the scheme is already very good and very generous, and the pension is guaranteed. As we debated on the Floor of the House only last week, many pensioners would give their right arm to be in a pension scheme that was guaranteed. Last week, we heard about some of my constituents from Chesterfield Cylinders who, after paying into their company pension scheme for 40 years lives to provide for their retirement, discovered in 2001 that as a result of failures in their scheme, they were to receive as little as 30 per cent. or even less of what they had saved. In 2002, the same thing happened to workers at Dema Glass in my constituency, and in recent weeks, Coalite Products Ltd has gone into receivership, and several more of my constituents are encountering the same problem. Hon. Members gave many other examples of that problem hitting firms throughout the country—Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff is one example.
There was a well publicised protest march on Sunday. After a lifetime of saving, workers in companies throughout the country are receiving only 30 or 40 per cent., or even less, of what they believed they were saving for in their retirement. I am sure that they would envy the sort of guaranteed scheme that the Government are providing for mineworkers. However, I question any argument that the Minister might advance that the Government are acting as a responsible pensions provider in guaranteeing the MPS, and that therefore

183WH
the Treasury is justified in plundering the very large fund surpluses to the tune of a massive £5 billion. As we already heard, the independent asset and liability study found that a more realistic price for the guarantee should be about 15 per cent. of the surpluses, not the 50 per cent. that the Treasury is taking. The remaining 85 per cent. should be returned to the mineworker pensioners.
As the hon. Member for East Lothian explained, the Government acted as a responsible pensions provider by allowing back into the Government scheme miners who had been misled by pensions mis-selling into transferring out of the miners' scheme into inferior private funds, but again I reject that as an argument for justifying the Treasury taking £5 billion of surpluses from the scheme. All the Government are doing in the two cases that we discussed is acting as a responsible pensions provider. They should expect all pensions providers to do the same.
We have heard much about the mis-selling of pensions in debates in the House. Mineworkers were especially prone to such mis-selling when sharks from some of the private sector pension schemes persuaded them to opt out of a very good scheme into much inferior ones. That also happened to many teachers 10 or more years ago. The Government must tackle such mis-selling if their current policy of encouraging workers to opt into private pension schemes to provide for their old age is not to be fatally undermined. That is a key issue, albeit not in today's debate.
The Government should renegotiate with the trustees, bearing in mind the independent asset and liability study that suggests a split of 85 per cent. and 15 per cent. That would improve miners' pensions. Several hon. Members—some favourably, but one with a note of caution—touched on what else should be done with the surpluses, however big they are in the end. We heard about the need to revitalise coalfield communities in a debate on the subject only a few days ago. Coalfield communities tended to be focused on single or dual industries—coal mines and the engineering works linked to them—as in the Chesterfield and north Derbyshire area. When the mines were closed wholesale, that had an enormous knock-on effect on the support industries in the engineering sector, and most coalfield communities, including Chesterfield, still tend to have above average levels of unemployment.
The Government have some good regeneration schemes, but there is still a crying need for capital investment into former coalfield communities to reinvigorate their economies and allow them to move into new areas and away from the dual industry culture of mining and engineering. One example of that investment is infrastructure, not so much in terms of roads, although many key roads need to be moved from old coalfields into population centres and industrial estates, but in terms of a simple measure such as broadband access. If we want to introduce the benefits of broadband and the new information technologies industries into former coal mining communities, we need to introduce broadband. There are some successful examples of that in Chesterfield.
184WH
It was always said that the infrastructure of coal mining areas was locked up in the deep pits underground. Once the pits are closed, flooded and filled in, that infrastructure is gone. The extra Government investment that is needed to provide new infrastructure will obviously cost money. Even if the Government reduce the surpluses that they take from the miners' pension fund to benefit pensioners, remaining surpluses should be directed into extra regeneration funds for deprived coalfield community areas.
Finally, will the Minister comment on the £90 million made available by the DTI to pay lump sums to those on low pensions? I understand that, until recently, only £57 million of that £90 million had been allocated.
10.31 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I will be brief because we obviously want to hear from the Minister. A lot of technical points have been raised, and many Members have a deep interest in the subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate and on the great knowledge and passion that she showed in her speech. It has been an excellent short debate, with an impressive range of expertise and experience in evidence.
I was in the House in 1994 when the new arrangements were agreed. I was particularly interested to hear what the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) had to say, as he was on the Standing Committee that considered the legislation. On Second Reading, there was a feeling on both sides of the House that the arrangements were fair to everyone, and several hon. Members said that having a guarantee in place was an immensely valuable aspect of the new scheme.
Mr. Clapham: In hindsight, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 50:50 split agreed in 1994 was overcautious?
Mr. Bellingham: Yes. The evidence bears that out, but given the possibility of difficult markets in the future, no one could have anticipated how strong the stock market would be, how well the fund would do or how the historical surpluses would build up. I did not sit on the Committee or speak in the Second Reading debate, but I listened to some of it and remember the then Minister listening to the argument on the 50:50 split and concluding that caution was needed. However, he said that future Governments could always re-examine the point. I have a few suggestions on how the current Government could be more flexible and go some of the way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's demands.
The point that was made about the huge historical surplus of £3.5 billion is important. Will the Minister say how much extra income would be brought in and what impact it would have on the average pension if that money was repatriated to the scheme? That would seem a logical step to take.
There has been a lot of talk about the need for flexibility. The Government profit substantially from the split, although they have, of course, put several schemes in place, and extra money has gone into coalfield communities. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) noted, that money is welcome,

185WH
although some miners and their families want it in their pockets and see a big difference between the money that goes to them, which has been saved for, and the money that goes towards helping the wider community. In addition, the Opposition congratulate the Government on what they have done to enable miners who opted out into private schemes to opt back in, and we welcome some of the other schemes that they have put in place. None the less, there needs to be as much flexibility as possible, given the amount of money that is around.
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) clearly and succinctly noted that a small number of miners in her constituency are still arguing about one anomaly. It is extraordinary that those men, who are obviously very old now, are losing out because of a bureaucratic rule. Given that only £60 million of the £90 million made available to top up very small pensions has been spent, such problems could easily be solved. In the case of the hon. Lady's constituents, that would cost very little. Will the Minister say what the cost would be?
The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) explained that MPS members were disadvantaged vis-à-vis BCSSS members. That is obviously a substantial anomaly that will affect those working at the remaining large pits in the event of their being closed. Given that the Government are awash with money from the surplus that they are making, they could easily find the resources to deal with the problem. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. If the Government show real flexibility in dealing with such anomalies, there will be less concern about how the scheme is being administered.
As several hon. Members have said, the scheme is finite. As the number of beneficiaries declines, the guarantee should become more solid, despite the fact that the size of the fund has decreased because of falling markets. The smaller the number of beneficiaries, the more solid the guarantee and the more secure the Government can be in the knowledge that they will never be called on to back it up. There must therefore be an argument for the Government to be a little more generous, as many hon. Members want them to be.
In the 1997 Budget, the Government took £5 billion extra from pension funds as a result of the removal of advance corporation tax relief. We have calculated that that costs the miners pension fund more than £30 million a year, and the cumulative total is now £180 million, which is a substantial amount. The Government should therefore consider changing the split by roughly 10 per cent., which is not a great deal. Perhaps the Minister could explain to colleagues in the Treasury that they have secured £5 billion a year from pension funds. The amount that they are getting from the mineworkers pension fund is only £30 million a year, although perhaps the Minister can say whether my figures are correct. I am sure that his officials have the exact figure, which may be slightly higher. None the less, we are still talking about a combined figure of £180 million.
One message that comes from this debate is that the Government should look urgently at addressing all the points that have been made. They should consider allowing much more flexibility. Instead of a change in the split, they could acknowledge their take resulting
186WH
from the 1997 changes to pension fund taxation and ensure that money goes back into the hands of the families who need it so badly.
When the scheme comes to an end, the Government will have a very large surplus. Are they simply going to pocket that money, or will part of it go to the communities? Would it not be better to look at the state of the guarantee that the Government have given and the likelihood of that guarantee ever being called in? In the next five to 10 years, many families will be even more in need of help and of cash. There must be other ways to ensure that extra money from what we know will be a very substantial sum—relative to the number of potential beneficiaries—will benefit those in need. Particular consideration should be given to widows and families of miners who have given so much over the years and received so little. I hope that the Minister will answer all the points raised by hon. Members.
10.41 am
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate. The number and quality of contributions have illustrated the knowledge about the subject and the concerns that it gives rise to. As some of the more sophisticated contributions to the debate have recognised, the issue is rather more complicated than a simple 50:50 split, with the Government cast as plunderers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) said that she often had constituents come to her to muse over what should be done with the surplus. At present, that would be a very brief conversation because there are no surpluses, only very substantial deficits. That is the other side of the coin, on which my hon. Friends have been understandably less anxious to concentrate.
I welcome the debate, which has raised many interesting issues to explore. Everything that has been said will be looked at very carefully, including contributions from the Opposition parties. It is an ironic time for the debate to take place, because at almost any other time since 1994 the case would have been more one-sided. At present, however, the guarantee is working very strongly to the advantage of members of the pension scheme. As the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), pointed out, all around us there is confusion and dismay about the security of pension funds, but the miners have a guarantee, for which they have paid through the 50:50 arrangement.
Before I embark on my formal text, I will deal with the point about an 85:15 split. Even three years ago, that was at the far end of the scale of estimates. Much has changed in the stock market and other investments in the course of those three years. The 85:15 proposal is off the radar screen in current circumstances.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), made the most magnanimous proposal towards the miners ever to come from a Tory spokesman. He suggested giving them £3.5 billion—a distribution of alms from the munificent Tories. The £3.5 billion does not have to be distributed because that figure is already reducing very substantially owing to the circumstances that I have described.

187WH
I will respond as part of a general debate about the pension fund arrangements. We can all use the debate as a helpful starting point. What is really important is to get back into the discussions with the trustees of the fund, which were rudely interrupted by the sect that calls itself NACODS South Wales. If ever there was an example of why politically motivated people should not use the interests of trade union members as a front for their political ambitions, it was the action of those people, including what they did over the respiratory disease and VWF schemes. Never has an organisation with so few members caused so much mischief to so many. If the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) wants to take that message back to his party colleague in south Wales, he is welcome to do so.
The current pension arrangements in the coal sector were put in place at the time of privatisation of the industry in 1994. This is where the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) is useful. The figure was not plucked from the air, even by a Government of the political hue of the time; it was based on actuarial advice.
I come from a slightly different historical perspective, because I remember serving on the Committee that considered what became the Railways Act 1993, when the Tories proposed something much more outrageous than they did in the context of the coal industry. In fact, if I remember rightly, what we pleaded for and eventually secured in the Railways Bill was a deal comparable to what was done in the coal industry, rather than the much more extreme formula that the Tories proposed.
There was a different perspective on the matter in 1994, and even if the figure was based on small-c conservative actuarial advice, it was based on actuarial advice, to which everyone had to sign up. In return for a safeguard, the trustees freely entered into an arrangement whereby any future valuation surplus would be split 50:50 between beneficiaries and Government. In providing that guarantee to the two schemes, the Government accepted a pretty massive contingent pension liability, which has been valued at £16 billion. The other side of the coin was that, even if there was no return on investment or there was a deficit in the scheme, as at present, miners' pensions, as at privatisation, would always rise in line with inflation and would never fall in cash terms.
No one has mentioned today that that guarantee has not only been met but comfortably exceeded since 1994. The current arrangements have yielded bonus increases on guaranteed benefits totalling about 30 per cent. since 1994, which is a significant increase in such a relatively short time. Those bonus increases are separate from, and additional to, the inflation-linked increases that are applied to pensions each year to maintain their real values. By any objective analysis of what has happened, the guarantee has worked effectively for members of the scheme. I understand all the concerns about where the other 50 per cent. went, but it should be acknowledged that if the guarantee had not been in place, it would not have been possible for the trustees to make the high-risk, high-return investments that have led to the bonuses being paid.
188WH
I return to my original point: the situation is much more complex and much less one-sided than some caricatures of how the Government have acted might suggest. Recent events in the financial world have further vindicated the conclusion that the decision taken in 1994 to give the two British Coal pension schemes Government guarantees represented a good deal for the scheme members.
At the same time—I return to the point about getting back into discussions with the trustees—I certainly agree that it is sensible to recognise that there have been changes since 1994. Indeed, it was for that reason that the trustees of the two schemes and I announced in January 2002 a wish to review how those changes might best be reflected in revisions to the 1994 arrangements, subject to ensuring an equitable sharing of risks and rewards and that any revisions were sufficiently robust to operate satisfactorily in a wide variety of conditions.
Mr. Clapham: The Minister may be aware that the administrators of the pension scheme and two trustees visited three weeks ago and informed us that they would be meeting, as NACODS South Wales had withdrawn the application for judicial review. Will the hon. Gentleman be the primary Minister who will meet the trustees to consider the future?
Mr. Wilson: I imagine that as Minister for Energy and Construction I would be the appropriate Minister to meet the trustees.
Mr. Clapham: Will there be a Treasury Minister as well?
Mr. Wilson: We could go arm in arm to meet them. I will meet the trustees when I am asked to do so. They understand the interrelationship with the Treasury; it would make sense for the trustees to talk to both Departments.
As I said, everything that has happened in recent years has underlined the benefits of the scheme, but there have been changes since 1994. We want to return to the discussions, which, as my hon. Friend said, were so rudely interrupted. We agreed to have further discussions with the trustees to consider different methods of paying for the guarantee and to explore the scope to extend the guarantee to cover the bonuses already awarded to members that the current arrangements have generated. It was necessary to put the discussions on hold while the Government responded to a judicial review instigated by NACODS South Wales. I am pleased that it has been formally withdrawn and we will resume our discussions with the trustees.
In the meantime the Government and the trustees have agreed a package of improvements that offer real benefits to the schemes' members. They include making clear the rules on standstill—the total pension payable is protected in cash terms if the schemes go into deficit—which will apply to all members, including those not yet in receipt of their pension. We have agreed to the schemes purchasing guaranteed benefits on an ad hoc basis to purchase early retirement benefits. We have also agreed to discuss extending the lifetime of the investment reserve beyond the 25 years agreed in 1994.

189WH
That is both an asset within each fund to generate future returns for pensioners and the first line of Government funding in times of deficit.
As part of the 1994 arrangements, a secondary guarantee was given, referred to as standstill. That arrangement ensures that total pensions—guaranteed benefits plus bonus—will never fall in cash terms even if there are not enough assets in the bonus augmentation fund to cover its liabilities. I understand that the trustees of the schemes may be able to protect members from the full effect of standstill if the deficit is not too large following the next valuation.
Several hon. Members referred to the low pension scheme. I find it astonishing that pension schemes of any worth in the mining industry date only from the 1970s. Before that, pensions were pitiful and derisory. It is stunning how badly people were treated. With that in mind, in January 2002 I announced the scheme for one-off lump sum payments to members of the mineworkers' pension scheme on the lowest pensions. That scheme has been a great success; to date almost £60 million has been paid to about 44,000 members. The figure is £60 million out of £90 million because many people have still to be traced before we can respond to their claims. We are actively searching for the addresses of members who are eligible under the schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) has again written to me and I am willing to consider what she says. However, if six months is knocked off the criterion it will include not only the 11 people in the Forest of Dean constituency to whom I would love to write a cheque but others throughout the country who are in the same position. If the line is changed, somebody else will be just on the other side of it. It is not simply a matter of changing the threshold from five years to four years six months, but I promise to evaluate the proposal and to respond to my hon. Friend as sympathetically as possible.
Diana Organ: The Minister rightly says that £60 million has been spent and that Paymaster and the Department are trying hard to trace the members who are eligible under the current criterion. Can he reassure me that when the endeavour to trace as many as possible of the eligible miners has been completed, he will look at what is left from the £90 million that has been set aside? The answer to my parliamentary question was that it would cost £8 million to £10 million to change the criterion to four years five months. If that much money was left, would he consider changing the criteria to include my 11 members from the Forest of Dean?
Mr. Wilson: I will do better than that. I undertake to consider the matters concurrently rather than consecutively, and to respond to my hon. Friend. I do not guarantee what the answer will be, but I promise to consider those points.
I wish to make a broader point relating to what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) said about the miners paying for their own
190WH
compensation scheme. I vigorously refute that allegation. The issues are separate, and there is no read-across from them. I have made a plausible case. We can disagree about the balance of the split of the pension fund, but nobody disagrees that there is a quid pro quo: the guarantee in return for the 50 per cent. that is paid. That is absolutely separate from the ethical and political responsibility of Government to deal with health claims and other issues. There is no comparison between the figures that we are talking about and the pension fund—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the House that it is my responsibility to hear clearly what is said and to follow it in every detail. It might help if remarks were addressed toward me rather than away from me.
Mr. Wilson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a difficult place in which to observe both courtesies at the same time.
I reiterate my point strenuously: I am proud of what we have done about the legacy issues in the coal industry in the past year or two. None of the payments has been made out of the pension fund.
David Hamilton: I was referring to the impression that is being created in many people's eyes that, on the one hand, they receive compensation to which they are entitled, but on the other, the Government have taken money. I recognise the distinctions that have been made, but they are part of the explanation of a wider issue, as is the matter of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, on which the Minister is also working hard.
Mr. Wilson: I accept that the perception might exist, but all of us have a responsibility to rebut it rather than to reinforce it. My hon. Friend referred to both the dismissed miners issue and to CISWO. I am pleased to say, on the dismissed miner issue, that the letters have started to go out. That is real progress and I shall write to hon. Members later today with more details. It is another piece of unfinished business that has been dealt with. Equally, I undertook in the Adjournment debate in March to look again at the current year's funding of CISWO. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) is to have a meeting with the Treasury; I do not think that he will be disappointed with the outcome.
We have dealt with the legacy issues on their merits, according to what is right and to our political and ethical responsibility towards the coalfield communities, not as any kind of read-across from the pension issue. We have had a good debate and I promise that the issues will be considered carefully. I want to get back into discussions with the trustees of the miners pension funds. All that has been said will be taken on board. It is also worth recognising that the guarantee has been delivered in circumstances in which miners would otherwise face much more uncertainty about the fate of their pensions, as do many other people.

National Institute for Medical Research
11 am
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I would like to bring to the attention of the Chamber a matter that is of great concern to all of us interested in biomedical research in the United Kingdom: the future of the National Institute for Medical Research. My constituency is home to this world-renowned institute, which is based at Mill Hill in north London. It is run by the Medical Research Council and is the largest of its institutes. The NIMR is a major employer in my constituency, with more than 700 staff, many of whom live in Hendon. I am not a scientist—my highest achievement was grade five in O-level physics many years ago—but I do not need to be one to recognise that the NIMR has a most distinguished scientific history. It has produced no fewer than five Nobel prize winners, and many discoveries of fundamental importance.
Research at the NIMR addresses many key areas of medical research. The institute has an outstanding international reputation, and the quality of its research has been repeatedly recognised, not only by the MRC, but by the scientific community worldwide. NIMR discoveries have been wide-ranging, and include breakthroughs in infectious diseases, genetics and neuroscience. Its scientists have made important discoveries about the atomic structures of biological molecules and about how we develop from embryos to adults.
The size of the NIMR and the range of its research encourage experts from many different disciplines to work together. Its staff include scientists trained in mathematics, physics and chemistry, as well as in biology and medicine. Scientific equipment is very expensive, and at the NIMR, all the experimental facilities are shared, promoting cost-effective and efficient use of those resources. Current research at the institute, led by its distinguished director, Sir John Skehel, is an excellent example of how modern biomedical research is evolving to meet the challenges of 21st-century medical needs.
Internationally, the NIMR's research has an important impact on problems in the developing world. The institute is a key centre for research into major infectious diseases such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. It contributed to the successful international project to crack the malaria genome. The World Health Organisation's influenza centre at the NIMR provides international surveillance for new influenza viruses, enabling us to update our vaccines each year. The influenza virus was, in fact, discovered at Mill Hill, and the NIMR continues to be a world leader in its research on influenza.
The work carried out at the institute has great clinical importance. One example of that is the important link between the NIMR and London's Great Ormond Street hospital. NIMR scientists collaborate with their clinical colleagues to improve the diagnosis and treatment of child heart and digestive diseases, as well as growth and development problems in children. Other programmes at the institute, such as the development of new methods for the early detection of cervical cancers and of other infectious organisms in the community, have broader implications for the NHS.
192WH
One of the institute's great strengths is its close professional and geographical connections with the major teaching hospitals in London, which enable collaborative work to be carried out efficiently and cost effectively. Those connections would be put at risk if the NIMR were to move.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that it is vital for the NIMR to remain at Mill Hill because it is in a purpose-built building and a strategic geographical position? As he said, it is essential that it has access to the great teaching hospitals in London and to the specialist consultants who tend to congregate in the capital.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. That is the point that I am trying to make, and I am pleased that my campaign to preserve the NIMR at Mill Hill has cross-party backing.
Dr. Rudi Vis: I agree with the comments that have just been made. I understand that there was a peer review of the NIMR, which it passed wonderfully well, and that the review concluded that the institute should not be fragmented. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I shall return to that issue later in my remarks.
I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you, too, will share the great excitement at the NIMR about the fundamental breakthroughs in nerve repair made by its neuroscientists, which may soon be translated into the first effective treatment for spinal nerve damage. The impact of that British research on the thousands of patients worldwide who suffer crippling spinal injuries is of course potentially life changing.
Those examples illustrate the strength and practical relevance of NIMR research. State-of-the-art facilities, easy interactions between scientists of many disciplines and nationalities, and the enthusiasm to collaborate with clinical colleagues are the key factors in the drive for the success of the institute at Mill Hill. Why, then, is the future of that British success story under threat?
In April, the MRC published a forward investment strategy document for its institutes. That recognised the high quality of NIMR science, but stated that the case for keeping the institute at Mill Hill was "not compelling". The draft proposal was outside the normal five-year peer review, which last assessed the NIMR in 2000, when it received an excellent report.
The document recommended moving the NIMR away from London, to the Addenbrooke's hospital site in Cambridge in 2010. It also proposed downsizing the institute to about half its present number. To achieve that, the MRC would seek additional Government money for a new building in Cambridge, which at today's prices would cost about £80 million. However, the paper made no estimate of the staff costs of a move to Cambridge, nor of the cost of redundancies.
News of that proposed move astonished NIMR staff. There had been no previous consultations with the institute, and no evidence was presented to support such

193WH
a radical proposal. It came completely out of the blue. The building at Mill Hill has at least 30 years' life left in it, and the 47-acre site is ideal for future expansion. Were the move to go ahead, it would disrupt many of the long-established and highly productive academic and clinical contacts in London to which I have referred. Downsizing on the scale proposed would inevitably reduce the scope of the research that the NIMR could carry out. The suspicion is that the idea is to cash in on a valuable site in north London. I hope that the Minister will immediately dismiss that notion.
The MRC invited comments from NIMR staff and many other stakeholders. The result was strong support for maintaining the institute's present size and location, and there was powerful and widespread criticism of the way in which the MRC had gone about the process. From my discussions with the staff, I know that few are prepared to move. The NIMR is not only a building but a talented work force of scientists and support staff; such a move would not be of the institution itself.
With the announcement of a plan to move to a smaller institute of unknown composition seven years before such a move could occur, the future of all the staff at Mill Hill has been destabilised. It is no surprise that scientists at the NIMR were immediately inundated with job offers, many from the United States. The loss of that pool of UK talent would be extremely damaging to the MRC biomedical science base. The Association of University Teachers has told me of ongoing uncertainty and about the impact on recruitment and retention. MRC management failed properly to consult NIMR staff or to take account of their views before publishing strategies that would directly affect their future.
The PCS pointed out to me that most of its members at the NIMR are women—a point that I raised in my parliamentary question to the Minister for Women last week. Most of them are in clinical or administrative roles, and the least well paid are in the most easily dispensable positions. The union's experience suggests that they will be the first employees to lose their jobs in a relocation, yet the director told me that their skills are a vital part of the NIMR team. Most PCS members are the main earners in their households, so the relocation would have a devastating impact on those constituents, and on the community in Hendon. Similar views were expressed by the AUT. All members have strong local ties to Mill Hill, and relocation to Cambridge would be out of the question.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will have read the Science and Technology Committee's critical report on the MRC and the Government's recent response. Those documents raise serious concerns about the MRC's record of communication with its research community. As well as needing to improve financial management and planning, the MRC must mend its ways when dealing with such important issues as the future of its major research institutes, and it must operate in a more open and transparent manner. The MRC has failed to communicate with the NIMR, and it is to be hoped that Professor Colin Blakemore, the MRC's chief executive designate, will pay urgent attention to that.
The MRC's latest proposal for the institute is to set up a new expert taskforce to consider its future direction, but this time with some NIMR representation. I welcome that move, but I ask why yet another
194WH
committee is needed when the case against the move to Cambridge is so strong. Nevertheless, I hope that the new committee's remit will allow it quickly to secure the NIMR's future as the national centre for biomedical research.
An early decision is essential—a year has been set aside for the committee's work, which is too long if the NIMR is not to suffer a brain drain that will affect science throughout the country. Speed is necessary since the whole affair has led to strained relations between senior and other staff throughout the NIMR and the MRC management, and it has already captured the attention of the media through critical press coverage. That can only be damaging in the longer term, so it is essential that the problem be remedied as soon as possible.
We cannot and must not jeopardise the exciting future of biomedical research that is one of the UK's strongest assets. We have a well-trained, highly skilled and imaginative scientific community, and we are living in a time of major medical advance. In the 21st century, we are already seeing the merging of molecular, biological and clinical sciences. The decoding of the human genome, the unravelling of the structure of key biological molecules and the promises of stem cell technology will revolutionise medicine in the coming century. It is important to ensure that such discoveries are harnessed effectively for society's benefit. The MRC will need to play a crucial role in that by helping the NIMR to stay at its present location.
The research horizon is expanding at an unprecedented rate, and we will inevitably be faced with requests for ever mere investment in the fundamental sciences. We need to maintain Britain's leadership in the crucial field of biomedical science, not only for the future health of our community but because enormous economic benefits will flow for the nation.
If the Government are asked to respond to those challenges for increased investment, they have a right to expect open and effective management of the resources. Managers need to remember, however, that it is the scientists and the support staff who are our most precious resource. It is their talent and dedication that, if properly supported, will lead to new discoveries and, equally important, inspire the next generation of scientists. The MRC has a good record in training young scientists, nowhere better than at the NIMR, with its close contacts with the London academic institutions, principally University college London. The NIMR will have an equally important role in expanding interactions with clinical departments. London offers a uniquely rich mix of clinical research, and the NIMR already has an excellent track record in that field which the proposed move would threaten.
The MRC must play a vital role in securing its share of new investment to capitalise on those opportunities. Its aim should be to encourage and develop the excellent biomedical science that it funds throughout the UK. On its current site in Mill Hill, the NIMR offers exceptional opportunities for inward investment from the MRC, as well as from other academic, industrial and clinical partners. I therefore urge the Minister to encourage the MRC to recognise the value of developing its inward investment at the NIMR, which is uniquely well placed to take advantage of the unparalleled academic and clinical links that London offers, and to end the

195WH
uncertainty with an early announcement from the taskforce to secure the NIMR's future at its present Mill Hill home and enable it to continue its vital, world-class research without further disruption.
11.13 am
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on a matter that is of widespread interest and concern. As I am sure he is aware, ministerial responsibility in the Department of Trade and Industry rests with Lord Sainsbury, but I welcome this opportunity to speak in a debate on a topic of such importance for UK medical research. I will contribute on a strictly factual basis. Let me point out that no decision has yet been taken regarding the future of the Medical Research Council's National Institute for Medical Research.
This debate is particularly timely in view of the recent report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the work of the MRC and the Government's response, which was published last week. The MRC is at present developing a long-term strategy for its major capital investments during the next 10 to 15 years at four sites: Harwell, Mill Hill, Hammersmith and Cambridge. The MRC will continue to invest in other UK sites, but key decisions are required at those four sites in the next few years. The Office of Science and Technology requires that all research councils produce long-term capital investment plans for their institutes for the next spending review, and the outcome of the MRC's investment strategy will feed into that.
It is normal procedure for the MRC to review units and institutes towards the end of the director's term so that it can reconfirm or reshape its remit. That approach is appropriate and ensures that all research investment is refreshed and remains internationally competitive in line with developing needs.
Dr. Vis: I hear what the Minister says, and the MRC has written to me in those terms. However, is it efficient for units and institutes to be reviewed when the director resigns or retires? Depending on the directorships, that may take place after five, 10 or 15 years. It does not seem to make much sense for a review to take place just because the director is retiring.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I am not aware of the organisation's cycle of directorships or what guarantee of regular intervals the process provides, but I admit that it seems an unusual formula for determining when reviews should take place. I am told that there are quinquennial reviews, but I am happy to come back to hon. Members to say whether that is coincidental with or driven by changes of directorship. What I have just read suggests that it is coincidental, but if correction to that is needed, I will provide it.
The NIMR at Mill Hill is included in the review because the term of office of the current director, Sir John Skehel, ends in 2006—that brings us back to the previous point. In addition, several senior scientific staff
196WH
retire around that time. In October 2002, the MRC announced the establishment of a council subcommittee to develop its forward investment strategy for the four sites and an overarching policy framework for nurturing and sustaining optimal research environments that will inform major investment appraisal in the future. The MRC informed its unit and institute directors and other stakeholders of the terms of reference and membership of the sub-group. The directors at the four sites were consulted during the six months taken to discuss and publish the draft strategy, so they have had the opportunity to comment on the overarching policy framework and submit comments relating to their individual institutes, in person and in writing, in the course of the sub-committee's deliberations.
The draft strategy was released as a consultation document on 4 April 2003, with a deadline for comment of 19 May that was later extended to 26 May. It was made widely available by the MRC to NIMR staff, trade unions, academics and other researchers including the directors of other MRC-funded units, local MPs and other stakeholders. The results of the consultation were discussed by the MRC sub-committee and its council when they met on 29 May. The overall policy framework and the forward strategy for three of the four centres of investment—Hammersmith, Harwell and Cambridge—have been broadly well received. Most of the comment during the consultation had focused on the specific proposals for the NIMR.
In summary, the sub-committee's proposals for the NIMR were, first, that there was likely to be a strong strategic case in the longer term for retaining investment in the areas of science currently based at the NIMR and that a worldwide search should begin in 2004 for a new director to replace Sir John Skehel. Secondly, the sub-committee found that the NIMR at its present location may be too isolated from clinical and other academic units to compete and remain as attractive to scientists in the longer term as it has been in the past. It proposed Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge as having much to offer as a new location for the new NIMR.
The proposal for relocation has provoked extensive criticism, which was reflected today and during the consultation. I am sure that the expert taskforce will consider the matter in great detail. The MRC took seriously the comments that it received and recently announced as a next step that it would now accelerate further development of strong scientific vision for the NIMR by establishing that expert taskforce. The taskforce will consider and consult on a broader set of options for the size and location of the NIMR, including options suggested during the consultation period.
The MRC will announce the membership of the taskforce in the near future. It will include council members, independent scientists from the United Kingdom and abroad, and senior scientists currently working at the NIMR. The establishment of the taskforce emphasizes the MRC's commitment to continued stakeholder consultation and to considering all the options for the future of the NIMR. The taskforce will aim to submit an interim report by the end of the year and a final report by next June.
The NIMR is MRC's oldest and largest research institute. It has an annual budget from the public purse of £27 million a year. The current building is more than

197WH
60 years old. It is a matter of record that the NIMR has an illustrious scientific reputation, with alumni now in leadership positions all over the world.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister is right that the building was constructed in the late 1930s, but it turned out to be a perfectly designed building for the NIMR. Its size and the ability to move rooms within its shell are still relevant today. As one who qualified as an architect, I must say that it is one of the most perfect buildings for the uses to which it is put. For that and many other reasons, it would be criminal not to continue with the NIMR at Mill Hill.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well as an architect and as an advocate. My position is based purely on fact. I am happy to make it clear that when I say that the building is 60 years old, I do not say so pejoratively. It is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman has added his own rider to that.
Much of the NIMR's current research portfolio, notably in infectious diseases, immunology and stem-cell biology, is highly relevant to Department of Health priorities and to the MRC's published 10-year vision for medical research. The aim of the MRC's current review is to ensure that the NIMR can flourish and remain competitive as a world-class medical research environment well into the 21st century. Whatever the outcome of the deliberations of the expert taskforce, high-quality medical research will continue to be funded in optimal environments as part of the new NIMR or elsewhere.
The future of the NIMR is an issue for the MRC to resolve. The Haldane principle under which all research councils are managed requires that Governments do not prescribe to individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is their responsibility, advised by researchers and research users on the MRC and its boards. It is therefore for the MRC to decide its long-term strategy, including for the future of the NIMR. However, the Office of Science and Technology has been kept closely informed of developments: given the scale of investment in the NIMR, the OST has taken a particular interest in the process being followed by the MRC. The OST is content that due process is being followed and that the scientific community and other stakeholders have had, and will continue to have, the opportunity to consult on and influence the outcome of that strategy development.
In March, the Select Committee on Science and Technology published its report into the work of the MRC. Only last week, the Government published their response. I do not have time to discuss everything that was said. However, I want to make a couple of points that may be relevant to the debate. Most important is the fact that the review of the NIMR and the wider forward investment strategy are not connected to the Select Committee report.
As I said, it is standard practice for the MRC to review units and institutes towards the end of the director's term. The review of MRC-funded units and
198WH
institutes, whether quinquennial or at the end of a director's term, is important in ensuring that the excellence of the UK science base is maintained and developed, and that developments meet the needs of the nation and make the best use of public funds. It takes many years to bring to fruition developments in medical research that will improve health care and result in other benefits. As the chief source for Government funding of medical research, the MRC has a particular role to play in taking the longer-term view.
In conclusion, the Government accept that decisions about funding and delivering research that will ultimately benefit human health require fine judgement on the part of the MRC council.
Mr. Dismore: I get the impression that my hon. Friend is drawing his remarks to a close, so let me put to him again a point that I made in my speech. Given the value of the site, there is concern that the ulterior motive may be to maximise the proceeds of the sale for other purposes. Will he confirm that the value of the site is not a factor in the deliberations and will not feature in the decision-making process?
Mr. Wilson: I have had absolutely no indication to suggest that the value of the site is a factor in the deliberations. I am happy to seek further information and to write to my hon. Friend to reinforce that point. I certainly do not want to mislead him or the House on the issue. I will write to him about it.
As I said, certain decisions require fine judgment on the part of the MRC. Judgements that are made, for example, as part of the development of the MRC's forward investment strategy rightly attract questions and criticism, and the Government welcome informed debate on such issues.
It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has initiated this debate. The cross-party representations have been interesting and have doubtless reassured him. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has made an appearance, although I am not sure whether she shares the views that have been expressed. That aside, the debate has given me an opportunity publicly to reassure stakeholders that a decision has not been made about the future of the NIMR. I have no doubt that everyone involved in the process will take note of today's contributions.
Serious consideration has been given to all the comments sent to the MRC during the recent consultation period, and alternative suggestions on the future of the NIMR will be passed to the taskforce. Further comments will be actively sought during the next phase of the consultation, which will be under the auspices of the MRC's expert taskforce.
I hope that that is a reasonable précis of the factual position. This has been a classic Adjournment debate in that it has allowed issues of public importance to be given the airing that they deserve.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Children's Health and Social Services
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject this afternoon. Some Members present have participated in previous debates on the subject and it will not have escaped their notice that I have already raised the issue several times, most notably in last year's debate on the Kennedy report on the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry, in a subsequent debate in the Chamber on maternity and child health services, and in questions in response to Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbié inquiry. This debate provides me with slightly longer than those debates afforded to set out some of my views on how we are developing children's services, and to ask the Government questions about how the various initiatives will fit together nationally and work, with particular reference to my constituency by way of illustration.
It may be helpful to begin by setting out the context. We should not forget the good news on children's health: infant mortality rates have been reduced and the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome is about a quarter of that 20 years ago. Children are healthier than ever and deaths arising from some common viral infections have been much reduced through immunisation programmes, but—there is always a but—we still have far to go.
United Kingdom infant mortality rates are still the second worst in the European Union. We have continuing childhood morbidity due to cancer and to injuries, especially in the home and on roads. There is a rising prevalence of diseases such as asthma, which is now the most common chronic disease. There are also major inequalities in children's health care: some 750,000 children live in poor housing, and poorer children are 10 times more likely than others to die from severe head injuries and 15 times more likely to die in a house fire.
Despite health promotion strategies, we are seeing a worrying incidence of some factors that will lead to substantial illness and disease in later life. An example that is the subject of attention is obesity among children, which is an increasing problem. In a speech in January, Professor Aynsley-Green described it as a pandemic that could lead to a dramatic increase in disease in future years if unconstrained.
The British Medical Association is reportedly proposing today that fatty foods be taxed by doubling the VAT on them. I confess that that strikes me as an ill-judged response to the problem, as it would be likely to have severely regressive effects on the income of poorer families. However, I will not dwell on that proposal.
As a consequence not least of obesity, there is a rising incidence of type 2 diabetes. Despite anti-smoking strategies, many young people continue to smoke, especially in their teenage years. Binge drinking is getting worse, and there are attendant diseases. There are also diseases attendant on drug taking and a rising prevalence of mental illness among adolescents and the young.
There are still problems in the system, such as shortages in paediatric specialities, a shortage of specialised nursing staff, gaps in the public health and
200WH
preventative strategies due to lack of resources, and—the substance of most of my argument—the lack of a coherent, child-focused and accountable service for children, which has been much sought after for many years.
The historical context of my remarks will be familiar to those who participated in the report on the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry. Indeed, over the years, there have been many reports on the provision of children's health services. At page 416, the Kenney report states that
"it is a remarkable feature of children's healthcare services that, over a period of 40 years, successive independent reports have made the same or similar recommendations."
At page 417, it says:
"Remarkably, some would say scandalously, despite the consistency of these recommendations over such a long period of time, there has been an equally consistent failure fully to implement these fundamental principles, a failure which continues to this day."
Professor Kennedy referred to the 1959 Platt report, the 1976 Court report, the 1991 Department of Health guidance, the 1993 Audit Commission report and Health Committee reports on children's health services before the 1997 election. Since the election, we have had a range of further reports, which are giving rise to a renewed focus on how we deliver children's services. That is what I shall focus on.
Those reports are consistent in stating that we need a child-centred approach. They say that we have to understand the family context for supporting children in their health needs and that we have to take a holistic view of children's needs, which is not to allow the hospital or other agencies to see children's needs only in the institutional context, but to consider the whole child in the child's context. They say also that we need greater community-led services, because hospitalisation has to be the exception for children, not the rule.
Requirements for specialisation and expertise were reflected in the six principles listed in the Audit Commission's 1993 report. They are child and family-centred care, specialist skilled staff, separate facilities, effective treatments, appropriate hospitalisation and strategic commissioning.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Sadly, I cannot be here for all of it, because of Select Committee commitments. I wonder whether the list might include a particular focus on foster children and children who are adopted. I know from my constituency work that their needs are much greater. It not just that social service provision is inadequate. For example, I know of foster carers looking after two children whose parents had died and who were traumatised by being split up. The foster carers cannot get a bigger house to accommodate both children, but they are clearly doing good for society and for the children. Should such issues form a separate plank in that list?
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recently secured a debate here on the film industry—a subject in which I am interested and one that, if I understand her correctly, she will be pursuing this afternoon.

201WH
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had the privilege of joining a number of foster carers who visited Parliament a few weeks ago, during foster care week, to discuss the provision of services and what support is needed. It is not that children need additional care in the wake of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; their needs should be seen in the wider context. For instance, my recollection is that about 30 per cent. of children in foster care do not get the appropriate immunisations. [Interruption.]If I am wrong, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) will correct me.
We need to be sure that children in foster care and those looked after by local authorities are looked after in the wider context. It is not enough simply to get a good placement with foster parents. The foster parents need support and vulnerable children—those at risk even more so—need the connections with other agencies that would help to achieve the holistic view of children's needs. That reminds me of my first opportunity to discuss the issue in the House. I think that the Minister and I were members of the same Select Committee, where we considered children who were looked after by local authorities.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)indicated dissent.
Mr. Lansley: Perhaps not. I am trying to remember the dim and distant days of 1997 and 1998. However, that experience provided the base for my intentions in children's policy.
As I was saying, the Kennedy report picked up on the Audit Commission principles, saying at page 419 that
"had the principles set out in the DoH's 1991 guidelines and the Audit Commission's report been implemented in Bristol, a good number of the shortcomings in care would have been addressed much earlier."
The problem is that there has been a persistent failure to implement those reports in the national health service. We must all admit that, in practice under successive Governments and over many years, children's services have been seen as a Cinderella service in the NHS and that the specialism or institution has tended to focus on care rather than the children. Children's services have been the add-on, rather than the focus of specialist services, and children have been regarded as small versions of adults, with smaller beds, smaller portions of food and smaller doses of medicines that were licensed and intended for adults. That needs to change.
2.11 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.19 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Lansley: I was suggesting that the Kennedy report is illustrative of previous reports on children's health care services. It is certainly not alone in commenting on the fact that the intentions behind children's services were not reflected in the quality of provision. For example, Lord Laming's report on the tragic murder of Victoria Climbié is also characterised
202WH
by the understanding that institutions and agencies chronically failed to provide the standard of care expected of them. Similarly, individuals in those services failed to adhere to the good practice expected of them.
Neither the Bristol royal infirmary case nor that of Victoria Climbié can be described as resulting from a failure to provide the necessary resources. In both, the available resources were broadly equivalent to those elsewhere. Good practice was being achieved in other parts of the country, but practice in those two cases was poor. I shall return to that issue, but we must recognise the fact that, to a large extent, we are discussing organisation, good practice and co-ordination, not resources.
Let me summarise the issues that I hope to address. The first is why we have failed to implement the recommendations in the range of reports on children's health and how we ensure that that does not happen with the latest reports by Kennedy, Laming and others. Issue No. 1 is therefore about a commitment and sustained follow-up to the Kennedy report.
Issue No. 2 relates to implementing reports in practice. How do we create a reformed structure for children's services—one that is child centred and focused on children's needs? How do we ensure that high standards of care are integral to its functions? How can we make such a structure managerially focused and accountable for its priorities and the quality of its practice?
The context for all that—the material from which I am working and the developments that I have in mind—includes the Kennedy report and the Government's response to it; the First module of the national service framework, which was published in April; the reconfiguration of acute hospital services for children; Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbié inquiry; the establishment of children's trusts and, as a tangent to that, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and the prospective content of the Government's Green Paper on children at risk.
The Government accepted the bulk of the Kennedy report's recommendations, but the Minister will recall that several were not accepted. The decision on them was deferred and 17 months have passed. I am talking particularly about recommendation 167 and recommendations 172 to 176, which deal with setting standards for children's health care services. I also have in mind recommendations 177 to 183, which deal with planning the future of children's health services.
Some of those recommendations have been acted on, and we now have the national clinical directive for children. In that respect, I had the privilege of meeting Professor Aynsley-Green last year to discuss the work of the children's taskforce and the preparation of the national service framework. We have the first module of that framework, which indicates the character and standard of the work that is expected. As things stand, however, the framework's 10-year timetable—standards have to be met in 10 years—does not make clear what should be happening at intermediate points. What is the timetable during those 10 years? How are individual institutions to interpret what standards are expected of them at intermediate points? I am not clear, for example, what specifically is asked of health service bodies in the next three years under the improvement,

203WH
expansion and reform programme, and what precisely is to be included in the performance indicators that will form part of the performance assessment.
The national service framework, as published so far, does not appear to set out a programme to establish those standards, starting from where we are now, but it gives an aspirational picture. Other national service frameworks—the Minister is perhaps more familiar with those than I am—such as that relating to older people and strokes set specific deadlines by which key elements of the standards should be achieved and indicative timetables for achieving those standards. At the moment, that does not appear to be the case with this national service framework, and I believe that such indicators should be included.
Recommendation 174 of the Kennedy report distinguishes between obligatory and aspirational standards—between the minimum standards that must be achieved to ensure quality of care and those that might be achieved over time with the changes that will take place in health service bodies, leading to a high quality of care. I understand that that distinction is connected to recommendation 183, which concerns the validation and revalidation of acute hospital services, and which the Government did not accept.
As I understood the explanation given to me by Ministers last year, that recommendation was not accepted because it was thought preferable to continue with such services and improve them, rather than lose them to the NHS because they had failed to be revalidated. However, that does not mean that there should not be a clear indication in the national service framework of the minimum standards that are expected. Through such minimum standards, performance indicators can be set which, if not met, will give rise to special measures and the intervention of the Commission for Health Improvement.
Recommendations 178, 179 and 181 concern the configuration of acute hospital services, which is not included in the national service framework. As I understood it last year, the intention was that the acute hospital services module would be published and that the configuration issues arising from it would follow. However, that seems not to be the case. Issues arising from the national service framework need that configuration guidance to be produced very quickly. The throughput of cases, the competence of staff and the assurance that staff dealing with children have the expertise as well as the specialist skills necessary to ensure a quality outcome are at the heart of the Bristol royal infirmary report.
If quality is to be assured in children's services through the national service framework, we need to know what will be recommended in terms of throughput of cases for particular specialisms and, as a consequence, the extent to which there should be a concentration of services in particular acute hospital environments. That example shows how children's services have not developed according to a focused, discrete understanding of children's medical needs.
A greater understanding of the need to integrate hospital and community care is also needed. For example, in what is proposed, I have not yet seen any
204WH
guidance on the relationship between community paediatrics and acute hospital care. There are examples throughout the UK of community paediatrics services operating out of the acute sector, but in the national service framework it is not clear to what extent that is considered desirable. If children are hospitalised, there is a particular need for high-dependency care beds and paediatric intensive care units. Of course, the Government have been supporting that need with additional resources. There is a framework for that. However, we must identify the framework for the transfer of cases and referrals to hospitals that provide high-dependency care or paediatric intensive care. We do not yet know how far that will go.
Across the country, we see that the number of referrals due to constraints on local district general hospitals that undertake paediatric work is increasing all the time. There are examples across the country of hospitals not undertaking surgery that requires general anaesthetics for children under the age of two. That can lead to the referral of a significant additional number of cases to centres that offer high-dependency care or paediatric intensive care.
Those consequences flow from decisions that are continually being made in the NHS, which result in substantial increases in demand for work at certain centres. For example, Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency has experienced a 13 per cent. per annum increase in its paediatric activity and a 10 per cent. per annum increase in its paediatric intensive care work load. Staff at that hospital do not know to what extent the national specialist services definition sets, which are a reference to the throughput of cases for particular specialisms, will increase the number of referrals to them for a range of other treatments.
The requirement for adolescent specialisation and capacity is going to add yet further increases in demand, particularly for specialist care. All that points to a need, in response to the Kennedy report, to know what the configuration of acute hospital services is going to look like. Recommendation 178 of the report states:
"Children's acute hospital services should ideally be located in a children's hospital which should be physically as close as possible to an acute general hospital. This should be the preferred model for the future."
Will the Government accept that recommendation? Will the reconfiguration of acute services follow swiftly on the first module of the national service framework? Will the resources necessary to create a new configuration of services be provided through a specific capital allocation from the Government, such as that which has accompanied information technology or the NHS Modernisation Agency programme?
Alternatively, should the funds be ring-fenced for a managed clinical network for children's services, as has been the case with the cancer network? How will the plans for foundation hospitals and a new independent regulator provide for the substantial change in services that will be consequent on reconfiguring services for children, particularly in respect of the integration of services between children's hospitals and community services? As the relevant Bill is in Committee upstairs, I cannot expand on that relationship, but it would be an obvious one in the context of how foundation hospital trusts connect with other NHS bodies effectively. That

205WH
will become a distinct organisational feature in the NHS. Those questions relate specifically to the Kennedy report.
I would like to widen the debate. The Kennedy report, the Laming report and Professor Aynsley-Green, head of the children's national service framework, are all asking the same question: who is in charge? Structures of standards are increasingly being put in place. There will be a structure of local networks through children's trusts, although we will find out only over time how those children's trusts are designed in particular localities. I hope that, as a consequence of that, we will have a structure of accountability—managerial accountability on one hand and democratic accountability on the other. That matter requires further discussion. We will also have a structure of audit and inspection.
Where is the leadership in all this? Each of us, in our daily lives, thinks about our children. I certainly think about mine, and they are my top priority. In a curious sense, each of us knows that individually, but when the Government and institutions deal with such issues collectively, they cease to be top priorities. We must ensure that they are. How do we make that happen?
Mr. Mark Francois: On precisely the point about who is in charge, I have in my constituency a number of parents whose children appear to be suffering from autism spectrum disorders—Asperger syndrome springs to mind. Such parents and children have terrible problems in that they are often batted from pillar to post between health service trusts, social services departments and the county council's education department. Nobody ever seems to be willing to grasp the nettle and accept full responsibility. I mention that as a classic example of the "who is in charge?" problem coming sharply into focus. Has my hon. Friend any comment on that?
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating the problem. We are trying to address it so that we know who is in charge and, more to the point, so that the person responsible can take action that flows. Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbié inquiry pointed towards the necessity for such integration—agencies and professional groups should be able to work together, and we must escape from service silos. Once we have done so, we must find a mechanism through which we do not merely state that as an aspiration but deliver in each locality through an organisational structure. Professor Aynsley-Green and the children's taskforce might consider a managed children's network. That could be reflected in the structure of children's trusts.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has provided an excellent example. Surely the response to the acute problem that he identified cannot be merely structural. He suggested an absence of values and a failure of individual professionals to take responsibility for the child.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right, and Lord Laming's report reflects that dichotomy. I have been talking to the assistant director responsible for children's services in Cambridgeshire about the
206WH
implementation of the recommendations and the review of good practice. Justifiably, his attitude is that he is being asked to look carefully to see whether he does the things that he has always done. There is some chagrin—I put it no more strongly than that—over the costs and implications of trying to deal with the report's recommendations in places where there is already good practice. However, we accept the necessity of responding to the report.
The issue is as the hon. Gentleman has said: should we seek an institutional structural response to what is essentially a failure of professions and organisations to do their jobs effectively within the current structure? The answer is that we must ensure that professions understand what best practice is and are sufficiently held accountable to deliver it. At the same time, we must recognise that the structural problems that have persisted for years give rise to problems, such as those illustrated by my hen. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr Francois), far more often than would be the case if there were simply a failure of individuals in an otherwise well-functioning organisation. Private business, in considering the process of building quality into an organisation, generally recognises that it involves combining structures and processes with individuals who have training, expertise and commitment. Those things have to travel together, and that is what we seek here.
That brings me back to children's trusts and their objectives. Lord Laming's report says:
"The single most important change must be the drawing of a clear line of accountability from top to bottom, without doubt or ambiguity about who is responsible at every level for the well being of vulnerable children."
That is the proposition he was pursuing. Children's trusts need to be understood in this context as ways in which localities can devise a structure that meets that objective. Localities are variable, however. I think that we are approaching the point at which Ministers have an opportunity to tell us a bit more about what the pilot areas look like, because they have, if I understand the timetable correctly, received a range of submissions on pilot areas. I assume that they are about to tell us where those pilot areas are and what they look like. Perhaps this Minister will say more about that today.
It is important that children's trusts should, among other things, reflect certain principles. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The LGA, in promoting the model entitled "Serving Children Well", has, with its partners, reflected principles that should apply to children's trusts. Local authorities, as they are democratically accountable, are the best local means of creating partnerships to deliver the services. They can combine democratic and managerial accountability. Education is a universal service that forms part of the responsibility of local government, and it might therefore be the best lead service with which others might be connected. I subscribe to that quite heartily, because it is undesirable for children's trusts to be led from a service that is designed solely around the needs of vulnerable children or children at risk. Children's trusts, if they are to grow in a locality, should be understood to be a universal service and should be initially located in, or driven from, a universal service.

207WH
The attributes of children's trusts should be multi-agency working; rationalised processes for information and assessment; unified work force development plans; and community involvement in setting priorities and assessing services from the family and the children's perspective.
Other issues relating to the establishment of children's trusts have not yet been thoroughly dealt with, following on from the Laming report. For example, there is the risk that service silos may be turned into professional silos inside an institution that provides an umbrella to several professions. We need to ensure that we do not just provide institutional cover that allows the same failings between organisations and professions to continue. We must not create an institution that lacks transparency between commissioning on one hand and provision on the other, because we have made gains over years past and understood that those two must be distinguished. We must not create an institution that closes ranks to defend some collective line to take on local issues when they arise. It must be much more open to external scrutiny, inspection and intervention than agencies have been up to now.
In that context, although I will not go on about it, I have been persuaded for some time that the role of the children's rights director is too limited and not sufficiently independent. A children's rights commissioner would still have a valuable role to play in relation to the external scrutiny of such an organisation.
This debate is not about Cambridgeshire or my constituency interests, although many issues that I am discussing arise in my constituency. It is primarily about the national policy framework. I shall finish with a range of questions, which are as yet unanswered. I say that because of my experience of discussing the matter with hospitals, social services, local authorities, primary care trusts and others in my constituency, and of talking to them about how we should move forward on the development of those services locally, taking account of all the national policy initiatives. Those questions must be answered pretty quickly if we are to put good-quality structures in place rapidly in my constituency and in Cambridgeshire as a whole.
First, what is the timetable for implementing the children's national service framework and its standards? What will be the mechanism for delivering targeted funding to secure the delivery of the children's NSF? When, and with what objective, will guidance on the reconfiguration of acute hospital services for children be published? How will the Government move from early pilots in 2004 to a wider roll-out of children's trusts in 2005, and with what additional guidance? Will the timing not be incredibly tight in terms of trying to offer any guidance based on an evaluation of the pilots before a trust starts in 2005? Will children's trusts be required to focus on children at risk, or will they be understood from the outset, as I confess I would prefer, as a framework for the co-ordination of universal and targeted services for children?
How will the provision for children's trusts mesh with the establishment of NHS foundation trusts? Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency is one of the 29 initially approved potential NHS foundation trusts.
208WH
Will the framework of children's trusts and the Government's forthcoming Green Paper be flexible enough to permit the development of models based on the "Serving Children Well" approach that has already been developed between agencies? Will the framework be flexible enough to enable the partners in Cambridgeshire to come together to define our vision and timetable for the creation of focused services for children? That should include the establishment of a children's hospital at Addenbrooke's that will then serve Cambridgeshire and the wider region.
Will we be able to articulate the plans in a way that will engage the public's interest and commitment? I freely confess that I could not now explain to the public at large what the new shape of children's services in Cambridgeshire will be five or 10 years from now. I would like to be able to do that and to know the answers to the questions.
We need to work together on the answers so that perhaps within a year or two, or possibly in 2005, a children's trust can be established in Cambridgeshire, which I can talk to people about in the wider context of a children's hospital at Addenbrooke's. I would also like to be able to talk about how that is going to relate to children's services in the county as a whole and how things will develop during the next five or 10 years. I cannot do that yet, and being unable to do so makes it difficult to engage the public's support and commitment.
Will the Government help us to escape from the paralysis of analysis, all the reports that are produced but not acted on, not knowing who is in charge and the failure to do the job that is required? We must escape from all that so that we can deliver, not only by way of a structure but in reality, high-quality services for children that are genuinely co-ordinated across the range of organisations, and genuinely focused primarily on the interests of children and how they need the services to be provided.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. We are carrying eight minutes of injury time. As we normally begin the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination, as it stands and if there are no Divisions, we must commence the first winding-up speech at 8 minutes past 3 o'clock. That means that we have 21 minutes left for those others who wish to contribute, so I hope that Members will bear that fact in mind when making their contributions and when accepting or making interventions.
2.47 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this timely debate and, most of all, on coming up with such an important and relevant subject. I also congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the debate and linked health and social care. I strongly believe that, in any context, we should resist talking about health on its own; we should always ally and integrate health with social care. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about his concerns over the fragmentation of services.

209WH
I am pleased that Professor A1 Aynsley-Green has agreed to come to Lancaster in September to help a group of children, young people, parents, professionals and others, including me, to answer the question of what life is like for children in Lancaster. We are trying to approach the issue holistically and from a child's point of view. We are trying to integrate services such as health, social care, education and youth justice—all those who have any involvement with children—in that discussion.
It is profoundly important that we concentrate our attention on children's services. We parents have a tremendous commitment to our own children; we recognise that children are the most powerless and vulnerable people in society. They have no vote and often no voice but they are the future of our society, so we must emphasise services and support to help them to grow and develop.
I was delighted with the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the Kennedy report, which was a seminal contribution to the development of children's services. Kennedy said that some of his sections on children were written in anger, which is an appropriate emotion to have about services for children. As the hon. Gentleman said, those services have too often been subjugated to the needs of adults, and they show a lack of concern for the most vulnerable, who need quality care. Fragmented services, which are not properly led and in which individuals fail to take responsibility, have little to do with effective partnerships. For the reasons that we have already heard, we should approach the development and improvement of children's services with passion and a determination to get them right at national and local level.
The debate is timely because the Laming report was published during the development of the national service framework for children. We await the Green Paper on children at risk, which I hope will lead to a service based on children's rights and their participation, a children's commissioner and an effective system of independent representation and complaint for children, not just in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland but in England.
The Government have made enormous strides in developments for children, the most important of which is the attack on poverty that is at the heart of so much health inequality. They have introduced profoundly important legislation, much of it related to children in care, such as the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Those are built on the principles of the Children Act 1989, a remarkably good Act—probably the only one—introduced by the Conservative Government.
We should listen to the responses to the draft review of children and family proceedings carried out by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The review stressed that 12 years after the implementation of the Children Act, its principles—
Tim Loughton: Fourteen years.
Mr. Dawson: No, it was implemented in 1991.
The Act has proved its worth, but we should learn about some of its limitations. It was never resourced properly, and local authorities were allowed to develop
210WH
their own concepts of children in need, which equated much more with their available resources than with any broader definition or assessment of the needs of children in their community. The Act did not cover the whole range of children's services, so many children were left out. I refer in particular to children in the youth justice system, although a recent important judgment said that children in prison are subject to the Children Act.
We have an important opportunity. Huge resources are being invested in public services, and some good legislation has been passed. We have a Government who are prepared, as they say in their 10-year NHS plan, to shift the balance of power and take a fundamental approach to the reorganisation of services. I want several children's centres and trusts in my constituency, and considering all that I said earlier about individual responsibility and values, restructuring will be necessary to bring together the key services for children. I hope that the Government will build on developments that have been piloted, and extend the work throughout the country.
We have a huge problem with children's services. They have already been referred to as a Cinderella service, and it is essential that we attract more people into work with children. We have seen good progress with the new three-year social work training course and the efforts of many local authorities to attract staff who in the past would not have felt able to take on such work. There is more investment in day care, foster care and the all-round integration and development of global services for children.
There is a great deal more to do, however, and we can do no better than to return to the words of the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and ask everyone who works in children's services or their policy development whether the services would be good enough for their own child. Each individual who works with children should apply that measure every day of their working lives.
I appreciate that there is not much time and that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall end by saying that we have a profoundly important opportunity to take a radical step forward in the modernisation and development of children's services. We could easily fail at this point because there are great challenges and institutional barriers to overcome, but with a passionate commitment from central Government and by energising and supporting a work force who, if given their head, could do an excellent job, we can make the radical changes that are needed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:I remind hon. Members that we have no more than nine casual debating minutes left.
2.59 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I have quite a lot to get through in nine minutes. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate. I know that he has a long-standing interest in child care and children's welfare, and it is a great credit to him that he could secure this debate. I agree with the spirit of everything that he said about the grave issues arising from the Victoria Climbié case and the other issues that he highlighted.

211WH
I want to draw the Minister's attention to issues relating to young children and care assistants in my area, and to highlight emerging issues in mental health. Most people generally accept that an unfortunate side effect of the pressure of modern society is the amount of mental stress suffered by young people. I understand from a pamphlet produced by YoungMinds that it believes that 10 per cent. of young children can be
"overwhelmed by misery, anger or fear."
It says that 10.4 per cent. of all children between five and 15 have some sort of mental disorder, including eating disorders, emotional disorders and hyperactivity. Significantly, higher rates of mental illness were observed in areas of economic disadvantage. I say with some confidence that my area of Teesside, which covers parts of the boroughs of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland will have a particular problem with mental health, given the social demography of my constituency. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that. In Teesside, following Government guidelines, a proper multi-agency child and adolescent mental health service has been set up by all the agencies working in the field.
The Government have said that such a service must function fully and provide a comprehensive service dedicated to early intervention by 2006. I am glad that the programme is now under way in my constituency. In the borough of Redcar and Cleveland and, to an extent, in the borough of Middlesbrough, the service has identified services for looked-after children—children in the care system—as the top priority in a mental health strategy for youngsters.
Maurice Bates, the director of social services in Redcar and Cleveland, tells me that funding is steadily coming on stream for the service. For 2003–04, the grant will be some £136,000—an increase of £86,000 from the previous year. An additional £45,000 has been granted from the local primary care trust to match that. The cash must meet the number of young people identified as needing intervention from the service. Last year, the Redcar and Cleveland locality team dealt with 151 new referrals on top of its existing case load.
We can see where the pressures are when we examine the case load of youngsters in the care system. In Redcar and Cleveland, which is a relatively small social services authority, some 160 young people are in the care system at any one time. As I said, many of them have complex mental health needs, and a specialist model of care has been devised, with a correspondingly high work load. During 2002–03, some 156 clinical contacts were made involving new case referrals, consultations with social workers and medical professionals, and, most importantly, sessions with individual children and young people.
The team undertaking the work is doing a sterling job under very trying and emotional circumstances. However, it identifies several issues that must be highlighted. My constituency lies in Redcar and Cleveland, which is a very dispersed and rural area with a large number of small towns and villages. Access issues are therefore very important. However, the existing specialist children's service team is based—by necessity—in Middlesbrough, the nearest big town. There is a good argument—in cultural, geographical
212WH
and community terms—that the team is too distant really to benefit and help those young people at an extremely critical period in their lives.
There are always problems involved with running services that are both cross-boundary and cross-organisational. A business case is being made to the Langbaurgh primary care trust board to secure resources to set up a specialist base in the east Cleveland area, which is the rural part of the constituency. While that is a matter in the first instance for the professional and non-executive members of the board, I hope that the Minister will take note of the proposal.
There is also a growing issue concerning the emergence of a cohort of young people within the local care system who are displaying very challenging behaviour patterns. Those young people need specialist help that simply is not available across Teesside. I am told that the local social services departments have to make arrangements with specialist national facilities for the young people's care and treatment. The issue is simply one of cost. A small social services department has to operate on a tight cost rein, and the same applies to local facilities provided by a PCT or a local hospital trust. Those bodies must take decisions—made in the best interests of the young person—to locate them with a national facility, but at great cost. That cost impacts directly on resources that could be used for other young people for whom those organisations have a care responsibility.
I am not making any direct plea to the Government. I merely ask that such circumstances, which are becoming ever more common, are taken into account when determining the resource support made available to professionals working on the ground. I have great admiration for the professionals working for both our local social services and our health services in a challenging and complex field. They tell me that they are grateful to the Government for the increased support that they are getting and for the fact that the Government are encouraging cross-cutting collaborative work of a high standard, and have slashed bureaucracy in achieving that. However, I feel that it is at times like this—and in debates like this—that the voice of the people working at the grass roots deserves to be heard, and the issues that are of concern to them voiced. Time is running out. I am referring to a group of people who, if they are allowed to do their job properly with adequate resources and backing, can help young people to make a success of their lives.
3.8 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to his dedication over several years to children's health and welfare. I also pay tribute to other hon. Members for the part that they have played. As a parent, I know all too well what it is like to experience that heart-stopping moment when one thinks that there may he a problem with one's own child. As a father of two, I appreciate that we can count ourselves lucky in this country. We must not forget that today, like every other day, 30,000 children around the world will die because of the want of basic inoculations and lack of food.

213WH
Having said that, there are all sorts of issues to be raised about the direction of Government policy. The first place to start is the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It sets out the basic rights of any child anywhere, with the aim of ensuring that no child be deprived of access to health care services. It sets out measures that should be taken to diminish infant and child mortality, to ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance to combat disease and malnutrition and to secure good child nutrition. Importantly, article 24 refers to developing preventative health care. That is what it should be about, prevention is always better than cure.
The Government deserve credit. They have moved along the agenda for children's health in leaps and bounds with the success of the sure start programme, and the national service framework for children is promising. I had hoped that it would embrace the Kennedy report and the report on little Victoria. Clearly, an enormous breakdown in services occurred in that tragic case. However, the national service framework's principle of putting children at the centre of their care and building services around them is paramount.
The Government have published the children and young people's unit document "Aim High: Stay Real". It is worthy in its aims. Typically, it is rather heavy, but nevertheless it should be looked at. I support what it is trying to put across: the importance of listening to young people and children. That is made clear on page 47. The children's focus group said that children wanted to have more sport in school, and that they wanted
"Nice and healthy school dinners".
It seems that, in the 25 years since I last tasted one of those, they have not improved much. I would have some sympathy with a Government who tried to enhance them.
The report also makes clear what parents want. They have stated that they want "ongoing medical check-ups" and the analysis of children's dental records, as well as more advice on nutrition. Health is one of the six outcomes in the document, and one of its key aspects is the problem of obesity and nutrition. One child in four, depending on how one counts, is obese—a fourfold increase since 1984—and one child in five eats no fruit. I do not think that we should force people to sign bits of paper in the form of a GP contract. However, we are on the verge of an epidemic. By 2020, if the estimates are correct, some 10 million people in this country will face diabetes because of obesity. I do not only knock corporations that do wrong—such as Cadbury's, which was offering to give away sports equipment by encouraging children to eat more chocolate, flying in the face of the good, healthy eating messages that the Government are trying to put out—I praise those that help, such as Tesco, which is promoting five-a-day portions of fruit and vegetables.
I look forward to seeing the Food Standards Agency's review of food promotion in July. Ultimately, we should be getting children more involved in exercise. While I welcome what the Government have done with an extra £1 billion of funding for physical education and school sport over the next three years, it is rather tame to set a target for 2006 of 75 per cent. of schoolchildren undertaking a minimum of two hours' PE a week. Faced
214WH
with a possible epidemic of obesity, surely we should be aiming slightly higher than that? Over the past nine years, £2 billion has gone into Government-funded school sports promotion, but that has resulted in a mere 0.3 per cent. rise in participation.
Another issue is mental health. One child in 10 suffers from mental health problems, resulting in very high suicide rates among young males compared with those in the wider community. Those young males usually come from the social underclass. They are disadvantaged and living in poverty, although many of the root causes are to be found in childhood.
There has been an explosion of sexually transmitted infection over the past six years by 34 per cent. There has also been an increase in drug and alcohol abuse. About 11 per cent. of schoolchildren are experimenting with drugs and half of all 15-year-old boys admit that they drink alcohol regularly, and that is without mentioning the effects of smoking.
With regard to child protection, I welcome the Laming report and congratulate the Government on taking quick and decisive action on it. Nevertheless, the report was a damning indictment of what had gone before. The findings show that it is important to find ways of getting all the organisations—health, housing, education, social services, the voluntary sector and the police—that come across children every day to improve their co-operation. The jury may be out on children's trusts—I believe that the principle is right, and I appreciate that the Government have now introduced a great deal more flexibility into the concept, but there is still some confusion about how that can be applied.
Vulnerable children need the most help. I welcome the fact that we have a children's commissioner of sorts, but I hope that that role becomes truly independent and not subsumed into another position. I also want the increased investment to reach the front-line services. For example, the Government's own figures show that, since 1997, there has been a 20 per cent. decrease in the number of neonatal cots, which means that the money is not reaching the areas that it should.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who chairs the all-party group on autism, said that more research into autism was needed. The Government commissioned a report from the Medical Research Council into the state of current knowledge, and awarded it £2.5 million to do the extra work. It is therefore a disappointment to see that the MRC has as yet been unable to identify studies to meet those criteria, and that so far not a penny has been spent. Sometimes we are overwhelmed with a deluge of targets and paperwork, which prevent the services from being carried out on the ground.
I welcome much of what the Government have done and give them credit for it, but much more must be done, and there are some worrying trends in children's health that must be tackled now, as otherwise we will reap their effects in the years to come.
3.18 pm
Tim Loughton: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). He has a great track record in standing up for children's issues, and speaks with great knowledge of the Kennedy report and children's trusts.

215WH
Although those contributing to the debate have been limited in number, there have been some good contributions. As usual, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) spoke with the benefit of experience. He praised the last Conservative Government for their introduction of the Children Act 1989, but in characteristic form then blew it by blaming the same Government for everything that went wrong with regard to children after that. He then became characteristically greedy in saying that he wanted a range of facilities for children in his constituency, including children's centres and children's trusts. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) also made some excellent points.
Children's health is an enormous subject, to which 90 minutes of debate, with or without interruptions, cannot do justice. We could have had a debate entirely on adolescent mental health, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) mentioned. We could also have discussed the high incidence of perinatal deaths and the shortage of midwives—I will not go into the subject of birthing positions, which is of particular interest to me and the Minister—and attachment theory, and the importance of early -years development in shaping the character of children in difficult years later on. We are admitting three times more zero to four-year-olds to hospital than we were 30 years ago, and we have a chronic shortage of specialists in adolescent mental health. Even though children are supposed to be healthier than ever, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, some 30 per cent. of looked-after children have not been immunised against basic diseases, and a two-year-old in London may wait for up to two and a half years to get speech and language therapy—a wait that can lead to other health and social complications.
We could have debated the problems with drugs or the growing number of disabled children who are not being properly catered for. The figures for obesity among young children do not quite show what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said—that one in four children are obese—but that one in four obese children are already showing signs of diabetes. There are still enormous implications, and there will be a ticking time-bomb effect on the health of those young adults as they grow up. We need far more preventative steps and interventions by school nurses, and GPs must be given the time to spend on proper nutritional conversations with and education of young children.
The fact that some 20,000 children in Britain have life-limiting conditions could have been debated. That number is growing because children are living longer with those conditions, including cystic fibrosis, Rett's syndrome and Batten's disease, but we have only 250 beds to provide specialist hospice care for such children, and hospices get less than 7 per cent. of their funding from the state. The number of children infected with sexually transmitted diseases is growing alarmingly. There is a shortage of foster carers, and I hope that the Minister will support my Bill on the registration of private foster carers when she has the chance to do so in a few weeks.
216WH
All those issues could have taken individual debates, and they all appeared at the Conservative summit on children's health that we held in January as part of our exercise to consult on and raise the profile of children's health issues. For too long, children's health has had a raw deal in this country, particularly if the child cannot be shoehorned into the infant or young adult categories. Lucy Thorpe, the policy director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said:
"Children are one quarter of the population and for too long their health needs, from a child-centred perspective, have come a poor second to those of adults."
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly said, children have been too often the add-on rather than the focus of health care. Will the Minister comment on the progress of the children's national service framework? It has been delayed, and the last indication from the children's tsar was that we would have the full Monty in December. Are we still on course for that, and what updates will there be in the coming months?
A common feature of all the problems is the need for a joined-up approach. All hon. Members have recognised that and mentioned linking up the agencies and bodies that touch on children and their welfare. That is why, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I welcome the "A New Vision for Children's Services" partnership between the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the NHS Confederation. Its work to establish closer partnerships and produce models of the interaction among schools, early-years development, sure start, child protection services, youth offending teams, looked-after children and children and adolescent mental health services is especially important.
As that partnership has pointed out, it is essential to ensure that the new arrangements focus on a vision to improve children's lives rather than just starting from the development of yet more new structures and organisations. What consideration has the Minister given to its proposals for common assessment processes to prevent children from undergoing numerous assessments with their families, a universal child indicator to ensure that vulnerable children are not lost to the system and a new statutory duty for agencies to safeguard and promote the well-being of children, and a supporting duty to form partnerships to this end?
What does the Minister think about the proposal that local authorities should be identified as the statutorily accountable bodies for the partnerships established under the new duty, that each local authority and partner agency should name a lead member and senior officer for children who will be ultimately accountable for child protection—a children's champion, as the partnership puts it—and that there should be new powers for co-operation and scrutiny to ensure a joined-up approach that is transparent and accountable to local communities? We concur with those sentiments and look forward to practical proposals from the consultation exercise. We will be interested to know how sympathetic the Minister will be to them.
Much health and special needs care is relatively good for well children who can negotiate the system, and reasonably good at dealing with children in severe need,

217WH
but there are big gaps in the system for the many vulnerable children in between, who often have complex problems that are not easily pigeonholed.
Joined-up thinking is essential in respect of child protection, as was sharply demonstrated by Lord Laming's report on Victoria Climbié. We therefore set great store by the forthcoming Green Paper on children at risk. The Secretary of State promised that it would be available in the spring when he responded to the Climbié report on 28 January. There is some confusion about which Department is leading on the matter; it seems to be under the aegis of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but we do not know whether it is predominantly a Health, Home Office or Education and Skills matter. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
Will the Minister give us an update on the ramifications of the Climbié report? It is 133 days since it was published and the Secretary of State responded to it, and three years and three months after Victoria Climbié's death in the most tragic circumstances. Child abuse and child harm still occur all too often: every week at least one child dies as a result of an adult's cruelty; a quarter of all rape victims are children; and most abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts. I could go on—it is a catalogue of despair that hon. Members know only too well.
In response to the Climbié report, the Secretary of State said:
"Sound legislative policy and guidance is, frankly, useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently."—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398. c. 738.]
What resources are being allocated to implement the report's recommendations? How many new social workers are coming through the system? There is a drastic shortage of skilled professionals to provide the new services that need to be put in place. The Home Secretary and the Health Secretary pledged to ask the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of local services in north London to provide independent assurance that standards are improving. What is happening in that respect?
The Secretary of State was supposed to write to the chief executives of local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children, which should be reflected in their budget decisions. He also offered to oversee a review of training needs. What is the current position? The plethora of out-of-date, confused guidance was supposed to have been swept aside by now. Has that been done? When will there be a report on the pilot study of the first generation of children's trusts? Will child protection remain at the heart of those trusts?
People are becoming increasingly impatient for answers to their questions. On 28 January, we were promised a response in three months' time. The Green Paper was supposed to be a panacea for all the problems, and we urgently need an update on the position before the summer recess. Under the Children Act 1989, children must be at the centre of policy considerations on health and social care, and we must ensure that they are. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions and assure the House that action is being taken, which will help to allay some of my fears.
3.28 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I echo what hon. Members said about the high quality of the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing it. A wide range of issues have been raised and, without exception, contributions have been intelligent. [Interruption.] Yes, without exception. I shall try to cover as many issues as possible in the short time available.
Healthy children have a better chance of becoming healthy adults; much adult disease and many emotional and psychological difficulties have their roots in childhood. Much is good about the services provided by the NHS and local authorities to support children, young people and their families, and the work force are dedicated to them. Lives are being saved, diseases previously believed to be incurable are now being treated effectively and children are being protected. There are new opportunities for disabled children, those in public care and those with mental health problems. However, we need to do far more. The effect of inequalities and poverty on the lives and health of children must be tackled.
As hon. Members said, we need services that are more child and family focused. Despite the high quality of many children's services and the dedication of staff, we need that focus, and high standards, throughout health and social care services. That is why we appointed Professor Aynsley- Green as the national clinical director for children, and it is a tribute to his work in raising the profile of children's health services that he has been mentioned so frequently today. It is also why we published the hospital standard on 10 April as part of developing the national service framework. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire suggested, that is a major part of our response to the Kennedy inquiry, which highlighted the need for services to be more child centred. It also reflects some of the concerns expressed in the Climbié report about the need for children to be safeguarded in and by hospitals.
The new standard covers the design and delivery of hospital services for children and the safety and quality of care. It will help to ensure that children are cared for in hospital settings that adequately reflect the needs of their age group. In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), I can tell the Chamber that we also announced in April £17 million of investment in intensive care. Following recommendations made in the Kennedy inquiry, hospitals will now expected to appoint a children's champion at board level to ensure that standards are being met. That is one of the ways in which we can achieve the necessary change. In line with recommendations made in the Laming inquiry, no child should be discharged from hospital without a care plan.
The new standards also mean that NHS hospitals should consider introducing facilities for young children that are separate from those provided for adults, as well as designated play areas for young children, privacy for adolescents, education support so that children do not fall behind, special menus that encourage children to enjoy their meals, regular security reviews, specialist training for staff dealing with children, and play specialists who help children to cope with the distress of being in hospital.

219WH
Understandably, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pressed us about the delivery of the NSF and about the new standard in particular. We are now, rightly, operating in a different context that is about shifting the balance of power to a local level at which some of the national targets and milestones, although appropriate for delivering previous national service frameworks, may not be appropriate for this one.
What are the levers for ensuring that such change will happen? I am pleased with what ray hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said about the approach being taken in Lancaster to examining children's services and children's experience of them. That will be important locally, as will clear definitions of local outcomes, local information on children and their services to identify gaps, and local strategic planning. However, we will also provide support for commissioning services and integrating them appropriately.
We have made it clear that the targets applicable to the next three years in the planning and priorities framework include targets on child and adolescent mental health services, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) mentioned, services for vulnerable children, screening, work on inequalities, substance abuse, early booking for maternity services, as well as general improvements in their overall capacity and in access to them, and resourcing the delivery over the next three years of those plans.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will have an important role in developing guidelines that have been commissioned for particular interventions. We also, of course, need to develop better child-centred inspection. We need to work with the new inspectorates, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to ensure that the standards are reflected in the inspection regimes and that tools are developed to monitor progress. In the end, however, it is for each locality, according to its own baseline position and priorities, to decide the speed at which work towards meeting the standards will be done and which standards and improvements will be made at which time. The needs in Cambridgeshire are not the same as those in Lancaster, and it is right that those different needs are reflected, given the national standards made clear in the hospital standard and the increased investment to help to deliver them.
I turn now to the points that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made about configuration. Although there is more work to be done, I disagree that
220WH
there is not a clear idea of the direction in which hospital services should go. In publishing "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel", we made clear the principles on which local configuration issues should be addressed. We will carry out further work, for example, on modelling some of the difficult issues involved in configuring children's services, particularly those relating to paediatrics, and maternity and obstetrics, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That work will show some of the models that enable us to make the best use of increasing numbers of staff in the system, and ensure that, whereas previously we may have thought that specialisation and large hospitals were the only way to deliver services safely, we can provide those services near the people who need them.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we will encourage the development of clinical networks. The hospital standard sets out what is expected of tertiary services. Alongside, for example, the £70 million investment in neonatal intensive care, we are asking local areas to develop those networks. That is the hospital standard; the NSF also covers a range of other areas. This has been an extremely complex task, and a large number of stakeholders have been involved.
To respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about timing, we are looking at publishing the NSF in 2004, but to ensure that the direction of travel was clear, we published the "Emerging Findings" consultation document at the same time as the hospital standard. That allows local discussions to be informed by the principles of the work that has already been done, which will help to ensure that progress continues.
Several hon. Members mentioned children's trusts. One of Laming's starkest conclusions related to the inability of organisations to work together. Children's trusts are intended to tackle the lack of co-ordination of the services delivered to children. Local authorities have responded to that opportunity extremely well. Nearly a third have applied to create a new trust with their health partners. The majority are commissioning services for 0 to 19-year-olds, although they are often focused on vulnerable children.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that structural change alone cannot deliver what we want. That is why the fundamental building blocks of children's trusts and of our services must be shared objectives, common assessments, the sharing of information between professionals and direct accountability. Working with those building blocks, we can change practice. I expect the first tranche to be announced in the next month or so—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. We must now turn our attention to the next topic for consideration this afternoon.

NHS Hospitals
3.38 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I like the intimacy of Westminster Hall and the almost one-to-one contact with a Minister. I am grateful to this Minister for coming, because she engages with the debate and takes on board the concerns that are raised. The other reason why I enjoy debates in this Chamber is that I can sit right in the middle, so I am not obviously an Opposition Member or a Government Member. I hope that I can make some helpful suggestions and comments, because my feelings about the NHS are exactly the same as the Minister's, and I desperately want it to succeed in all parts.
My main message in talking about the assessment of quality is that patients are often the best judges of quality, but they are not sufficiently used. I must also point out the dearth of assessment of clinical outcomes. I shall approach the matter in three ways: first, briefly, by looking at past ways of attempting to measure quality; secondly, by considering the current attempts; and, thirdly, with some hopes for and comments on the future.
The first of the past methods was the assessment of the number of complaints made. That was obviously useful, but pretty crude. Community health councils, as the Minister knows very well, were valuable, with their visits, tours of inspection and reports. The charter mark institution was invaluable, because a hospital that applied for a charter mark got it only if everybody involved—including the patients—was consulted.
Possibly the most important measure of quality that was, and still is, used, and which I think is perhaps overlooked, is the inspections of hospitals by the royal colleges for the purpose of accreditation for the training of junior doctors. Included in those reviews is a random selection of case notes for examination. I remember that when the royal colleges visited hospitals where I worked, one had no clue which case notes would be picked out of a trolley. The case notes are absolutely crucial in assessing quality of care, and The Times has recently drawn attention to how important case notes are for litigation purposes. However, if one looked at case notes in one's own hospital for a patient under another consultant, one could see, for example, that nothing was written up for a whole fortnight, in which case one did not know what had happened to the patient during that period. The quality of note-taking and keeping is crucial.
Out of the current attempts, the star ratings have received a lot of flak recently. That flak is, I am afraid, deserved. The system includes the nine key targets, which decide the star rating of a given hospital. On the other issues that are so important, such as the clinical focus, the patient focus, and the capacity and capability focus, the relevant document says glibly that they are taken into account by a balanced scorecard approach. I have yet to find someone who can really explain what that is.
I do not want the Minister to waste time on that now, however, because whatever it means it does not have any effect. The ranges under clinical focus demonstrate that: three star trusts, for instance, score between 37.5 and 80 per cent., whereas no star trusts score between 42.5 and
222WH
82 per cent., so if anything their range is slightly better. In the in-patient survey, three star trusts score between 30 and 100 per cent., whereas no star trusts score between only 23 and 80 per cent. Again, there is only a bit of difference. In relation to staff opinion and data quality, all grades of hospital range through all the possible scores, from the lowest to the highest.
I welcome the better base for criticism of the star rating system which the Audit Commission proposed just last week in its paper, "Achieving the NHS Plan". That paper is based on the work of independent, locally-based district auditors, who are examining every trust. I have great respect for that scheme because my local district auditor is one of the very few people who have picked up on the truth about some of the problems faced by my constituents. The Audit Commission sums up the matter in these words:
"There is a statistically significant relationship between performance and managerial adequacy. The number of DH stars awarded is only weakly related to either."
That is in tremendous contrast to "Raising Standards", the Department of Health book published in May 2003, which states:
"The system of star ratings gives a clear and transparent measure of performance, giving everyone information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of local NHS organisations."
Coupled with my rather amateur observations, the Audit Commission raises real concerns that those other factors—clinical focus, the in-patient survey, data quality and staff opinion—are largely disregarded in favour of targets that lend themselves to manipulation.
I was rather surprised by the Secretary of State's comments on star ratings to the Health Committee during the foundation trust inquiry. He said:
"Whether or not the star ratings are right, wrong or indifferent does not really matter."
He went on to explain that, as everyone knows, some hospitals are good, a few are bad and most need to improve. However, we are now in the business of selecting trusts for foundation status, and star ratings matter a lot because they are the only way of selecting hospitals.
The findings of the 22 acute trusts that have been selected show in-patient survey results that go across the whole range, as do those for data quality and staff opinion surveys, so at least one of the trusts going for foundation status has almost the lowest patient opinion survey results of any trust. Casting doubt, as I do, on the value of the star as a mode of selection for foundation trusts goes against paragraph 55 of "Raising Standards", which states:
"Foundation Trusts that achieve NHS Foundation Status will have a proven track record in management and delivery of high quality services to patients."
I move on to Dr. Foster's "Good Hospital Guide". The most recent edition was heralded on the cover by an eminent surgeon, who said that it was the most authoritative insight into hospital quality. Is it? I do not think that it has yet reached that stage. One has only to examine the quality measures that Dr. Foster uses. Ten of them are for available services, five of the remaining 10 reflect a degree of quality of care and the last five reflect only the potential for quality of care. Those factors do not affect the quality or the outcome. For example, if a hospital offers treatment for lung cancer it

223WH
is half way there; it can achieve the highest standard by having a multi-disciplinary treatment team. That says nothing about the outcome or even the quality of treatment.
The doubt cast on Dr. Foster was accentuated for me when a hospital that I know well was one of seven short-listed for the hospital of the year award. Following a visit to the hospital, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons wrote that
"The situation is bad and the staff have innumerable problems"—
problems that he proceeded to enumerate.
I will not say much about the Commission for Health Improvement because it does not have much longer to run, and I am concerned that the clinical governance reviews may restrict too tightly what it can do.
I have just a few minutes left, and I wish to make some constructive comments and suggestions for the future—nothing particularly original, simply some matters that should be stressed. First, the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, or CHAI, has the tremendous responsibility of making the quality measures work. I hope that the commission will bear in mind the work that district auditors are doing. The Audit Commission recommended the following:
"CHAI should in consultation with the DH, consider what use could be made of auditor's assessments to help ensure that their revision of the trust 'star' system produces an accurate way of categorising trusts."
I would hate to see the expertise of the district auditors lost.
Secondly, I would like to see the Royal College of Physicians inspections of hospitals included in the process because they collect a vast amount of incredibly useful information. Thirdly, patient involvement must be increased, made more open and taken into account as part of the star ratings. I am still perplexed about why the 2002 in-patient survey was never published. Even if it does not show the facts that the Government hoped it might, a Government with a huge majority can surely be brave enough to face criticisms openly. It is an inescapable fact that the Government are improving some aspects of the NHS.
Fourthly, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—with its primary care trust patient forums—is crucial in helping to ensure that the voice of the patient is heard. Lastly, I understand that Dr. Foster and others are working on measures of clinical outcome, which are exactly what the NHS so desperately needs.
3.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to be here today to engage actively with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). This is an important issue, and it is important for patients to have access to information about how their local health care organisations are performing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have, for the first time, ensured that patients have access to information about the performance of the NHS. Following its inception, there were no means for people to make an objective
224WH
assessment of how well, or how badly, the NHS was doing locally. I accept entirely that the situation is not perfect, but we have made some dramatic strides in the last few years.
The hon. Gentleman will be extremely familiar with the context in which we are now working in the NHS. After decades of under-investment we now have record amounts of extra resources going into the system. We must ensure that we get the best value out of that investment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares that aim. That is why we need to reform the system, redesign services and examine all the work being done in clinical areas. A key driver for that reform is better information for patients. If patients have power and knowledge, they can help to exert pressure on the NHS by making legitimate demands to drive up performance. Patients can be our allies in the process.
We already have the star ratings system. Those ratings were first issued to all non-specialist acute trusts in September 2001. They were extended in July 2002 to specialist trusts and ambulance trusts, while mental health trusts received an indicative rating. Primary care trusts will receive their first NHS performance rating this summer, which will assess their performance for 2002–03. The process is ongoing.
3.54 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.7 pm
On resuming—
Ms Blears: I want to say a little about the role of the Commission for Health Improvement and the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. CHI is the independent regulator of NHS performance. It has taken over responsibility for publishing the performance ratings from this year which, subject to parliamentary approval, will be transferred to CHAI. For the past two years, CHI has played an important role in driving forward the modernisation of the NHS and in improving standards. It has carried out more than 280 reviews and produced 10 reports on serious service failures. It now has a very good body of expertise in the field.
Having acknowledged CHI's achievements, I think that it is also fair to say that the fragmentation between CHI, the Audit Commission and the National Care Standards Commission has led to unnecessary bureaucracy that has placed a burden of multiple inspection on the NHS. It is right to try to find a way through that to minimise the confusion. We are therefore setting up the new, tough and independent health care inspectorate, CHAI, which will bring together the work of CHI, the value for money work of the Audit Commission and the independent health care work of the NCSC.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of local district auditors in monitoring performance on the front line. Last week, I read the Audit Commission's report. The information gathered in the process of producing the report has been extremely useful at local level for chief executives and trust boards. It has enabled them to see how they can

225WH
introduce changes that will help them to raise standards. I certainly agree that we should continue to provide such local information in the new system that we set up.
The new commission will be an even more powerful driver on the quality agenda. It will be an authoritative, independent judge of the quality and efficiency of health care. It will be a driving force for continuous improvement, and it will reassure patients and the public that national standards of quality and service have been met wherever care is provided, whether in the NHS or the private sector. As we move towards a situation in which we have a plurality of providers in the NHS, the not-for-profit sector and the private sector, it will be vital to make sure that people can rely on the same standards of service wherever they are.
The hon. Gentleman has criticised the star rating system. The process is always subject to improvement. We do not pretend that it is perfect, but it has improved vastly. Each year, the indicators are refined and become more sophisticated. The hon. Gentleman outlined the key targets on which trusts are subject to a pass or fail assessment. Those include the three focus areas: clinical focus, patient focus, and capacity and capability. In the clinical focus for acute trusts there are 10 indicators, which include deaths within 30 days of a heart bypass operation, deaths within 30 days of selected surgical procedures and emergency readmission to hospital following discharge—a genuine attempt to assess the quality of care and to determine whether the patient had to be readmitted because something went wrong.
The indicators also include infection control procedures, which are important for patients because of MRSA and other illnesses in hospital, and thrombolysis treatment time. That is another clinical indicator because there is overwhelming evidence that if people receive that treatment within the golden hour, we will save lives. I therefore dispute any claim that all the indicators in the star rating system are non-clinical.
The hon. Gentleman has asked about the balanced scorecard. I shall not go into the technicalities, but I have discussed the matter with my local chief executive, who has found the totality of assessment of his organisation incredibly helpful when talking to staff and clinical managers, and when considering strengths and weaknesses on a wider canvass than merely the top key targets. As well as being important for the public and patients, the balanced scorecard is an incredibly useful tool for managers and clinicians in raising standards locally.
Dr. Taylor: I did not mean to imply that the clinical focus was not there—it obviously is, and it is very valuable. I meant that it was probably not taken sufficiently into account by the balanced scorecard approach.
Ms Blears: It is a matter of getting the balance right. CHAI is continuing to refine the available information.
The hon. Gentleman made the important point that patients are often the best judge of quality in the NHS. This Government have introduced patient surveys, which are translating into the star rating system through the patient focus of the indicators. We have often said that the NHS should be judged by those who use it and the taxpayers who fund it. It is right to introduce the citizen and consumer focus into the NHS, and we are, increasingly, endeavouring to do so.
226WH
The hon. Gentleman made some interesting suggestions about how we might further refine the process of gathering information about how well the service is doing, including the use of information gathered by the royal colleges when they consider the accreditation of organisations. I shall feed that back through the system to find out whether it is a feasible means of gathering further information. He also stressed the importance of ensuring that the Commission for Public and Patient Involvement in Health, in developing its protocols for patient involvement, be kept in close contact with the development of quality indicators. I agree that that is fundamental if we are to get a genuine patient view about the performance of our organisations.
Let me say a little about how the performance rating system will affect the primary care trusts, because we are venturing into a new area. The approach to PCTs has to be different from that to acute and specialist trusts, because PCTs do not simply provide services. Their performance will therefore be assessed in three areas. The first is services that they themselves provide, which is an established route. The second is access to quality services, because PCTs have a commissioning role, and being able to assess their robustness as commissioning organisations is key. The third area, to which I, as Minister with responsibility for public health, will have particular regard, is the improvement of the health of the community.
PCTs will, like other organisations, be assessed on how they look after the wider public health interests of the population that they serve. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the system of measuring achievement and standards in the NHS is becoming more sensitive to the new reconfigured NHS that we have been creating, so it ought to give us a good view of its performance.
On assessment against the key targets, the star rating system gives three stars to trusts that perform at the highest level, two star to trusts that perform well overall but have some room for improvement, one star to trusts where there is some cause for concern, and zero stars to trusts that are identified as having the poorest performance. The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the trusts that are eligible for consideration for NHS foundation trust status have some weaknesses in their systems, and the Audit Commission report identified three out of the four trusts which may have some weaknesses. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the application process for foundation trust status is not only about having three stars. The Secretary of State must also approve the application, and there will be a robust process to look at the organisation as a whole. It is not just a matter of having three stars and automatically gaining that status, although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
It is also important to point out that, although the Audit Commission report includes some concerns about the number of targets, it also recognises that there have been significant improvements in the NHS as a result of the targets that have been used. Targets are in disrepute at the moment, but it is acknowledged in the NHS that without the drive for he system to change we would not have seen dramatic reductions in waiting times or service redesign, so I want to put in a little word for targets. One of the keys to targets is getting local

227WH
ownership of them, so that everyone in the NHS wants to see changes and to make progress on behalf of their patients, and in those cases targets are appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there was sometimes a disparity between the star rating system and some of the Dr. Foster assessments published in The Sunday Times. We are always happy to co-operate with Dr. Foster and other independent reviews. The NHS collects the information to which those organisations have access, and we try to ensure consistency of data; however, the surveys that Dr. Foster carries out will, perhaps inevitably, not be as extensive as some of the national surveys.
There will also be differences between surveys. For example, Dr. Foster's measurement of mortality rates is, I think, based on deaths that occur in hospital, whereas the star rating system also measures deaths that occur within 30 days of discharge, which is a different and more complex measure. We also try to take into account the skill mix and the case mix so that we have a more robust measure. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that there are some variations between the Dr. Foster assessments and the central NHS assessments, although we are always pleased to co-operate as far as we can; in helping to raise standards it is important that patients have access to the widest range of information possible.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government have been open, transparent and straightforward, and that we have shown a real commitment to ensuring that the information is in the public domain. The service is not perfect, and I would not for one moment pretend that it is, but we have made significant progress in ensuring that the public have access to information about the service that they use, depend on and pay for. The hen. Gentleman is a champion of citizens' rights and I hope that he agrees that the Government have demonstrated a commitment to putting the patient at the centre and to ensuring that services are driven by the patient's requirements and needs as much as by any other factor.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may assist the House if I remind all present that we are playing with up to 21 minutes injury time at the moment, so the next debate must conclude by 4.51 pm.

Contract Workers
4.19 pm
Colin Burgon: I thank the Speaker for allowing me to raise an important subject this afternoon. At the beginning of this month, our Government were one of four who sided with business interests against the EU directive intended to give equal pay and basic employment rights to temporary agency workers. The Department of Trade and Industry objected to the EU temporary agency workers directive, which gives equality of treatment to workers in that category, on the grounds that it believes that there should be a 12-month qualifying period for such rights. In other words, temporary agency workers should get the same rights as their permanent counterparts doing the same job only when they have been in the job for 12 months.
Many Labour MPs will find that approach disappointing, to say the least. It certainly conflicts with the Government's positive record on the minimum wage, which has helped to lift 1.5 million workers off poverty wages; the introduction of the trade union right of recognition, which the trade unions themselves acknowledged as key legislation; the introduction of the working families tax credit, which has helped 1.3 million people to secure an income that is on average £40 a week more than that under the family credit system; and the introduction of the new deal, which has helped to get about 1 million people back into work and secured the lowest unemployment rate for 30 years. Particularly positive has been the impact that we have made on longterm youth unemployment, getting 380,000 young people into work.
From my perspective, it should be a logical step to support the EU temporary agency workers directive as a measure that will give greater security to those in work by giving decent pay and conditions to a significant number of working people. However, that view was not shared by the DTI, because it argued in its submission to Europe:
"The Government remains concerned that the Directive risks decreasing the attractiveness of agency workers to user companies, which might reduce the number of jobs available. It is necessary that the Directive is suitably flexible to accommodate UK practices."
4.21 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.28 pm
On resuming—
Colin Burgon: My response to the DTI's approach is the view of no less a figure than Polly Toynbee, a journalist for The Guardian, who said:
"It is shocking that a Labour Government has sabotaged equal pay for people doing equal work."
She even went on to describe the DTI's foiling of the EU Directive as "real wickedness".
I know the view that many in Government have of The Guardian and its outlook, and can quote a less contentious critique emanating from Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary, who said:

229WH
"The government has sided with business interests to 'scupper' the prospect of agency workers getting equal pay and basic rights in the foreseeable future. It is bad for business and unjust for agency workers to be denied protection from sub-standard treatment."
I hope that those words will resonate with many Labour Members and with many people in the world of work.
What is the scale of the issue that we are discussing? Statistics show that in autumn 2002, 1.6 million employees said that they were temporary workers. That amounts to 6.3 per cent. of all employees in Britain. Of those 1.6 million, nearly 300,000 said that their temporary work was undertaken for agencies. I want to focus on that group today.
Agency temps are heavily concentrated in three sectors: banking, finance, business services, which take about 31 per cent.; the public administration of health and education services, which take about 22 per cent.; and manufacturing, which takes about 20 per cent. Those figures may be the statistics, but what is the daily reality for many of the agency workers? I shall illustrate it by setting out the employment conditions that one of my constituents recently described to me. I will call him Mike as I do not want to give his real name for an obvious reason: he would fear for his job if his real name was known.
Mike works for a well-known chain retail outlet. There are both permanent workers and temporary agency workers in his workplace, but the only permanent workers are those who were taken on a long time ago before a trend developed in the firm, as in many others, to take on temporary agency workers. Since he started working at the store six months ago, only temporary agency workers have been employed. No permanent employees have been taken on. The motivation behind the company's strategy is clear. To put it bluntly and straightforwardly, temporary agency workers are much less expensive and far easier to dispose of.
Let us consider Mike's terms of employment in more detail. Unlike that of the permanent employees, Mike's weekly and holiday pay are subject to a set of perverse deductions. The permanent workers have established holiday pay entitlements, but the holiday pay of temporary workers, who are doing exactly the same job, is calculated on the average daily pay for the last 12 weeks. However, days for which temporary workers are not paid are included in that average. Those days include bank holidays, days absent without pay—for instance, when the store instructs the temporary workers that there is no work that day—and days off sick. On top of that, overtime payments, which could increase the daily rate on which the calculations are made, are not counted.
A painful accident at work meant that Mike had a week off, supported by a doctor's note, for which, unlike the permanent staff, he was not entitled to pay. The week off sick therefore reduced his holiday pay by £45. On another occasion, Mike was feeling ill on a Friday at work but persevered and struggled through the clay. With only an hour of the working week left, he decided that since he was now suffering from diarrhoea and having to pause frequently to dash to the toilet, he would go home ill. He was told that if he took the last hour of the week off sick he would lose his whole week's bonus pay—a deduction of £29.40. That bonus was
230WH
initially portrayed as a pay rise to which a temporary agency worker was automatically entitled after four weeks of service. In reality, however, it can be paid or withheld at the company's discretion.
The store has other methods of clawing back money from the temporary worker's pay packet. When Mike started his job, he was told that employees needed special safety foot wear at work. The footwear was provided but, to the employees' disgust, they found that £19 had been deducted from their pay packets. Job security is crucial for all workers. For Mike, it is only a pipe dream. From day to day and from week to week, temporary employees do not know whether they will still have a job the following morning. No notice is required to end these workers' contract of employment.
Mike had a job when I started my speech a few minutes ago, but there is no guarantee that he will still have that job when I conclude my remarks. In his six months at the store, Mike has seen many temporary employees like himself laid off. He also recounts how many of his colleagues are laid off and then taken on again soon afterwards when there is more work available, in order to cut company costs. He admits that the agency he works for is not as bad as some of the appalling cowboy agencies that he has experienced and others about which he has heard. In Mike's words, as a temporary agency worker:
"I have no job security or rights."
A committed trade unionist in previous employment, Mike regards unions as being of little use in his current job. A union's role is to defend and assert employment rights, but in Mike's situation as a temporary agency worker he has so few rights that there is virtually nothing to defend. Some shop floor trade unionists even look at agency workers as a threat to the terms and conditions that they have won for their members. There are contradictions running through the entire story.
What I have described is the day-to-day reality faced by hundreds of thousands of agency workers across the country. Certain interests boast of their flexible work force. "Flexible", according to Mike, is just a code for no job security or rights, just as in new business speak "downsizing" means redundancies and "outsourcing" is another way of saying privatisation. However, whatever the language used by companies like the one in question, it cannot mask the depressing reality that is the lot of the temporary agency worker.
In Leeds, my home city, we have been having a debate—carried out principally through the columns of the Yorkshire Evening Post—about our two-speed economy. Much of our great city is doing exceptionally well, but significant pockets of it are in danger of being left behind. One of the factors that contribute to that state of affairs is that many citizens are engaged in contract or agency work. In that group it is the young, males over 50—so I had better watch out—and women who predominate. It is clear that they are in danger of being locked into a cycle of low-paid unskilled work with little or no training, or access to it.
Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and making a powerful case. He and the Minister will be aware that for the last six years I have made known my concerns about the issues that he has described—low-paid, low-skilled work, and

231WH
particularly the plight of young people in the labour market. Does he agree that temporary agency work can not only be subject to the kind of abuse that he has described, but can mean that young people do not get the chance to enter modern apprenticeships or the new deal? They just go into the black hole of temporary work, never to emerge; never to get on to the ladder of opportunity that this Government have provided for so many other young people. Agency working is having that impact. Would my hon. Friend support an extension of employment rights, to young people in particular, and stricter regulation of the cowboy agencies that he mentioned earlier, so that we can bring genuine opportunity and equality to the young in low-paid and low-skilled jobs in our communities?
Colin Burgon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I fully agree with him I pay tribute to the work that he has done. One of the key pieces of work that I examined was a study that he carried out in his constituency. That study is a model of constituency activism by a Member of Parliament.
A Labour Government should not ignore these working people, and we have to ask ourselves whether the position of agency workers has been helped in any way by the Government's failure to sign up to the EU directive. The answer would have to be that they have not been helped one jot. In arguing that there should be a 12-month qualifying period before agency workers receive equal treatment, the Government would have, in the words of Ms Toynbee, rendered the directive "a nonsense". Many workers are only on three or six-month contracts in the first place and few temporary workers remain with the same employer for the 12 months necessary for them to qualify for equal rights under the Government's proposal.
Mike told me of a fellow employee who had worked for agencies for six years, but never for a 12-month stretch in a single workplace. If the EU directive were shaped as the Government wish, in practice that employee would never have rights equal to that of a permanent employee—whether he worked for the agency for six or 60 years. I fear that such an emasculated EU directive would be far worse than Ms Toynbee's mere "nonsense". Indeed, such a directive, hampered by the kind of qualifying period for which the Government lobbied so hard, could be used irresponsibly by business to avoid giving employees decent pay and protections. Are we to trust that all businesses will be benevolent and refuse the temptation to save money by getting rid of temporary staff before the 12-month period is up and replacing them with new staff on the same derisory terms and conditions?
The Government's approach to the EU temporary agency workers directive is a deliberate and overt rejection of the employment rights of temporary employees. In terms of pay and conditions, it would also create the risk of worsening job security for many employees. It is easy to see how such a system could be used irresponsibly by business to avoid giving employees decent pay and protection.
Like others in the Chamber, am proud to be a Labour MP under a Labour Government under whom an economic strategy moulded by the Chancellor to
232WH
achieve opportunity and prosperity for all has given rise to the lowest unemployment that we have experienced for nearly 30 years. It is a great contrast to the dark years of Thatcherism, when unemployment exceeded 3 million. We often forget that, but we must continue to remind people. The Conservatives said that it was a price worth paying, but those of us who represent constituents whose lives, and those of their families, were thrown on the scrap heap in the cause of economic dogma know that the misery caused by unemployment is never a price worth paying.
However, even now that full employment is a real and achievable goal thanks to the Government's economic management and ideals of social justice, we must remember what kind of employment people should be entitled to. They are entitled to more than a job with "no security and no rights", as Mike so accurately described, and more than a job whose pay and working conditions seem to have been lifted off the pages of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists"—sordid 19th century employment practices embedded in the 21st century.
I want to put a few points to the Minister. I have high regard for him, although I should point out that I am not after a job, temporary or otherwise. First, as anyone can open an agency in the UK, a large number of small outfits open and close every year. The UK has no licensing requirement or requirement to join a professional body that could enforce a code of best practice. Only half of eligible agencies join the main industry-wide body, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation. Will the Minister consider legislation to cover employment agencies, and does he agree with the TUC that the lack of employment protection for the agency workers in the UK is allowing some cowboy agencies to exploit vulnerable workers and undercut agencies that offer decent pay and protection? Does he also agree that the UK economy and work force need fewer agencies that share quality practice underpinned by legal minimums?
Secondly, when the issue of protection for agency workers surfaces again, as it surely will, will the Government place much greater weight on the submissions of the TUC and its affiliated unions? Will they also look at how they can help the unions to organise among that group of workers? I hope that the Minister will agree that the group of workers that we are discussing today get little in the way of favours; the minimum that a Labour Government should bring to their lives is fairness.
4.43 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon). Without turning this into a mutual admiration society, I praise him for his interest in these issues. This is an important debate and I am pleased to take part in it.
The terminology is important. I shall speak about employment businesses, because that is the strict legal term that applies to agencies and employers that we are discussing. I want to say a little about what we do to protect agency workers, which is important to place on record, before we come to the important points that my hon. Friend raised, including on the proposed European directive.

233WH
There are several estimates of the number of agency workers in this country. My hon. Friend referred to a labour force survey figure of 300,000, and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation says that there are more than 1 million. Our estimate, from important work done by the Department, which has been associated with agency workers for the past 30 years, is that there are about 600,000 agency workers. The number is considerable, and it covers a variety of skilled and unskilled occupations. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has taken an interest in the issue for many years, will know the diversity involved. That figure includes warehouse operatives and managers, doctors and nurses, porters and IT specialists, young girls going into modelling, people in the acting profession, caretakers and college lecturers. The sector is diverse.
Agency workers have access to core employment rights and statutory social security benefits. Since coming to office, the Government have sought to ensure that all workers receive minimum standards on pay and conditions. Since 1997, we have significantly improved protections for agency workers. The national minimum wage and the right to four weeks' paid holiday apply to agency workers. The so-called rights for whistleblowers in the Public Disclosure Act 1998 apply to agency workers. Agency workers also have the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings, introduced under the Employment Relations Act 1999, and part-time agency workers have the right not to be treated less favourably than similar full-time agency workers.
Agency workers already have the same protection as other workers and employees under existing sex, race and disability discrimination legislation. Our employment status review is also relevant, but we have found that many groups of workers do not realise what rights they have. The Department of Trade and Industry and Government agencies have the job of ensuring that they do.
Since 1976——nearly 30 years ago—a special regulatory regime has been in place to protect agency workers and hirers, and to regulate the operation of the private recruitment industry. That provides specific protections for agency workers in the triangular relationship between worker, employment business and hirer. For example, employment businesses must pay workers on time, regardless of whether they have been paid by the client. Agency workers must not be restricted from taking up direct employment with the hirer, and they must be given written statements on their work and pay rates. Employment businesses cannot charge their workers fees for finding them work.
That legislation is backed up by an inspection regime. The DTI's employment agency standards inspectorate is responsible for enforcing the provisions of employment agencies legislation. The DTI also runs a helpline to which agency workers can report concerns or complaints about the operation of an employment business, and from which they can seek advice on their rights and the protections offered to them under the law. The inspectorate investigates all relevant complaints about employment businesses, and inspectors visit them to ensure that they are complying with the law. When appropriate, the inspectorate will prosecute employment businesses in the magistrates court.
234WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked whether we could reintroduce a licensing system. It was discarded a while back because it was not effective—people thought that once they were on a list of approved agencies, they could do whatever they liked. However, when we got rid of that system, we introduced a power that allowed the DTI inspectorate to prohibit persons or companies from running an employment agency for 10 years. That is an important measure, although it was seen at the time as draconian. My Department regularly receives letters of thanks—they are pinned up on our office walls—from agency workers who have been helped by our inspectors. That is a little commented on but important part of the DTI's work.
We are reviewing the domestic protections for agency workers, and we have been looking to update the rules on the conduct of employment businesses to make them simpler and to ensure that they reflect modern arrangements. We have also been considering controversial issues such as temp-to-perm fees, and health service agency staff whose health and safety protection was due lo be given by the person for whom they are caring rather than by the agency—an anomaly that we intend to address. We have considered a swathe of issues over the past few years, and I hope that we will be making announcements on them fairly soon.
Agency workers are one of the groups that we are examining as part or the review of employment status. Since last year, we have been looking at the coverage of rights provided through employment relations law. Last July, we published a discussion document to establish whether there were any problems with the current arrangements. We also held a series of round-table discussions to examine the issues in different sectors. Later this year, we intend to publish a document summarising the responses to our discussion document and setting out the way forward.
The problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituent with regard to job security and not being given adequate notice will not be addressed by the European directive, but could be addressed as part of the employment status review. That issue has been raised with us several times.
The employment status of agency workers is not straightforward. The fact that somebody is an agency worker does not tell us automatically whether they are an employee, with access to a full range of employment rights. As we proceeded with the review, we found that it was even more complex than we thought at the beginning, but we felt that it was worth carrying it out to establish the rights of various groups, including agency workers. We are considering how to improve clarity, and how workers and employment businesses could be given better information on their rights and responsibilities.
Having discussed those issues, I turn to the European directive. The Government have introduced many rights—the right to be accompanied to hearings, the right for part-time workers to be paid the same as full-time workers and protection for workers on fixed-term contracts. In the latter case, we were accused of gold-plating to provide pensions as part of that protection, because the directive did not allow it. How have we turned from Mother Theresa into Vlad the Impaler on the issue of agency workers? Why would we do that? Why would we, to quote Polly Toynbee, engage in such

235WH
"wickedness". I have written to my good friend Ms Toynbee privately about the matter, because that is a misrepresentation not just of the DTI's position but of that of the Government.
I shall outline our position. The social partners in Europe examined three groups of atypical workers—part-time workers, fixed-term workers and agency staff. The social partners in Europe—employers and unions—agreed to a way forward on fixed-term and part-time workers, and we were happy to implement that in UK law. Indeed, we went further than the law required to cover pensions and other issues.
The social partners could not reach agreement on the question of agency workers, however, and, unusually, the Commission decided to take the matter forward anyway. Countries well known for their protection of workers' rights, such as Denmark, Germany and the Republic of Ireland, adopted the same position as the UK. Why are we all concerned about the issue?
There was an obvious relationship between fixed-term and part-time workers in that they worked for an employer, and we could insist that that employer give them the same terms and conditions as staff on permanent contracts. The agency workers, however, have a triangular relationship. They are paid not by the company that has hired them, but by the agency. In many sectors—health and education, for example—agency workers are paid much more than permanent staff, although in others they are paid less. In the secretarial sector, pay in relation to permanent staff is patchy.
Although we in the UK do not claim to have more employment agency workers than anywhere else in Europe—France and the Netherlands have more—we do not have sectoral pay rates, nor sectoral pay bargaining, as in some other European Union countries. If someone is a secretary in France, wherever they are placed by an agency, they will receive roughly the same pay.
In most other European countries, the big five agencies employ the majority of agency staff. In France, they employ about 85 per cent. of such staff, whereas in the UK the figure is only about 9 or 10 per cent. The remainder are employed by 17,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. We are not anti-SME, but that is the situation that our market is in—SMEs would find it very difficult if they needed somebody quickly. The TUC's own research, published last week, shows that companies make such requests not to cut costs but to
236WH
cover work. They want to move quickly: 57 per cent. of companies would be deterred if there were any bureaucracy involved, such as having to pin down the exact terms and conditions of the person being replaced, because the directive says that they are to be treated as if they were being recruited directly off the street. That would introduce so much bureaucracy, both for the agency and for the employer, that 38 per cent. of companies would cover through overtime, although we are trying to cut down the long-hours culture in this country, and 17 per cent. would not cover the work at all.
Given what my hon. Friend rightly said about our success at getting young people back into work—the Secretary of State wrote to Brendan Barber a couple of days ago about the problems with the TUC figures—it is undeniable that for people in any industry who have been out of work for a long time in a place such as my hon. Friend's constituency, the employment agency provides a good rung on the ladder and an important first step back into the workplace.
Under the Lisbon process, we are committed to creating 20 million new jobs in Europe by 2010. In the UK, we have already met our target: over 70 per cent. of people who could be employed are at work. We have been tremendously successful, although we are worried about jeopardising that success story.
We proposed that agency workers should qualify for the same terms and conditions as permanent employees after a qualifying period. During negotiations in Luxembourg, we moved from 12 months, as did Denmark, Ireland and Germany. Curiously, there are derogations in the directive for people who categorise us as being against vulnerable workers. There are two: if someone works permanently for an agency—most of our agency staff do not do that; they sign up with two or three different ones—they can be paid less than permanent staff for ever more. That is a derogation that many countries operate. The second derogation also allows workers to be paid less. Ours is the only one that insists that a worker enjoy the same terms and conditions after a qualifying period.
I hope that I have shown that our action is not due to hostility towards a vulnerable group of workers. The employment status review—our review of the existing regulations—suggests that we are not and I assure my hon. Friend that this is an important debate. We are not Vlad the Impaler. We are back to being Mother Theresa, and I hope to convince my hon. Friend of that over the coming months.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o'clock

PRIME MINISTER

  Aid (Colombia)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister who has been invited to the aid donors meeting on Colombia to be held on 10th July. [118601]

  The Prime Minister
  The US, European Commission, UN EU member states, Canada, Japan Norway, Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and the Inter-American Development Bank. IMF and the World Bank have been invited to the meeting. Representatives from civil society will be invited to contribute.

  Intelligence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake to inform the House that editing has taken place in the event that he exercises his power to edit a report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. [118444]

  The Prime Minister
  I have said I will publish the report in the usual way.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 150, what steps have been taken by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) to establish the identity of the individuals within the SIS who have been speaking anonymously to the media; what form the investigations have taken; what the terms of reference are; who is leading the investigation; when it is expected to report; to whom it will report; and whether the conclusions of the investigation will be made public. [118585]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) at Prime Minister's Questions on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 147–150.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual Report for 2002–03 before Parliament. [118558]

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for their valuable work and their latest annual report. Following consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee over matters which could not be published without prejudicing the discharge of the function and operation of the Intelligence and Security agencies. I have laid the report before the House today. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government will respond formally to the report shortly.

  Tariq Aziz
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 4 June 2003 Official Report, column 156, what process will be used in the trials of senior Iraqi figures, with particular reference to Mr. Tariq Aziz; and when he expects such trials to take place. [118592]

  The Prime Minister
  We have always believed that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq should be brought to justice. No decisions have yet been taken on how this should be pursued. It should be for the Iraqi people to decide what action to take, with suitable international help.

  A team of coalition specialists has started assessing the situation on the ground, listening to the wishes of the Iraqi people and making recommendations for future action. UK forces have been tasked with securing and protecting evidence to hand over to the relevant prosecuting authorities at the appropriate time. The UK sent a team of none forsensic experts to Iraq on 21 May 2003, to investigate war crimes and mass graves.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total expenditure on advertising by the Office was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114431]

  Mr. Alexander
  Details of my Department's spend on advertising in each year from 2001–02 to 2002–03 and planned expenditure in 2003–04 can be found in the table.

  £000

  Advertising

  2000–01

  464

  2001–02

  2,708

  2002–03

  400

  2003–04 Planned

  267

  The 2002–03 figure is subject to final audit and the planned figure for 2003–04 has not yet been finalised. Therefore, both of these figures may be subject to change. The planned spend for 2004–05 is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The increase in advertising expenditure from 2000–01 to 2001–02 is due to expenditure of £2,491,000 incurred by the Office of the E-Envoy for the UK online advertising campaign.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many employees there were in each Department of State(a) in 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [118248]
  719W
  Mr. Alexander
  The information is published annually, in Table C of 'Civil Service Statistics' which covers permanent staff numbers in each department and agency from 1995 to 2001, copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002.

  The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published in July 2003.

  Alternatively, this information is available at the following address on the Cabinet Office Statistics website: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm.

  Ministers for Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work of the Ministers for Regulatory Reform. [117774]

  Mr. Alexander
  Regulatory Reform Ministers are responsible to the Prime Minister for championing better regulation. They are charged with removing any regulations, which are outdated or burdensome and ensuring that the new regulations are necessary and if so, are introduced in a light touch way.

  Regulatory Reform Ministers ensure policy officials deliver better regulation and make full use of regulatory reform tools, such as carrying out regulatory impact assessments on policy proposals and removing outdated and burdensome legislation by Regulatory Reform Order.

  These Ministers also support their Departments in completing the proposals outlined in the Government's regulatory reform action plan that was published in February 2002. To date they have achieved good progress in this area and we are on track to deliver this plan.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the meetings of the Ministers for Regulatory Reform since establishment; and, for each meeting, if he will list(a) Ministers attending and (b) the person in the chair. [117775]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since the establishment of Regulatory Reform Ministers, they have met on 30 March 2000, 17 July 2001, 4 February 2002 and 2 December 2002. The Minister for the Cabinet Office chairs these meetings. Dr. Marjorie Mowlam chaired the first meeting on 30 March 2000 and Lord Macdonald chaired subsequent meetings. The majority of Regulatory Reform Ministers attended these meetings.

  World Summit
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development 720W
  (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. [113878]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office does not have lead responsibility for any of the UK commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

  The Cabinet Office fully supports plans to incorporate UK commitments into Departments' delivery plans and related targets. We have dedicated resources to ensure that, where appropriate and relevant, UK commitments are fully taken into account in our policies and operations.

HEALTH

  Binge Drinking
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenagers have died from binge drinking in each year since 1997. [117582]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 10 June 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many teenagers died from binge drinking in each year since 1997. (117582)

  Figures for deaths from alcohol poisoning are given in the table. The most recent year for which figures are available is 2001. Information on the pattern of alcohol consumption is not generally available from death certificates.

  Deaths from accidental poisoning by alcohol, teenagers1, England and Wales, 1997 to 20012

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths from accidental poisoning by alcohol3

  Number of deaths from drug-related poisoning, alcohol poisoning mentioned4

  1997

  3

  17

  1998

  3

  4

  1999

  2

  9

  2000

  1

  6

  2001

  4

  6

  1 Teenagers defined as aged 13–19.

  2 Data are for deaths occurring in a calendar year

  3 Figures are based on the underlying cause of death, defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ICD-9) code E860 for the years 1997 to 2000 and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code X45 for2001.

  4 Where both drug and alcohol poisoning are mentioned on the death certificate, international coding rules state that the death should be coded to the drug.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 436W, on the Passport Agency, for what reason the figure for the number of lost passports in 1998 is not available; what steps her Department is taking in conjunction with Royal Mail to ensure that passports are delivered safely to customers; and what assessment she has made of the reasons why passports are lost. [115527]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures for passports reported as being lost in the post only started to be collated routinely and centrally in 1998 with the introduction of the current passport production system and new procedures for claiming compensation from the Royal Mail. Figures for passports reported lost in the post prior to 1999 are not therefore available.

  The UK Passport Service has had regular discussions with the Royal Mail about the loss of passports in the post and about options for delivery which might reduce the number of losses but at the same time minimise the inconvenience and additional cost to customers which such delivery arrangements might entail. The UK Passport Service and the Royal Mail also work together on investigations into the disappearance of passports in the postal system.

  As the hon. Member will see from my response to another of his questions on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 148W, the UK Passport Service is actively seeking to introduce a secure delivery for all passports returned to customers.

  Passports are recorded as having been lost in the post when the passport applicant reports that he or she has not received the document. The three principal reasons why a passport may not be delivered are miss-routing because of incorrect addressing, loss within the postal system as the result of some processing error or theft. In addition it is possible that a report of a lost passport may be made if there is some delay between the passport leaving the UK Passport Service and arrival at its destination.

  As recognised by the Cabinet Office "Identity Fraud: A Study" published in July 2002, identity fraud is a serious and growing problem for the UK and it is possible that this has contributed to the increase in passports being reported as having been lost in the post. However, there is no evidence currently available which could establish the degree to which the increase in identity fraud has resulted in the increase in reports of such losses

  "Waste Not, Want Not"
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who has been appointed as project director of the multi-disciplinary operational task force to help advise local authorities on implementation of recommendation 28 of the Strategy Unit report, "Waste Not, Want Not". [111257]
  722W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have accepted the Strategy Unit's recommendation 28 to establish a new local authority task force. Details were announced on 6 May as part of the Government's response to the Strategy Unit report. Given the centrality of this team to delivery of Defra's new waste implementation programme, a decision on a full-time appointment will be taken once the new waste implementation programmme Director takes up post on 2 June. In the meantime, a member of the waste implementation programme team has been assigned to take forward work on the new task force.

  Accountancy Services
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of her Department's accountancy services in 2002–03. [117340]

  Alun Michael
  The forecast cost of accountancy services in 2002–03 is £715,000.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government are taking to encourage the use of nonfood crops to generate electricity; and if she will make a statement. [117136]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Energy White Paper, published earlier this year, sets out the Government's aim to achieve the production of 20 per cent. of the UK's electricity through renewable sources by 2020. Biomass, including purpose-grown non-food crops, could become one of the largest contributors to the renewables mix by 2020.

  This Department allocated £29 million under the Energy Crops Scheme to support the planting of short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus, and the setting up of producer groups to supply SRC to energy end-users. £3.5m has been allocated to develop supply chains for energy crops and woodfuel, from harvest to energy end-users.£66 million is available to develop markets for biomass, including energy crops, in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation. Following the award of grants, officials are working closely with project developers to promote the potential of energy crops and biomass. Recently, over 200 farmers attended one such event near Swindon.

  The co-firing of energy crops with fossil fuels is permitted under the Renewables Obligation. Officials are working closely with the Local Support Teams set up under the Countryside Agency's Community Renewables Initiative, to develop biomass energy projects. At present, energy crops can be planted on set-aside land and receive payments under the arable area payments scheme.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to encourage building of power stations to burn non-food crops for the generation of electricity; and if she will make a statement. [117137]
  723W
  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have supported the building of such power plants for a number of years, for example, through R&D support and the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation. The Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme, launched in February 2002 and jointly run by DTI and the New Opportunities Fund, has awarded £66 million to projects throughout the United Kingdom. The projects supported include heat cluster installations, combined heat and power plant and larger state-of-the-art power generation. Many of the projects will use energy crops like short rotation coppice as a significant proportion of the fuel.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has received from Sheffield Hallam University on the use of biofuels as the result of work commissioned by her. [117547]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received one report from Sheffield Hallam University on the use of biofuels as the result of work commissioned by this Department. The report, titled "Evaluation of the comparative energy, global warming and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel", was commissioned to support the work of the Government-industry forum on non-food uses of crops. The report is available on the Department's website.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Minister in her Department is responsible for developing agricultural policy on biofuels. [117591]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 9 June 2003]
  Two Ministers in the Department share responsibility for developing agricultural policy on biofuels. I have responsibility for promoting non-food crops in general and for the climate change benefits of biofuels. My Noble friend Lord Whitty, has responsibility for sustainable farming, the overview of relations between Defra and the Department for Transport, and sustainable energy. We work closely to ensure coordinated policy.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what health and safety guidance she has given to(a) farmers and (b) veterinary surgeons on the slaughter of heifers found to be infected with bovine TB. [109852]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is standard practice for bovine TB reactors to be removed from farm as quickly as possible and slaughtered at an abattoir by a trained slaughterman. In cases where reactor animals are unfit to travel to a slaughterhouse, arrangements are made for slaughter to be carried out on farm by a knackerman, and for a post-mortem to be carried out by the State Veterinary Service (SVS).
  724W
  As farmers or veterinary surgeons do not routinely carry out the slaughter of TB reactor animals Defra has not issued specific guidance on this.

  CAP
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on farms which entered into agri-environmental schemes before or during the reference period. [114092]

  Margaret Beckett
  Under the Commission's proposals, entitlements to the new single payment scheme would be based on claims for CAP direct payments during a reference period running from 2000 to 2002. Farmers who reduced their direct payment claims during that period as a consequence of participation in an agri-environment scheme would, therefore, see that reduction fed through to their single payment entitlement. We have made clear to the Commission and Greek Presidency that the final agreement should include provisions to ensure that agri-environment participants are not disadvantaged. The Commission has now suggested that this could be achieved by allowing the choice of a historical reference period for the single payment scheme which predates an individual's agri-environment agreement(s).

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is the Government's policy during negotiations on the reform of the Common Agricultural policy to seek to secure a national reserve amounting to more than 1 per cent. of the reference amount. [114093]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government believe that it is important to address the inequities in the initial allocation of single payment entitlements that would be created by the European Commission's proposals. The Commission has recently suggested that those inequities could be addressed through an increase in the range of farmers who would access the national reserve. The size of the reserve would then be increased by reducing reference amounts by up to a maximum of 3 per cent. and drawing in the entitlements of farmers who sold land after the start of the reference period.

  Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the grant aid to the Cotswold AONB partnership is due to be paid; and how much it will be. [118169]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency is responsible for grants to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I have stressed to the Agency our expectation that timely information is given to outside organisations about the level of funding they should anticipate, and that figures should be finalised before the start of a financial year. The Agency has ensured me that it recognises the importance of timely decision making and will finalise the grant for the Cotswolds AONB, and others, as a matter of urgency.

  Departmental Budget
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of her Department's budget was unspent at the end of the financial year, broken down by heading; and what proportion of the total budget this represents. [117368]

  Alun Michael
  Actual outturn figures for the Department for the last financial year are not yet available, but Defra's forecast final outturn is expected to be within its final provision.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers to declare an area GM-free are held by(a) her Department, (b) local authorities and (c) the European Union. [114046]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 20 May 2003]
  Under the Directive 2001/18, it would be possible for the relevant competent authority to authorise the deliberate release of a GMO subject to the condition that it may not be used in specific geographical locations on grounds of sound scientific evidence of risk to human health or the environment. Any such condition would have to be decided case-by-case. The Directive does not provide for limiting the geographical use of a GMO on any other grounds. If any GMO was assessed as presenting significant risks to human health or the environment, it is highly unlikely that it would be approved at all.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to pay the proposed single farm payments in respect of all IACS-registered land, regardless of whether the farming activity being carried out during the reference period qualified for subsidy. [116488]

  Margaret Beckett
  Under the European Commission's CAP reform proposals, Member States would have the discretion to implement the single payment scheme on the basis of a single common payment rate per hectare rather than individual rates determined by historic subsidy receipts. However, this option would only apply at the regional level and the common payment per hectare would have to made to all farmers in a region, whether their land registered for arable area aid purposes or not. If any such discretion is provided for in the final agreement, the Government will wish to consult interested parties before deciding what, if any, use might be made of it.

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many registered agricultural holdings for the purposes of IACS payments there were in(a) 1995 and (b) 1997; and how many there are now. [117523]

  Alun Michael
  The number of registered agricultural holdings for the purposes of IACS payments for England and Wales is as follows.726W

  England

  Wales

  1995

  79,432

  20,000

  1997

  77,829

  19,300

  2003

  68,009

  16,500

  Landfill Sites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 12th December 2002,Official Report, column 445–46W, on landfill sites, if she will list the locations of the sites against which each fine has been levied; and what the (a) reason for the action and (b) level of fine was in each case. [112428]

  Mr. Meacher
  A list of the level of fine imposed for each of the landfill sites, where the information is available, has been placed in the library of the House. Some cases have not yet come to Court.

  The specific reason for the action is not recorded by the Agency but the legislation under which the prosection action is taken is indicated alongside each report. The list of incidents may relate to breaches of Authorisation rather than Pollution Incidents.

  National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the final totals for all financial claims under round one of the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund were; and what proportion of the amount originally allocated this represents. [114208]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the final totals for all financial claims made under round one of the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund including the separate arrangement for London is as follows:

  2002–2003

  Capital Spend Allocated (£ million)

  38.58

  Actual Capital Spend (£ million)

  30.74

  Proportion Spent (percentage)

  80

  Revenue Spend Allocated (£ million)

  11.42

  Actual Revenue Spend (£ million)

  10.47

  Proportion Spent (percentage)

  92

  The underspend on the capital budget is due mainly to delays in the procurement of capital items such as vehicles and boxes. The Department is seeking end-year flexibility to carry forward the remaining capital budget (£7.84 million) so it can be spent by Local Authorities in 2003–04.

  Odours (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has(a) evaluated and (b) applied under Environment Agency control to resolve the problems of odours in South Essex. [114662]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is the Government regulator on waste management licensing controls. The Agency is visiting the site daily and has required the operating company, through the serving of a notice under section 42 of the Environmental Protection
  727W
  Act 1990, to take steps to control and resolve the problem of odours at the Pitsea landfill site. On-going compliance is being monitored extremely tightly.

  A final layer of waste is being put over one of the two sources of odour which will be followed by a clay 'cap' to seal it. The second and most predominant source of odour, from the central leachate lagoon, has been treated with oxidising agents which eliminate the odour rapidly, but there has been difficulty in maintaining this and a number of additional measures are now being implemented.

  I will continue to monitor progress in resolving the problems of odours associated with the Pitsea landfill site.

  Organic Food
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had in 2003 with the chairman of the Food Standards Agency on the promotion of organic food; and if she will make a statement on the implementation of the organic action plan. [116797]

  Mr. Meacher
  Copies of correspondence so far between myself and the Chairman of the Food Standards Agency on organic issues have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  As chairman of the stakeholder group taking forward the "Action plan to develop organic food and farming in England" I attach great importance to progressing the commitments made in the plan. In respect of these commitments:
  I am in discussion with Chief Executives of the main multiples on the commitment to increase the proportion of organic food they source from within the UK;
  We are taking forward the commitment to encourage the purchase of sustainable and local food, including organic food, in public procurement;
  We have put in place a revised Organic Farming Scheme for England including on-going aid for organic farmers and higher rates of conversion aid for top fruit orchards;
  We are providing an additional £5 million over the next five years to support organic R&D under the LINK programme;
  The first organic statistical information notice for England was published on 19 May.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department uses bodies other than the United Kingdom Accreditation Service for the accreditation of certification bodies operating in the organic food sector. [116756]

  Mr. Meacher
  Currently the approval of organic certification bodies for the purposes of Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 is carried out by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) in liaison with the Department. Consequent on the abolition of UKROFS in July 2003 new arrangements for approving the organic certification bodies are being put in place. These arrangements will involve UKAS, as the UK's official provider of accreditation services, in assessing the bodies and advising Government on their compliance with requirements in the Council Regulation. UKAS is 728W
  considering the scope for collaboration with other bodies who are involved in assessments against organic standards.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated in respect of average journey times to transport material collected for recycling to its destination point for processing. [114262]

  Mr. Meacher
  No information has been collated in respect of average journey times to transport material collected for recycling to its destination point for processing.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the potential impact on the export trade of unsorted kerbside collected recyclables from English recycling schemes to Pacific Rim countries on economic regeneration in the UK, with special reference to the Government's Waste Strategy Proximity Principle. [114793]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessment has been made of the potential impact on the export trade of unsorted kerbside collected recyclables from English recycling schemes to Pacific Rim countries on economic regeneration in the UK. Local authorities must dispose of waste in accordance with the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) which necessitates paying attention to the proximity principle. Waste shipments for recovery must meet the strict criteria that apply to shipments of waste to non-OECD countries under EC legislation. The criteria applied to these shipments of waste for recovery include, among others, that the waste is non-hazardous, not contaminated, and that any Pacific Rim country, if not an OECD member, will have clarified to the European Commission that it is willing and able to recover the waste in an environmentally sound manner.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take action to reduce the disparity between the cost of exporting unsorted recyclables and the cost of sorting them in the UK. [114794]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's priority is to increase the amount of waste that is reused or recycled. It may be necessary to export some recyclate for recovery in order to achieve these aims. The Government however, is acting to extend the market for recyclates in the UK and has set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products and to remove barriers to re-use and re-cycling in the UK.

  Rendering Works (Lancaster)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish her final decision in relation to the proposed odour boundary condition at fats and proteins animal rendering works in Lancaster. [116759]
  729W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 143W, in which I stated that the Department was considering the representations received in response to the 'minded to' decision letter. That process has further necessitated making available to all interested parties copies of the representations received and inviting comments on them.

  Officials will shortly be presenting Ministers with recommendations on this appeal case, based on an analysis of all the representations received. A final decision letter will issue as soon as possible thereafter.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans will be put in place to reduce and eliminate the discharges of technetium-99 from the Sellafield re-processing plant. [116122]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1999 we started a process to reduce discharges of technetium-99 (Tc-99) from Sellafield. In that year the discharge limit was reduced from 200 TBq/year to 90 TBq/year and, at our request, the Environment Agency commenced a review of the discharges of Tc-99, to be completed ahead of the review of all other radioactive discharges from Sellafield. As required by the Agency, BNFL are currently working to intoduce an abatement technique known as "MAC Diversion", which we hope will be operational shortly. The introduction of that technique should allow the discharge limit to be reduced to 10 TBq/year (5 per cent. of the 1999 limit) by 2006. Further scientific evaluation is currently being carried out to determine whether an alternative abatement technique, based on tetraphenylphosphonium bromide, commonly referred to as TPP, could be used to allow the discharge limit to be reduced before 2006.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is proposing to take on the recommendation of the ERM study into means of ensuring that government procurement policy sources legal and sustainable timber. [117603]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am proposing to set up a central point of expertise on timber procurement (CPET) as recommended by the Consultants ERM. Its main activities will be to assess whether third party certification schemes and other independently verified evidence comply with the Government's requirements for its timber supplies and provide guidance for officials and suppliers.

  Vital Villages Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding is available in 2003–04 to the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme; and what funding is planned for 2004–05. [118171]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency currently has £17 million available in 2003–04 to fund the Vital Villages programme to help rural communities. I am 730W
  pleased to say that demand for this funding is high and some £12 million has already been committed to grants in 2003–04.

  Planning figures for 2004–05 are extremely provisional until a number of reviews have been included, including Haskins Review of rural delivery and Defra's review of priorities set out in the Rural White Paper but for the time being a figure of £21 million has been included in the Agency's current corporate plan for 2004–05 for the Vital Villages programme.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to make waste minimisation and recycling mandatory for the commercial sectors to achieve a reduction in overall commercial waste levels. [115940]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has no plans to make waste minimisation or recycling mandatory for the commercial sectors. However, there are already a number of mechanisms in place that are designed to achieve an overall reduction in commercial waste levels.

  The Government have set a target to reduce, by 2005–06, the amount of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels. Current estimates suggest that we are on course to meet this target.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) set targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and provide incentives to minimise the amount of packaging handled. Between 1999 and 2002, the amount of packaging waste sent to landfill fell from 5.7 to 4.4 million tonnes, although the 2002 figure is still provisional at this stage. The Government will additionally be setting targets for the recovery and recycling of electrical equipment.

  The Government have entered into a voluntary agreement with the newspaper industry, which has seen recycled content of newspapers increase to well over the target of 60 per cent. last year. The Government are looking to enter into more agreements of this kind.

  Envirowise, is a Government funded business support programme dedicated to making businesses more resource efficient, saving money by minimising waste. Last year alone, Envirowise helped UK businesses to achieve annual cost savings of over £175 million, with a reduction of 1.6 million tonnes of solid waste. It also funds the Sustainable Technologies Initiative that provides funding for research and development projects aimed at minimising waste at source.

  Finally, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is helping to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, and remove the barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. This should help to make all recycling more commercially viable, including that which is produced by the commercial sector.
  731W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what incentives her Department is providing to local authorities to(a) offer effective and sustained educational resources for waste minimisation and recycling and (b) reduce the amount of waste that is exported to rural Bedfordshire; [115946]

  (2) what steps are being taken by her Department to ensure that authorities in London and the South East act responsibly in their waste strategies to (a) minimise waste at source, (b) rapidly increase recycling and (c) reduce the need for waste to be exported; and if she will make a statement; [115948]

  (3) what incentives she will provide to encourage the London and South East waste collection and waste disposal authorities to act in partnership to develop joint waste management strategies to minimise waste and increase recycling; and if she will make a statement. [115944]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Strategy Unit Report 'Waste Not Want Not' recommended that the Waste Recycling Action Programme (WRAP) take forward a programme of public education and awareness. The Government has accepted this recommendation and WRAP is now in the process of drawing up the detail of the programme. The majority of the resources allocated to the programme will support local authority education schemes.

  The Government have provided funding to local authorities through the Waste Recycling and Minimisation fund to enable them to increase recycling and waste minimisation in their areas. This includes funding for education and awareness programmes

  We have issued guidance to local authorities on the production of Municipal Waste Management Strategies which states that the strategies will need to demonstrate how the authority will meet the objectives and targets set out in Waste Strategy 2000. We have set statutory performance standards (targets) for each local authority to increase their recycling and composting levels. A Strategy should therefore contain:
  high level objectives for the service including statutory performance standards; and a time scale for achieving these:
  a review of outcomes against previous targets or plans, and factors which have caused divergence;
  identification and analysis of available options.

  The Strategy should aim for the Best Practicable Environmental Option taking account of the proximity and self-sufficiency principles.

  The Mayor of London has an obligation to produce a Municipal Waste Management Strategy for London on which he has to consult interested parties including other authorities. The Strategy should be in line with the Waste Strategy 2000. The Mayor has been given powers of direction to enable implementation of his strategy.

  The Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Bill will set landfill trading allowances for each local authority to limit the amount of waste that they can send to landfill. The Government have also announced that the WET Bill will be amended to require authorities in two tier areas (with some exceptions) to prepare a joint
  732W
  municipal Waste Strategy thus affording more opportunity for disposal and collection district authorities to work together.

  All of these factors together should help reduce the amount of waste that is exported to rural Bedfordshire.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many abandoned motor vehicles were collected in the district of Easington in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2002–03; and what the cost was to the local authority. [114714]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The question on abandoned vehicles was asked for the first time in the 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey. The numbers of abandoned vehicles reported by Easington district council are listed as follows:

  Easington

  2000–01

  14

  2001–02

  24

  The Department does not collect information on costs. Data for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to revise the guidance given in Circular 6/98 with regard to the definition of affordable housing and the site size thresholds which trigger affordable housing planning gain. [118227]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" announced our intention to update the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing and, in particular, consult on allowing local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified. Any revision of the definition in Circular 6/98 would form part of this update.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of fires(a) in retail premises and (b) on farms were caused by arson in 2002. [117893]

  Mr. Raynsford
  2001 is the most recent year for which data are available. In 2001, of 5,687 fires in retail premises, 46 per cent. (2,474 fires) were malicious. Of 1,267 fires in agricultural premises, 38 per cent. (486 fires) were malicious. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many arson attacks there were on churches between 1998 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [1 17894]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Data are only available for all places of worship, which includes churches. The following table contains the information on malicious fires up to
  733W
  2001, the most recent year for which data are available. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Fires in places of worship, United Kingdom

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Malicious fires

  120

  175

  142

  167

  All fires

  173

  278

  226

  262

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious car fires occurred in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [117896]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2000 there were 62,964 malicious car fires in the UK (from a total of 82,002 car fires). In 2001 there were 70,107 such fires (from a total of 88,242 car fires). Data are not yet available for 2002. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Arson is one of the major fire threats facing us today. That is why in 1998 the Government commissioned a study into the arrangements for dealing with the problem of deliberate fire-setting. The study reported in 1999 and made a number of far-reaching recommendations; the most significant of which was the creation of the Government-led Arson Control Forum to provide the strategic direction to the national fight against arson. The forum was launched in April 2001. The forum is now taking forward a programme of preventative measures that address arson in its many guises. The forum continues to fund a number of locally based arson control initiatives and has issued guidance on a variety of arson related subjects.

  Car fires comprise a considerable element of the deliberate fires problem and Government have taken a number of steps to address this. New powers will enable local authorities to remove unlicensed vehicles more quickly and tighten vehicle registration procedures. Also, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at ways to improve the links between the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and local councils to make it easier to trace the owners of derelict or abandoned vehicles.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes were deliberately set on fire each day on average in 2002. [117897]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 14,769 malicious fires on dwellings in the UK, an average of 40 per day. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the amount of money arson fires cost the UK in 2002. [117903]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The most recent estimates are for 1999 and for England and Wales only. In that year it is estimated that arson cost the economy just under £2.1 billion.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the costs of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 734W
  were since it was established; what the planned expenditure is for 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [99924]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established as a result of the Machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002. The forecast gross administration resource expenditure for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (including Government Offices but excluding its executive agencies) for 2002–03 is £269 million; and the planned gross administration resource expenditure for 2004–05 is £264 million. These figures exclude capital additions and related non-cash charges.

  Flooding
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure house buyers are aware of the risks involved with purchasing houses built on a flood plain. [117487]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the Government's proposals for home information packs, prospective buyers will be provided with key information about homes marketed for sale. Flood risk information is one of the items being considered for inclusion in the pack as part of the standard search arrangements. This proposal is set out in a consultation paper, "Contents of the Home Information Pack", published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 31 March 2003.

  Prospective buyer; and their professional advisers can already investigate flood risk. The Environment Agency publishes Indicative Floodplain Maps. These are available on the Agency's website: www.environmentagency.gov.uk in the section entitled "What's in your backyard". Prospective home buyers and their professional advisers can interrogate this site by post code to see the area in which a property is situated is at flood risk. More detailed information can be obtained from the local Environment Agency area office and from specialist commercial search companies. New homes should increasingly be located in accordance with the stronger planning guidance we issued in July 2001 in PPG25, "Development and Flood Risk", which sets out a sequential approach to the type of developments compatible with different levels of flood risk. To complement this new guidance, DTLR published, in February 2002, "Preparing for Floods". This sets out interim guidance for improving the flood resistance of all domestic and small business properties. It provides practical advice for existing owners whose properties are at risk of flooding and for those involved in constructing new properties or renovating old ones in flood risk areas. The information it contains is also of value to professionals advising purchasers on the flood resistant capabilities of properties within the mapped areas of flood risk.

  Housing Transfers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many large scale voluntary transfers of housing stock were made in each or the last five years. [118458]

  Mr. McNulty
  There have been 116 large scale voluntary transfers (LSVTs) since 1997. The annual breakdown is tabled as follows.
  735W

  Financial year

  Number of transfers

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  24

  1999–2000

  27

  2000–01

  18

  2001–02

  8

  2002–03

  23

  Key Workers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to include further education lecturers within the category eligible for key worker housing. [117554]

  Mr. McNulty
  From 2004–05, funding for the provision of key worker housing will be integrated into the Housing Corporation's affordable housing programme and will target key public sector workers. The Housing Corporation expects to invite bids for key worker housing schemes at the same time as bids for other affordable housing schemes, in the autumn 2003. It will be made clear at that stage which key worker groups will qualify for assistance, taking into account the advice of regional housing boards.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [116846]

  Mr. Leslie
  Departments have a remit to fulfil the "Framework for Sustainable Development" on the Government Estate. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works to ensure it meets all agreed targets, and where possible, assists all of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies to do so.

  Telephone Masts
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will abolish the 42-day rule for local authorities to refuse a notice for the erection of a telephone mast and replace it with a legal requirement that the erection of all masts should be the subject of a planning application. [117400]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 22 August 2001, the Government significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. One change was to increase the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below and for masts on buildings and structures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  The arrangements of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister give authorities more time to consider proposals, but with consent deemed to be granted if no decision has been made after 56 days so that development is not delayed. This discipline is needed
  736W
  because many authorities are failing to meet their Best Value targets for determining planning applications. Authorities are able to turn down mast applications where they do not consider amenity aspects have been adequately addressed. The arrangements strike the right balance between improving consultation with local people and ensuring that the decision-making process is not open-ended, thus giving the 50 million people who use mobile phones the service they want.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received during the past 12 months requesting that the 42-day rule for local authorities to refuse a notice for the erection of a telephone mast should be extended; and if he will make a statement [117401]

  Mr. McNulty
  In August 2001, we increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days. There are no plans to extend this period of time at present. The Government receive many representations on matters relating to the telecommunications industry, but we are not aware of any particular representations to extend the period for prior approval.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the capacity of(a) incineration, (b) composting and (c) recycling plants for the years 1999 to 2002; what the estimated capacity will be for the years 2003 to 2005; and if he will make a statement. [115774]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table gives the information available from the Environment Agency on the capacity of facilities for incineration, biological and physical treatment methods for licensed sites. The biological category covers composting, anaerobic digestion and other biological processes that change the properties of waste, while physical treatment covers processes such as filtration and sorting. Figures are not available separately for the capacity of composting and recycling facilities. The figures are the latest and only ones available for the years in question.

  Facility

  Capacity (Thousand tones)

  1998–99

  Incineration

  4,501

  2000–01

  Biological treatment

  16,096

  2000–01

  Physical treatment

  18,226

  Estimates of future capacity are not available.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled Parking Permits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has collated on the number of disabled parking permits that have gone missing in the post after being issued in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority. [117112]
  737W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no legal requirement for local authorities to hold such records and the Department does not currently ask for that information as part of its annual blue badge statistical survey of local authorities in England. The devolved administrations are responsible for the scheme in other parts of the UK.

  The issues of misuse and abuse of badges were considered as part of the recent review of the Blue Badge scheme. In concluding the review some 47 recommendations were made to Ministers through the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee, the Department's statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people, including a number of enforcement measures. The Government accepted most of these and will be taken them forward at the earliest opportunity. A summary of the recommendations and the Government's response to them was placed in the Libraries of the House on 18 December 2002.

  A75
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on the A75 euro route between Gretna and Stranraer. [118319]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the Scottish Assembly.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the impact of congestion charging. [117826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London congestion charging scheme is the responsibility of the mayor, not the Government. However, Ministers have regular meetings with the mayor at which a wide range of transport matters are discussed.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection (Mr. Morley) on 9 June 2003,Official Report column 581W. [116654].

  Equal Pay
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if he will publish the results of such an audit. [117429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department and its agencies have completed the review of their pay systems encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. Action plans for each have been produced. These will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course after full consideration has been given to the issues identified.
  738W
  NDPBs carried out reviews as a matter of good practice. As there was no formal commitment for them to do so, publication will not apply.

  Football (Policing Costs)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officers from the transport police were involved in policing the England football match at Leicester on 3 June; and what the cost was to the police. [118176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have advised me that 70 officers were involved in policing the England v. Serbia football match at Leicester on 3 June 2003. The final cost to the BTP was just under £10,000.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made on the effect in terms of air traffic movements if the Crawford arrangement of Heathrow airport were ended. [118346]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ending the restriction on easterly departures from Heathrow's northern runway, known as the Cranford Agreement, would not on its own have any effect on the runway capacity of the airport. To raise the capacity of Heathrow's existing runways by the introduction of a "mixed mode" pattern operations would require termination or amendment of the runway alternation scheme and the Cranford Agreement. The Government have no plans to introduce mixed mode.

  Highway Winter Maintenance
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) life expectancy and (b) total maintenance repair costs are of (i) vehicles and equipment involved in road gritting operations using rock salt as the primary de-icing material and (ii) vehicles and equipment not involved in such operations. [118095]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 10 June 2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the life expectancy and maintenance repair costs of vehicles and equipment involved in road gritting operations and those not involved in road gritting.
  The prime de-icing material used on roads in the UK is rock salt to BS 3247, or equivalent. The exception is on sensitive structures, such as the elevated sections of the Midlands Link and some bridge decks. Salt used on HA contracts has a maximum particle size of 6mm, this size being chosen as it gives a more uniform spread and readily goes into solution.
  The purpose built salt. spreading vehicles designed and owned by the Highways Agency and operated by our Agents were designed with an economic life of 20 years. They were designed from the outset to be resistant to the corrosive effect of salt with special materials and protection incorporated in their design. The HA paid a premium over the cost of a standard salt spreader of 15% for these aspects.

  739W
  The vehicles are maintained to standards laid down by the HA and average maintenance costs are in region of £6000.00 per annum per vehicle. The average age of the HA fleet is currently 10 years old and routine examinations demonstrate that they will fully meet their design life.
  Equipment owned and operated by Agents and Local Authorities is specified to varying standards, from the lower specification type, which has a design life of 7 to 8 years to the higher specification equipment operated by some of the Design, Build, Finance and Operate companies with longer running contracts and a commercial view on reliability. Maintenance costs for the lower specification equipment cart be high due to the poor design and lack of non-corroding materials used in their construction.
  The HA has no maintenance figures for vehicles not employed on other duties as these vehicles are provided by Agents.
  If you would like further information Graham Rainbow at our Birmingham office would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 0121 678 8008.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the annual cost of corrosion on the highways maintenance budgets; and what proportion of that cost can be attributed to(a) structural maintenance and (b) repair of roads and infrastructure necessitated by corrosion from salt used for safety purposes each winter. [118098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not held to estimate annual highway maintenance costs due to corrosion alone.

  There are many other causes of deterioration on structures, such as physical damage, chemical attack, water damage, weathering and general wear and tear, and sometimes they occur con currently with the corrosion mechanisms. Structures maintenance work addresses all these deterioration processes.

  Approximately 95 per cent. of the trunk road is made of bituminous materials where corrosion is not an issue.

  Highways Agency
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources were allocated to the Highways Agency in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [117731]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The resources allocated to, and consumed by, the Highways Agency in each year since 1997 are identified in Agency's published annual Business Plans for the years 1996–97 to 2003–04 and Annual Report and Accounts for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on hotel accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) others, and if he will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [117565]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  All accommodation booked by Civil Servants is in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code.
  740W
  The Government publish an annual report of ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the costs of accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation within the UK is not held centrally. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Pensioners (Free Travel)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with local authorities regarding free travel for pensioners. [117859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no recent discussions with local authorities regarding free travel for pensioners.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with pensioners groups regarding national free travel for the elderly. [117862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Minister of State for Transport (John Spellar) met representatives from the National Pensioners' Convention on 7 April 2003, when the matter was discussed.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight train miles were travelled in(a) 1997 and (b) the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [117745]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figure for freight train kilometres for 1997–98 is 34,331 thousand kilometres. The figure for 2001–02 (the last complete year for which figures are available) is 49,105 thousand kilometres.

  Rail Services (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on people with disabilities, who have the use of a motorised scooter, having access to the rail network; whether he has discussed this issue with the rail industry; what guidance he has issued to them; and if he will make a statement. [118076]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Scooters are intended to provide local outdoor mobility for disabled people. The majority of train operating companies, and indeed other transport operators, will not carry scooters. Many are physically too big to fit in a train or a bus and are not sufficiently stable to travel safely in vehicles.

  It is a matter for individual operators to decide what is safe and appropriate for their particular type of operation.

  The regulations that have been introduced under the Disability Discrimination Act to require access for disabled people to trains and buses specify the maximum wheelchair dimensions that need to be accommodated. These dimensions are based on the international wheelchair standard and are bigger than the great majority of wheelchairs in this country. They are not, however, intended to accommodate scooters. They were set after extensive consultation and with the

  741W
  agreement of our statutory advisers on disability the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).

  We have been working with the wheelchair manufacturing industry to produce guidance for disabled people on the compatibility of the full range of currently available products with public transport. That guidance will be published very shortly.

  Road Accidents
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of accidents involving(a) cyclists, (b) pedestrians and (c) motorcyclists; and if he will list his Department's advisers on accident reduction. [117729]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", published in March 2000, set out the Department's proposals for achieving casualty reductions for all road-users, including cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. The Road Safety Advisory Panel, whose membership represents road safety expertise both within and outside government, reviews progress being made and discusses a wide range of relevant issues.

  Thelwall Viaduct
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work on the Thelwall viaduct on the M6 will be completed; and who will bear the costs incurred. [115245]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Neil Turner, dated 10 June 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about on-going works to the northbound bridge of the M6 Motorway Thelwall Viaduct, in Warrington, Cheshire. As you may be aware, this matter was the subject of an Adjournment Debate in the House on 12 May, secured by Helen Southworth MP.
  The Highways Agency is responsible for the operation, management, maintenance, and improvement, of the trunk road and motorway network in England, including the Thelwall Viaduct, which typically carries some 150,000—160,000 vehicles per day. All but one lane of the viaduct carrying northbound traffic was closed in July 2002 following the discovery of a failed roller bearing. Detailed investigations were urgently earned out and these revealed other failures in the bridge roller bearings. Continuing intensive investigations found that all 136 roller bearings on the northbound viaduct should be replaced, before further traffic lanes can be opened on that structure. As you may be aware, the Minister stated during the Adjournment Debate, that it might take until March 2005 to complete all the remedial work. The Minister also acknowledged that the cost of the remedial work is likely to be substantial, but did not wish to say anything further on that aspect, given that the question of liability for the failed roller bearings is likely to be decided through litigation and the courts. Notwithstanding that, he also said that funds would be made available to the Agency to enable the remedial work to be carried out.
  The current restrictions comprise three narrow lanes in each direction on the new southbound viaduct and a single lane on the northbound viaduct, to facilitate traffic leaving the M6 at Junction 21, for Warrington. There are advance warning signs on
  742W
  all the motorway approaches to the works advising of likely delays, but there is no convenient diversion route using the motorway network. We will continue to monitor traffic patterns closely and keep under review all possible diversion routes to mitigate the effect of the restrictions.
  Laboratory testing and investigations into how the roller bearings have failed is substantially complete. These findings are being used to inform the design process for the replacement of the bearings and associated works required to bring the structure back fully into long-term service.
  The Agency is conscious of the need to re-open the northbound viaduct as soon as is practicable, and is investigating the possibility of phasing the work to secure the early release of additional traffic lanes on that structure.
  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information about this matter, you may wish to contact the Agency's Project Manager for the viaduct repairs, David Brindle, Room 406. Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, MI 4BE (Tel 0161 930 5653).

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research was undertaken on the impact of corrosion from de-icing chemicals on the bridge bearings of the Thelwall Viaduct on the M6 at the design stage: and what research has been undertaken since into alternative technologies that could reduce the levels of corrosion. [118096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The risk of corrosion from environmental pollutants including de-icing chemicals on Thelwell Viaduct was minimised by using stainless steel and provision of enclosures (skirts) around the steel roller bearings. The majority of the bearing locations do not have expansion joints at the road level, thus reducing the risk of surface water and de-icing salts reaching the surfaces of the roller bearings.

  The effectiveness of non-corrosive de-icing agents has been researched over many years in UK and other countries. There are limitations on their effectiveness at low temperatures and the use of rock salt is then necessary. Such agents are used in the UK on some major bridges where the higher cost can be justified in whole life terms.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the relative changes in the cost of travel by rail, bus and car over the last 20 years; and what estimate he has made of the future changes under the 10 year plan. [118102]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Real changes in the cost of different transport modes between 1974 and 1999 was shown in Graph 3c on page 22 of "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan" available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Department's latest forecasts for 2010 use a set of assumptions about the costs of travel in 2010, including future oil prices, fuel efficiency, and rail and bus fares. These assumptions are set out in "Modelling and Forecasting using the National Transport Model" (paragraphs 14 and 15). This document is available at www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/roadtraf/modelling/index.htm. These assumptions will be reviewed and updated as necessary as part of the review of the 10 Year Plan.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what trust ports are classified as public corporations. [118593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1034–35W.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the overall cost of uninsured driving was in Britain in the latest year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the average consequent increase upon a motorist's insurance premium. [117852]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates from the insurance industry show that, in 2002, the cost of uninsured driving was £316 million. This is a running figure, which includes cases arising from accidents that happened (and were settled) during 2002 and also accidents occurring in previous years but only settled in 2002.

  The resulting increase in each motorist's insurance premiums is estimated at between £15 and £30.

TREASURY

  Capita Contracts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis has been carried out by Government to establish, in respect of government contracts awarded to Capita, whether they have been delivered(a) on time, (b) within budget and (c) in accordance with the terms specified; and if he will make a statement. [117616]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Office of Government Commerce, with the support of Government Departments, has identified a number of key suppliers to Government and has been working over the last year to improve our knowledge and strategic management of those suppliers, including Capita. The performance of Capita in respect of individual contracts is the responsibility of Departments who have entered into those contracts. Information about those contracts is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro (Northern Ireland)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland if the UK joins the euro at the present exchange rate. [118443]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests that was published on 9 June 2003 following the Chancellor's statement to the House of Commons (Cm 5776).

  River Swimming Accidents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in each year since 1997 have died in swimming accidents in rivers. [117580]

  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 Marsden, dated 10 June 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many children in each year since 1997 have died in swimming accidents in rivers. (117580)
  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1997 to 2001 are given in the table below.

  Number of deaths by accidental drowning and submersion1, children2, England and Wales, 1997 to 20013

  Accidental drowning and submersion

  Calendar year

  All

  Swimming accidents in rivers

  1997

  34

  0

  1998

  27

  0

  1999

  43

  1

  2000

  29

  1

  2001

  21

  0

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9)

  codes for the years 1997 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. The codes used were as follows:

  All accidental drowning and submersion—ICD-9 E910, ICD-10 W65-W74;

  Swimming accidents occurring in rivers—ICD-9 E910.2-E910.3, ICD-10 W69.8 and W74.8, where 'river' and 'swimming' were mentioned on the text of the death certificate.

  2 Children were classified as deaths occurring to persons aged 10 to 15.

  3 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  Alternative Fuels
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to lower the duty rate on alternative fuels. [118425]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor considers all relevant economic, social and environmental factors when deciding taxation policy. Any changes are announced by the Chancellor in the context of his Budget statement.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117706]
  745W
  John Healey
  The Departments for which the Chancellor is responsible have set up arrangements to achieve compliance with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 through contracts with private contractors or landlords as appropriate. Separate estimates of the costs of compliance are only available in some cases. The position in the different Departments is as follows:

  Customs & Excise, Inland Revenue and the Valuation Office seek to achieve compliance with contractors or landlords through detailed contractual arrangements. These include a requirement for asbestos surveys and the maintenance of accurate records.

  The Treasury has engaged the services of an asbestos consultant to verify the absence of asbestos.

  The Government Actuary's Department assure compliance through their landlord and are about to relocate to a new building.

  The Office for National Statistics, through their contractor, is about to commence a detailed Asbestos Survey estimated to cost approximately £80,000. National Savings, through their landlord, have surveyed sites to ensure compliance with the new regulations. Remedial work has commenced and costs are estimated at less than £1 million. The Royal Mint, through consultancy, are in the process of reviewing compliance via audit at a cost of no more than £1,500.

  The Debt Management Office ensures compliance through agreement with its Managing Agents.

  The Office of Government Commerce has carried out surveys of some of its properties, and will carry out surveys of the remainder in the next three months. The cost of the surveys and inspections will be approximately £28,000. The cost of remedial work commissioned to date is £213,000.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that individuals who are entitled to receive working families tax credit, child tax credit and minimum income guarantee or pensioners tax credit apply for these benefits. [116288]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, 1 refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 604W. Since that date further publicity has included television, press, radio and online advertising as well as direct mail to existing recipients.

  In respect of the minimum income guarantee I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that his Department have continued to build on the success of the national MIG take up campaign by introducing a shortened claim form, a new information leaflet and identifying potential entitlement following key life events such as reaching certain age points and new awards of other benefits.
  746W
  For Pension Credit I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 24 March 2003, Official Report, column 108W. Since that date The Pension Service have completed writing to around 1.8 million pensioners who currently receive the minimum income guarantee to advise them that they need to do nothing and that they will be automatically transferred to Pension Credit.

  Child/Working Tax Credit
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in Scotland are(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of the child tax credit, broken down by (i) local authority and (ii) parliamentary constituency; [117094]

  (2) how many people in Scotland are (a) eligible and (b) in receipt of the working tax credit, broken down by (i) local authority and (ii) parliamentary constituency. [118253]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that 430,000 families in Scotland are expected to receive the child tax credit and 90,000 families are expected to receive the working tax credit (including some who are also expected to receive the child tax credit). Estimates are not available for each local authority or parliamentary constituency.

  Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published in August.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answers of 27 March 2003,Official Report, columns 335–36W, on council tax, if he will update his answers using the effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02. [118271]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 10 June 2003:
  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for an update for 2001–02 of the figures for council tax given in the previous answer of 27 March 2003 for 2000–01. (118271)
  Estimates for council taxes and income are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on 11 April 2003 and in Economic Trends in the May 2003 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons Library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey.
  The following table shows the estimated gross and net council tax for all households in Great Britain and (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales, for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts. The table also shows the equivalised disposable income quintile point boundaries, which have been calculated separately for Great Britain and each country. For example, the first quintile point for each country is the income below which one fifth of households in that country are estimated to lie.
  747W

  Council tax as a percentage of gross income, 2001–02

  Great Britain

  Percentages

  Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Bottom

  Second

  Third

  Fourth

  Top

  All households

  Quintile points (equivalised disposable income, £ per year)

  Great Britain

  10,448

  14,822

  20,138

  28,746

  England

  10,578

  15,006

  20,548

  29,269

  Scotland

  9,846

  13,574

  18,404

  26,409

  Wales

  9,934

  14,174

  18,259

  25,245

  Gross council tax

  Great Britain

  7.1

  4.4

  3.1

  2.3

  1.4

  2.5

  England

  7.1

  4.3

  3.0

  2.2

  1.3

  2.5

  Scotland

  8.4

  5.3

  3.8

  3.0

  2.1

  3.4

  Wales

  6.2

  3.4

  2.6

  2.1

  1.4

  2.3

  Net council tax1

  Great Britain

  4.7

  3.3

  2.8

  2.2

  1.4

  2.2

  England

  4.6

  3.3

  2.8

  2.2

  1.3

  2.1

  Scotland

  5.0

  4.0

  3.3

  2.9

  2.1

  2.9

  Wales

  4.2

  2.5

  2.4

  2.0

  1.3

  2.0

  1 Net council taxes after deducting benefits and discounts.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income' published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No. 594 May 2003

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on hotel accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (Al Ministers, (B) staff and (C) others; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [1175591]

  Travel and subsistence spend for Treasury and agencies' civil servants

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Core Treasury

  1,069

  1,455

  1,619

  11,718

  1,611

  2,019

  DMO

  9

  26

  9

  17

  25

  OGC

  1,518

  2,020

  2,124

  Note:

  The Debt Management Office did not exist as a separate body prior to 1998–99. The Office of Government Commerce did not exist as a separate body prior to 2000–01. OGC figures include OGCbuying.solutions

  The Government publish an annual report of ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the costs of accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation within the UK is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Equal Pay
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if he will publish the results of such an audit. [117428]

  John Healey
  The Treasury has completed the Equal Pay Review, this was undertaken jointly with the Unions. The final report has been agreed by both parties and was submitted to the Cabinet Office by end of April 2003. In due course the report will be made available to all staff and lodged in the Library of the House.
  748W
  John Healey
  Figures for amounts spent on hotel accommodation for staff could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for total travel and subsistence for Treasury civil servants, which include hotel accommodation, are given in the tables. All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Although the audit does not specifically cover ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, the Treasury will be undertaking a review of these areas by the end of December 2003.

  EU Savings Tax Directive
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the ruling of the President of the Court of the First Instance of the European Communities that the imposition of the EU Savings Tax Directive on Britain's Overseas Territories is not a legal requirement that flows from the Directive itself. [115317]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EU Taxation of Savings Directive is directly applicable to the member states of the European Union. It is not directly applicable to the dependent and associated territories named in the Feira agreement. However, the Directive will not come into effect until arrangements are in place with such territories to apply the same measures as in the Directive.

  Investment Services Directive
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) the Financial Services Authority and (b) the London Stock Exchange with regard to the proposed Investment Services Directive. [117464]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Investment Services Directive is one of the topics discussed when Treasury Ministers meet members of the Financial Services Authority and those involved in the financial services industry.

  At official level, the Treasury and FSA (together with the Bank of England and the UK's Permanent Representation to the European Community) have a joint project team working on the proposed Directive. The project team has frequent contact with representatives of the London Stock Exchange, as well as representatives of many other financial services businesses, trade associations and consumer groups.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed investment services directive being considered by the European Parliament; [117465]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect the proposed investment services directive will have on the level of competition in the share dealing market in the UK. [117680]

  Mr. Boateng
  The European Commission adopted a proposal for a revised investment services directive on 19 November 2002. Discussions on the proposal started in Council working groups in January and are on-going. The European Parliament is due to begin its first reading of the proposed directive in July.

  The Government believe that the proposed directive should be assessed against the following objectives:
  (a) to reduce the cost of capital in the EU by removing barriers to the supply of investment and market infrastructure services and addressing informational asymmetries in the retail market: and
  (b) to maintain the integrity of the financial system.

  Accordingly, the Government welcome in broad terms many of the Commission's proposals—and the progress made in Council working group discussions to improve these proposals. However, the Government remain concerned about several important issues, which need to be addressed before agreement can be reached.

  In particular, the Government believe that the proposal for introducing a mandatory quote disclosure rule for investment firms would undermine competition between trading venues and discourage liquidity provision, leading to less efficient markets and worse outcomes for retail investors.

  The Government also believe that investors should continue to be allowed to make use of low cost, efficient, execution-only services. As such, investment firms should have to assess the suitability of particular products for their clients only when providing them with advice.

  The Government believe that there are ways in which the proposed directive should be amended in order to remove measures that could unnecessarily inhibit competition in the share dealing market—and thereby
  750W
  increase the potential benefits for consumers, including retail investors. Efforts are currently being made to secure these beneficial amendments to the draft directive.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he and the agencies for which he is responsible have commissioned into the cost of the proposed investment services directive for stockbrokers; and if he will publish the results. [117681]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury has had extensive discussions with representatives of financial services businesses and trade associations to ascertain the impact of the proposed investment services directive on the financial markets. These contacts have included a consideration of the potential costs —and benefits—of the proposed directive for stockbrokers.

  Online Share Dealing
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effect the proposed Investment Services Directive will have on the lever of online share dealing. [117463]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have considered the effect of the proposed Investment Services Directive on the level of online share trading.

  The Government believe that the proposed requirement for firms to carry out a suitability test before executing client orders would add significant costs to online share dealing services. These additional costs are likely to deter both firms from offering such services and customers from demanding them. Other things being equal, the proposed Directive would therefore be expected to reduce the level of online share trading.

  The Government believe it is important to ensure that execution-only business, such as online share dealing, is not compromised by over-burdensome and unnecessary regulation. We see such business as a helpful market development that facilitates freedom of choice and provides low cost access to a wider range of investors, thus allowing greater participation in securities markets.

  The Government are making every effort to ensure that the draft Directive is amended in such a way that will allow execution-only business—including online share dealing—to continue.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of online share dealing was in each financial year since 1997. [117682]

  Mr. Boateng
  Below are figures for the value of online share dealing for the financial years since 1999 (the first full financial year in which data were collected). These figures are taken from a survey conducted for the Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers by ComPeer.

  1999—£5.5 billion

  2000—£9.6 billion

  2001—£8.8 billion

  2002—£8.3 billion.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are any plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117447]

  John Healey
  The Treasury has a long established tradition of having a good working relationship with the trade union side. The trade unions make an important contribution to work in relation to diversity, disability and health and safety. In addition to annual pay negotiations, regular meetings are held and a wide range of topics are discussed.

  Prostate Cancer
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in each of the last 10 years. [117899]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Vernon Coaker, dated 10 June 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in each of the last 10 years. (117899)
  The latest available figures for newly diagnosed cases of cancer are for 1999. The number of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer in England for the ten year period 1990–99 are given in the table below.

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases for prostate cancer in England, 1990–99

  Malignant neoplasm of prostate1

  1990

  12,810

  1991

  13,328

  1992

  14,885

  1993

  16,263

  1994

  18,416

  1995

  19,041

  1996

  19,201

  1997

  18,961

  1998

  19,590

  1999

  20,850

  1For the year 1991 to 1994. International Classification of Diseases. Ninth Revision Code (ICD-9). Code 185.

  Note:

  For the years 1995 to 1999. International Classification of Diseases. Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Code c61.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by, and what the budget is of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117788]

  John Healey
  HM Treasury is the Department with lead responsibility for overseeing the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA is a private company which operates independently from the Government. It sets its own budget, funded by a levy on the firms it regulates, and determines its own staffing levels. Details are available in the FSA's Annual Report, which is presented to Parliament.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by the Royal Mint in response to the verdict of an inquest jury on 2 May 2003, that one of its employees was the victim of unlawful killing; and if he will make a statement. [118597]

  John Healey
  The Royal Mint has always taken its responsibilities towards safety seriously and deeply regrets the death of one of its employees in an accident at the Mint in June 2001. The Mint worked closely and constructively with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) throughout its investigation into the accident, and has incorporated significant improvements into its overall safety procedures. No further action was required of the Mint in response to the verdict of the inquest jury.

  Tax Credit Helpline
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 384W, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, and of 8 May 2003, Official Report, column 719W, to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), on the Tax Credit helpline, what additional resources were allocated to the handling of callers to the helpline; and what assessment he has made of the impact which the additional resources have had on the helpline service. [115703]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made to the House on 28 April when I explained that the Inland Revenue had moved an additional 700 staff on to handling callers to the Tax Credit helpline. The helpline continues to be very busy, although as I said on 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 121WH, the number of calls to the helpline has fallen and the pressure is easing as the numbers of awards and payments rise.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many emergency interim payments have been issued in respect of tax credit assessment errors in each week since 6 April. [115807]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available. An interim payment of tax credits may be made where we believe a family is due to tax credits but has not yet received payment, if the family would otherwise experience hardship.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the impact on other Inland Revenue functions of the transfer of local Inland Revenue staff to assist with problems associated with the implementation of the new tax credits system; and if he will make a statement. [117734]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 201W.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reception to and uptake of the new research and development tax credit amongst the business community. [118166]
  753W
  John Healey
  Rand D tax credits for companies that are small or medium enterprises (SMEs) were introduced in Budget 2000 and extended to larger companies in Budget 2002 to promote commercial R and D in the UK. The credits have been welcomed by business, and take up continues to increase, with 3,000 claims anticipated by SMEs in 2001–02, the latest year for which we have data.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cautions and prosecutions have been proceeded with for tax evasion in each year since 2000; how much money was involved; what the total was of the penalties; and if he will make a statement. [118110]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of prosecutions by the Revenue are published in their Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the House Library. The total amount of tax that was the subject of criminal offences successfully prosecuted by the Inland Revenue in 2000–01 and 2001–02 was:

  £

  2001–02

  6,201,945

  2000–01

  6,599,539

  Penalties are not relevant in criminal cases sentencing is a matter for the Courts: however IR pursue criminal confiscation where appropriate and in 2001–02 obtained 15 orders worth a total of £3.77 million.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the external research used in 'Tackling Tobacco Smuggling.' [118010]

  John Healey
  Relevant extracts from some routinely collected external data were used in the production of certain figures for 'Tackling Tobacco Smuggling', and the same data for subsequent years has been used in the documents 'Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud' and `Protecting Indirect Tax Revenue', all of which are published.

  Other external research to inform Tackling Tobacco Strategy was undertaken by Martin Taylor and in respect of that I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat Amory), on 5 April 2000, Official Report, column 491W. Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies to the disclosure of Mr. Taylor's advice.

  Welsh Language Helpline
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information has been provided to the public since last autumn through the Inland Revenue's Welsh language helpline; what the cost was; what information has been provided through the helpline specifically on working tax and child tax credit; and what proportion of expenditure this represented. [116827]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Welsh Language Contact Centre opened in November 2002. It handles calls from customers who would like to conduct 754W
  business through the medium of Welsh across the full range of the Inland Revenue's activities, including tax, national insurance and Tax Credits.

  In a full year the cost of running the unit is estimated to be £300,000. The Contact Centre aims to provide the same level of information, guidance and support on working tax and child tax credit as the English language counterparts.

  The cost of providing information and support about working tax and child tax credit in Welsh has not been recorded separately from the overall cost of operating the centre.

  World Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the UK is making to ensure that the 2015 targets for reducing world poverty are met. [117971]

  John Healey
  Making progress on the 2015 Millennium Development Goals is a joint HM Treasury Public Service Agreement with the Department for International Development.

  The Government has made substantial increases to the aid budget. The UK's level of ODA will increase by £1.5 billion to reach 0.40 per cent. of GNI in 2005–06. This is the largest ever increase in UK aid, making a 93 per cent. real terms increase since 1997.

  By 2005–06, DflD's budget will grow to nearly £4.6 billion a year by 2005–06, including a £1 billion bilateral programme for Africa.

  However, to meet these goals. a UN panel and the world bank have estimated that the current level of aid will have to double. The UK Government continues to press the urgent case for an International Finance Facility to raise the additional finance needed.

  Agreement was made in the Communiques of recent G7 and G8 meetings to continue to focus on the Millennium Development Goals, and their financing, including the International Finance Facility. Finance Ministers' will report back to Heads of State on the IFF in advance of the Annual Meeting of the world bank and International Monetary Fund in September 2003.

WALES

  English Patients
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients who are English residents have been treated in Welsh hospitals for each of the last five years for which records are available; and if he will list(a) the top 10 procedures carried out on such patients and (b) the numbers of each procedure carried out. [117281]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the following tables:

  Table 1 shows the number of patients who are English residents who have been treated in Welsh hospitals for each year from 1998 to 2002.
  755W
  Table 2 shows the top 10 procedures carried out on such patients and the numbers of procedures carried out over the last five years.

  Number of English residents treated in Wales from 1998 to date

  Admission year

  English patients

  1998

  11,251

  1999

  10,942

  2000

  10,970

  2001

  111,319

  2002

  112,476

  1 Data for 2001 and 2002 is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Top 10 procedures carried out on English residents treated in Wales 1998–2002

  Procedure name

  English patients

  1. Other closed reduction of fracture of bone

  1,019

  2. Normal delivery

  971

  3. Continuous infusion of therapeutic substance

  877

  4. Prosthesis of lens

  863

  5. Diagnostic endoscopic examination of bladder

  752

  6. Other intravenous injection

  676

  7. Primary open reduction of fracture of bone and intramed

  658

  8. Primary open reduction of fracture of bone and extramed

  541

  9. Other operations on penis

  450

  10. Diagnostic fibreoptic endoscopic exam/upper gastrointe

  424

  Source:

  Health Solutions Wales. Information provided to the third character rubric.

  Future of Europe Convention
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days in the last three months he has spent attending the Convention on the Future of Europe. [117526]

  Peter Hain
  Nine.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has held with(a) Education Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales, (b) the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and (c) the Secretary of State for Education to discuss the subject of higher education funding in Wales since the publication of the Government's White Paper. [115058]

  Peter Hain
  There have a number of meetings of Ministers and officials between the National Assembly for Wales, the Department for Education and Skills and the Wales Office to discuss funding of support for students in higher education in Wales since the publication of the Government's White Paper on the future of higher education.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each official visit in Wales he and his predecessors made since 1997, broken down by(a) constituency and (b) purpose of visit. [116630]

  Peter Hain
  The information requested is not held on that basis. However, since the creation of the Wales Office in 1999, my predecessor and I have undertaken a wide range of visits and official engagements in Wales. These have included visits to local employers, police 756W
  authorities, universities and voluntary organisations, farms and tourism outlets and local authorities. I have also addressed a number of major conferences and given keynote speeches to a variety of organisations in Wales.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  European Television Programming
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who is responsible for enforcing the quota for original European television programming specified in Television Without Frontiers; what steps have been taken so far; who will be responsible after the enactment of the Communications Bill; and if she will make a statement. [117656]

  Dr. Howells
  To date, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been responsible for reporting to the European Commission, biennially, in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Television Without Frontiers Directive. Performance by UK licensed broadcasters has been considered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 4 and 5, and therefore, no enforcement action has been required.

  Future responsibility for quota provisions will be a matter for discussion between this Department and Ofcom.

  National Lottery
  Tom Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will ensure that the proportion of Lottery money currently provided to the voluntary and community sector will be protected and ring-fenced if a new lottery game is established following a successful London bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. [117601]

  Mr. Caborn
  Current estimates suggest that hypothecated Olympic Lottery games would have only a modest impact on the flow of income to the established good causes. The arts, sport, heritage and charities will continue to receive at least their current percentage shares of all other Lottery income until the end of the current licence period in 2009.

  The shares passing to the existing good causes will be subject to review at this time, as would have been the case had a decision been taken not to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117461]

  Dr. Howells
  The partnership agreement between the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the DCMS Trade Unions (comprising members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, First Division Association and Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists) was agreed in March 2001.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on
  757W
  completing a pay audit in her Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for (a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if she will publish the results of such an audit. [117442]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS completed its pay audit in July 2002. This found that there was currently no significant difference between average salaries of males and females. But the review recommended action to shorten paybands and conduct a further study of data by ethnicity, disability and working pattern.

  The Royal Parks Agency has completed an initial review, and plans to discuss the outcome with its Trade Union Side, in meetings on pay in the near future. No particular pay issues have been identified for the groups mentioned.

  £000

  Year

  11998–99

  11999–2000

  12000–01

  12001–02

  22002–03

  Sport

  49,360

  51,593

  52,571

  63,898

  112,100

  Space for Sports and Arts

  13

  579

  50,460

  1 Outturn

  1 Plans

  In addition to this the Department for Education and Skills has been investing the following resources into specialist sports colleges:

  £000

  Year

  11998–99

  11999–2000

  12000–01

  12001–02

  22002–03

  Specialist Sports Colleges

  3,684

  4,822

  9,527

  14,641

  23,500

  1 Outturn

  2 Plans

  Sport also receives significant funding from Central Government mainly through local government block grant, as noted in 'Game Plan: a strategy for delivering the Government's sport and physical activity objectives', a joint Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Strategy Unit Report published in December 2002, page 33. This spending is not centrally recorded on a consistent basis, but 'Game Plan' suggested that in 1999–2000 £1,015 million was spent on sport and physical activity by local government as part of their block grant.

  Subtitling
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evaluation she has made of the practicability of establishing a regulatory regime and targets for closed caption television subtitling; and if she will make a statement. [117348]

  Dr. Howells
  A regulatory regime and targets for subtitling on analogue television were established in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Further requirements were introduced in the 1996 Broadcasting Act, including subtitling on digital terrestrial television (DTT) services. The Communications Bill, which is currently
  758W
  Although NDPBs were not formally covered by the Government's commitment to carry out equal pay reviews, the Departments NDPBs have either completed their own reviews or are in the process of finalising them and drawing up action plans. Information on these reviews is not held centrally.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding the Government has given to sport in each of the last five years, excluding lottery money. [116999]

  Mr. Caborn
  The funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport directly to sport and the Capital Modernisation Funding on Space for Sports and Arts is shown in the following table.

  progressing through Parliament, will extend the requirements for DTT services to digital cable and digital satellite services for the first time.

  Television Licences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many times, and at what frequency, it is the policy of TV Licensing to send letters to a property for which no TV licence is recorded where such letters go unanswered; [117378]

  (2) what the average time is that elapses between the identification by TV Licensing of a property for which no TV licence is recorded and a visit to that property by TV Licensing. [117379]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing carries out the administration of the television licensing system as agent for the BBC, which has statutory responsibility for administering the licensing requirements. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not involved in policy decisions relating to the day-to-day management of the system, nor does it hold information of the kind requested. I have therefore asked the BBC's Head of Revenue Management to consider the questions raised by the hon. Member and to write to him direct, placing a copy of their letter in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mine Water Discharges
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken since May 2001 to prevent the discharges of mine water from abandoned mines. [117484]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following its establishment in 1994, the Coal Authority, enabled by grant in-aid funding from DTI, has pursued a programme to treat and prevent water discharges from abandoned coal mines. 20 schemes are now in operation, of which four are preventive schemes.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received concerning the prevention of discharges of mine water from abandoned mines in England and Wales. [117485]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received no recent representations on this subject.

  English Garages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural filling stations and garages there were in England in 1992; how many there are now; and if she will make a statement. [117519]

  Mr. Wilson
  Historical and current data on rural filling stations numbers is not collected.

  However, as part of my Downstream Oil Industry Forum initiative I have set up a rural task force, which is currently developing a working definition of a rural filling station in order that numbers can be determined, and appropriate measures agreed.

  Fossil Fuels
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Government have made of the global economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels. [117830]

  Mr. Wilson
  Estimates of economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are inevitably uncertain since they depend on energy prices, technical and economic progress and the extent of yet-to-find reserves. With that caveat, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published reserves estimates in their World Energy Outlook 2002 publication. The IEA estimated that proven global reserves (discovered and expected to economically producible) of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids are 959 billion barrels. In addition, the IEA estimated undiscovered resources (thought to exist and expected to become economically recoverable) of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids to be 939 billion barrels and recoverable non-conventional reserves, such as oil shales, to be 580 billion barrels. Based on US Geological Survey data, the World Energy Outlook notes that remaining gas resources, including proven reserves, reserve growth (defined as the increase in known volumes that commonly occur as gas fields are developed and produced) and undiscovered resources,760W
  were estimated to be 386 trillion cubic metres. The LEA also estimate economically recoverable coal reserves to be close to one trillion tonnes.

  Gas Order
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the letter of 1 April 1999 between Ofgem and Transco concerning the Gas Order. [116994]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am advised by Ofgem that the letter in question is already available to view on Ofgem's public register.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Ofgem employees are authorised to sign documents altering the terms of the Gas Order. [116996]

  Mr. Wilson
  The authority may delegate authority to any Ofgem employee to sign documents.

  Miners' Pension Funds
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the trustees of the miners' pension funds. [118026]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have had no recent discussions with the trustees of the miners pension funds.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what remit relating to sustainable development is required by her Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116671]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate and the targets and reporting requirements it contains applies to DTI's Executive Agencies; Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other associate bodies are outside its scope.

  The Cabinet Office guide, "NDPBs: A Guide for Departments", makes clear that associate bodies should consider their role in helping the UK move towards sustainable development. The Government are committed to keeping under review progress in adding sustainable development as an objective for existing associate bodies and to assess whether sustainable development should be included in the remit of all new public bodies.

  Accreditation Service
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the complaint by the Chinese authorities in 2002 about the conduct of UK Accreditation Service accredited certification bodies operating in that country; and what steps UKAS took to allay those concerns. [116754]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since no formal complaint has been received by the Government this is a matter for UKAS. However, I understand that in April 2002, the Chinese
  761W
  authorities expressed their concerns through the International Accreditation Forum about the activities of a number of overseas certification bodies operating in China. Five of the 11 bodies investigated by the Chinese authorities were accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). UKAS took immediate and robust action by imposing a moratorium on new accreditations for certification carried out outside of the United Kingdom whilst it carried out its own investigation into the activities of the named UKAS-accredited certification bodies. The Government support this approach.

  The moratorium was subsequently lifted on 31 July 2002. UKAS found that those UKAS-accredited bodies that were the subject of the Chinese concerns had been operating through agents and that there were some weaknesses, at the UK headquarter offices, in the control of these agents which needed to be addressed. There were though no indications that such deficiencies in procedures applied in the case of other accredited certification bodies. However, in recognition that the certification sector had become more international in nature, UKAS implemented further changes in the way that it assesses certification bodies. These changes require certification bodies to: submit full details of all agency/sub-contracting, etc. arrangements that they have in place; declare all the locations where critical activities are carried out; and list all the countries where UKAS-accredited certificates have been issued. UKAS itself has also made some changes to its internal procedures as a result of its investigation into the Chinese concerns.

  We consider that UKAS acted positively and expeditiously in this case and that the changes implemented by UKAS were necessary and sufficient to safeguard the credibility of the accreditation process.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the results of the Accreditation Awareness Campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service from November 2000 to December 2002. [116755]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service's (UKAS) Accreditation Awareness Campaign was launched by my noble friend, Lord Sainsbury, on 27 November 2000. Initially expected to last for 18 months, the campaign continues because of the recognition that awareness in this area can only be achieved via the regular flow of information to the market. The Government fully support the campaign and contribute towards some of its costs.

  The campaign is in two parts, one aimed at raising awareness within government and the other aimed at business (particularly small businesses) so that, within government, potential customers (scheme/standard developers, etc.) of UKAS can make informed choices about their accreditation needs, and businesses can recognise the value of accreditation to the competitiveness of their companies and to risk management.

  The campaign has been largely successful to date although UKAS has had more success delivering its message to various parts of government than it has to business. Nevertheless, UKAS is determined to make further progress raising the awareness of their services
  762W
  with business and is developing its current strategy to make the business element of the campaign more successful.

  Utilities
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) gas companies, (b) electricity companies and (c) water companies regarding their expansion in the south-east. [116220]

  Mr. Wilson
  None recently. However, the main responsibility for these issues is with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the appropriate local authorities. Interested companies would meet with Ministers and officials as necessary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may become involved in the issues for which she has regulatory responsibility.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on whether printer ink and toner cartridges should be classed as consumables for the purposes of the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [118041]

  Mr. Wilson
  The European Commission has already made clear that these goods are considered consumables for the purposes of this Directive.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received in respect of the implementation of the European Union waste electrical and electronic equipment directive in respect of the re-use of printer ink and toner cartridges; and if she will make a statement; [118079]

  (2) how many people she estimates are employed by companies engaged in the re-use of printer ink and toner cartridges; [118080]

  (3) what the estimated annual turnover is for companies engaged in the re-use of printer ink and toner cartridges; [118081]

  (4) what action she has taken to encourage the manufacture of re-usable printer ink and toner cartridges; and if she will make a statement; [118084]

  (5) what estimate she has made of the amount of waste going to landfill sites each year as a result of the implementation of the European Union Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive preventing the reuse of printer ink and toner cartridges; and if she will make a statement. [118078]

  Mr. Wilson
  Several inkjet cartridge refill businesses have written to ex press their concern that their operations may be put at risk if the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive scope does not include these goods. I am making clear in my replies that we take these concerns seriously and that I am keen for this sector to continue to flourish. Industry estimates suggest there are over 100 companies that remanufacture ink and toner cartridges for reuse, employing over 2,000 people with another 20 plus
  763W
  companies involved in the supply chain. Their combined turnover is said to be in the order of £150 million per annum.

  The WEEE Directive does not prevent the reuse or refilling of printer cartridges. The concerns raised by the refill sector relate to existing technology, presently applied to a very small proportion of goods sold. Business estimates that 30 to 40 per cent. of toner and inkjet cartridges are presently reused or recycled equating to 6 to 8,000 tonnes per annum. The WEEE Directive will not affect this.

  The European Commission has made clear that printer cartridges do not fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive, but that forthcoming eco-design based EU legislation may pick this issue up. The UK agrees with this assessment. In the mean time, if the spread of new technology preventing reuse starts to significantly impinge on the independent refill market, I will wish to consider what additional action might be necessary.

  Welsh Garages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural filling stations and garages there were in Wales in 1991; how many there are now; and if she will make a statement. [117518]

  Mr. Wilson
  Historical and current data on rural filing stations numbers is not collected.

  However, as part of my Downstream Oil Industry Forum initiative I have set up a Rural Task Force, which is currently developing a working definition of a rural filing station in order that numbers can be determined, and appropriate measures agreed.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the status of the Ministry of Defence's Depleted Uranium Oversight Board; what its membership is; who they are representing; and if he will place in the Library recent deliberations and statements made by the Board. [117596]

  Immunisation

  Position during operation GRANBY

  Current Position

  Poliomyelitis

  Offered to all non-immune personnel. Administered by mouth

  Offered to all non-immune personnel. Administered by mought

  Tuberculosis

  Recruits without a BCG immunisation scar and who were not shown to be immune were offered BCG immunization.

  Recruits without a BCG immunisation scare and who are not shown to be immune were offered BCG immunization.

  Meningococal meningitis

  In August 1990, immunisation against meningococcal meningitis strains A and C was recommended for all personnel serving in the Gulf. By 15 September 1990, the immunization was no longer recommended except for medical personnel and personnel who may be at risk by way of frequent contact with host nation personnel. Immunisation against meningococcal meningitis strains A and C involved one vaccination which was effective against both strains.

  Immunisation against meningogoccal meningitis offered to those deploying to a high risk area, where the length of the deployment, or the activities to be undertaken place them at risk.

  Typhoid

  Offered to all personnel. Administered with tetanus vaccine as one combined immunization.

  Typhoid vaccine offered to all personnel. May be combined with Hepatitis A as a single combined vaccine if both required. No combined typhoid and tetanus preparation now available.

  764W
  We have a duty to provide our troops with the best available equipment with which to protect themselves and succeed in conflict. Depleted Uranium munitions provide a unique anti-armour capability. Therefore, British Forces deployed to the Gulf have DU munitions available as part of their armoury, and

  Dr. Moonie
  I am placing a copy of the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB) Terms of Reference and the current membership list in the Library of the House. Additionally, all deliberations and decisions made by the board are contained in the minutes of DUOB meetings which are publicly available on the internet at www.duob.org.uk.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the appointment of Dr. Chris Bushy to the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, and explain the representative purpose of this appointment. [117597]

  Dr. Moonie
  Dr. Chris Busby was nominated for membership of the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB) by a veterans' organisation during the open consultation held by the Ministry of Defence on the introduction of a voluntary screening programme for depleted uranium. MOD subsequently invited Dr. Busby to become a member of the DUOB in September 2001.

  Gulf War (Vaccines)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the armed forces serving in the Gulf will be given similarly-based vaccines to those used in the first Gulf War; and if he will cease the use of depleted uranium shells. [108977]

  Dr. Moonie [holding answer 14 April 2003]
  United Kingdom Service personnel are offered a range of immunisations to protect against disease. These include standard Service immunisations, immunisations for deployment to areas with specific health hazards, immunisations to help protect personnel against the effects of biological weapons, and immunisations for personnel in specific occupational or 'at risk' groups. The table shows the complete list of vaccines offered for Operation GRANBY (the 1990–1991 Gulf Conflict) and today. Other immunisations may have been and continue to be offered on the basis of clinical need. we have no plans to cease their use.
  765W

  Immunisation

  Position during operation GRANBY

  Current Position

  Tetanus

  Offered to all personnel, administered with typhoid vaccine as one combined immunization

  Offered to all personnel. May be administered with diphtheria vaccine as one combined immunization if both are required.

  Diphtheria

  Offered to all non-immune personnel

  Offered to all non-immune personnel. May be administered with tetanus vaccine as one combined immunisation if both required.

  Hepatitis A

  Unavailable. Certain occupational groups, such as those handling food and water supplies, may have been offered a Gamma Globulin immunization. MOD is aware of one individual who was part of a medical unit that served in Operation GRANBY who is recorded as having received Gamma Globulin

  Hepatitis A vaccine now available and is offered to all regular personnel and mobilized reservists. It may be given with typhoid as a single combined vaccine if both required.

  Yellow Fever

  Offered routinely to Servicemen Servicewomen were only to be immunized if they were traveling to a region where yellow fever was endemic. However, MOD is aware of records for Servicewomen who served with a unit that deployed to the Gulf as routinely receiving yellow fever immunisation.

  All regular personnel immunised on joining the Armed Forces with re-immunised on joining the Armed Forces with re-immunisations every 10 years. Reserve personnel are offered immunisation if mobilised.

  Cholera

  Offered to all personnel deploying

  Not offered—no longer recommended by World Health Organisation.

  Plague

  Offered to all personnel deploying

  Not offered.

  Anthrax

  Offered to all personnel deploying

  Being rolled out as a routine immunisation for all UK personnel.

  Pertussis

  Offered as adjuvant for anthrax vaccine to all personnel deploying

  Not offered

  Rabies

  Not specifically offered to personnel deploying on Op GRANBY

  Offered to personnel who work with animals, including dog handlers and veterinarians

  Hepatitis B

  Offered to medical personnel

  Offered to medical personnel and those at occupational risk of exposure to blood borne viruses.

  Rubella

  Not specifically offered to personnel deploying Op GRANBY

  Offered to non-immune females to enhance protection and to non-immune health care workers to prevent transmission to patients.

  Smallpox

  Routine vaccination of UK Service personnel against smallpox ceased in the early 1980s. There some Service personnel who participated in Operation GRANBY could have been vaccinated against smallpox earlier in their careers. MOD is aware of one member of the Armed Forces who served in the 1990-1991 Gulf Conflict who was vaccinated against smallpox in January 1991 by private arrangement.

  Being rolled out to a cohort including Nuclear, Chemical and Biological specialists and certain medical personnel, including some who have deployed to the Gulf region.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent military operations conducted in Iraq have accelerated the attrition of equipment used for this purpose; and whether the cost of such accelerated attrition is being taken fully into account in calculating and recovering the additional costs of the operations. [112089]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is gathering evidence and assessing the extent to which operations in Iraq have accelerated the attrition of equipment used during the campaign. The need to repair or replace such equipment will be considered on a case by case basis. Where net additional costs are incurred, these would generally be attributable to the costs of operations in Iraq and would be recoverable via the normal procedures.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the budget is for expenditure to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan; and what the corresponding figure was in 2002. [117509]
  766W
  Hilary Benn
  The Afghan Transitional Authority has produced a National Development Budget providing a comprehensive plan for reconstruction across the country. The Physical Infrastructure budget for 2003 (Afghan year 1382) is US$622.9 million.

  This is the first year that a comprehensive central budget has been produced, making a comparison with 2002 difficult. However a figure of US$128 million for 2002 has been calculated as an estimate.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what his Department's total budget for Afghanistan has been in each of the last three financial years; what the projected budget is for the year ahead; and how funds have been allocated. [118587]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's bilateral support to Afghanistan for refugees, humanitarian and reconstruction support over the last three financial years has been as follows:

  Financial Year

  £ million

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  46

  2002–03

  75

  At the Ministerial Conference in Tokyo (January 2002) DFID pledged £200 million over five years for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in

  767W
  Afghanistan. For this financial year (2003–04) DFID has a projected programme of £40 million; this may rise to £50 million depending on the success of the Afghan Government's reform of the Public Administration. DFID's priority areas for support include livelihoods and reform of public administration, the economy and the security sector. These sectors have been identified through liaison with the Afghan Government to avoid overlap with other donors and ensure that DFID works in the areas we feel we can provide added value.

  In addition to bilateral contributions DFID provides an estimated £40 million a year to Afghanistan through our multilateral contributions.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what role his Department is playing in the reduction of opium poppy output in Afghanistan. [118590]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is working with other Whitehall Departments, the Afghan Transitional Authority and the international community to develop and implement a strategy for the sustainable elimination of opium production in Afghanistan.

  DFID's main contribution is in supporting alternative livelihoods. The objective is to create opportunities for those currently involved in poppy cultivation to obtain sustainable livelihoods, based on legal activities either in agriculture, small business or employment. DFID's contribution includes £1 million over 2 years to the Aga Khan Foundation in Badahkshan, where they are working to help farmers identify on-farm alternatives to opium before they become drawn in to poppy cultivation. We will also be providing £3.75 million over 4 years to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation for the development of sustainable agricultural livelihoods in eastern Hazarajat.

  We are also providing £2.2 million in technical assistance and training to the Ministry of Rural Reconstruction and Development and other Ministries involved in rural livelihoods to strengthen their capacity to plan, co-ordinate and supervise the development of sustainable livelihoods for all Afghans, including those involved in poppy cultivation.

  AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what part the UK is playing in tackling the AIDS epidemic in Africa. [117947]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is playing a significant part in tackling the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and—according to UNAIDS—is currently the second largest bilateral donor for HIV/AIDS in the world. We are supporting countries in strengthening their responses to HIV/AIDS, making sure that HIV/AIDS is not treated as just a health issue, but is addressed by all sectors within Government, such as education, transport, and agriculture, and includes partnerships with the private sector and non-governmental organisations. DFID recognises HIV/AIDS to be one of the most important development challenges facing Africa. As our overall 768W
  programme in the region increases from £640 million to £1 billion by 2006, HIV/AIDS will remain one of our highest priorities.

  In recognition of the significance of HIV/AIDS and the priority given to combating the disease, DFID announced on 30 May its decision to increase its contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria with an additional US$ 40 million per year for 2006–2008, bringing DFID's total commitment to the Fund to US$ 280 million.

  DFID is also working to increase access to medicines, including anti-retrovirals, and to strengthen health systems necessary to deliver vital drugs and health care for those living with HIV/AIDS. We also support research into the development of AIDS vaccines, and microbicides for HIV prevention.

  Arms Export Controls
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when the Secretary of State for International Development intends to publish the report on the conference on strengthening export controls on small arms and light weapons held at Lancaster House on 14 to 15 January 2003. [117752]

  Hilary Benn
  The report on the conference on strengthening export controls on small arms and light weapons, held at Lancaster House on 14 to 15 January 2003, will be published by 30 June 2003. The report is a joint publication by the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. The main element of the report is the Chairman's Summary, which outlines the areas of consensus established at the conference, and areas that require further work. The UK Government will circulate copies of the report to those who attended the Conference, and will make copies available at the UN Biennial Meeting on Small Arms to be held on 7 to 11 July 2003 in New York. The Report will also be available on departmental websites in due course.

  The UK Government are committed to working to build on the useful discussions that took place at the Conference, by working in partnership with others to strengthen consensus on the need for regulation of small arms transfers. The Biennial Meeting in New York will be a useful opportunity to take this work forward with partners within the framework of the UN.

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions the Department has had with the Bangladeshi Government concerning the incidence of tuberculosis in Bangladesh. [117845]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Bangladesh recognises the high burden of TB and the inadequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing the disease. DFID is supporting the Government, through the Country Coordinating Mechanism of the Global fund for AIDS/ TB and Malaria, to secure significant additional resources for the national fight against TB. DFID works in Health sector in Bangladesh as part of a consortium of donor countries supporting the Sector Wide
  769W
  Approach in Health. We are currently discussing with the Government a new phase of that programme focused on meeting the priority health needs of poor people, including TB.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures are being taken as part of health programmes run by the Department in Bangladesh to address the rates of tuberculosis. [117846]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided £55 million to the Government of Bangladesh over the past five years in support of a Sector Wide Approach in the Health Sector, with the aim of strengthening service delivery for the whole range of public health problems. The Government of Bangladesh and Development Partners recognise that TB remains an important problem that has not yet been adequately addressed. DFID is supporting the Government's attempts to mobilise significant additional investment in TB, through the Global Fund for AIDS/TB and Malaria and will also seek to ensure that TB is prioritised in the next sector programme, which is currently being planned.

  DFID is a major financier of the Global fund for AIDS/TB and Malaria, with an initial commitment of $200 million, over five years and a recently announced additional $80 million over a further two year period.

  Burma
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of recent British policy on aid for Burma. [117118]

  Hilary Benn
  Reducing poverty in Burma will require major political, economic and social reform, the prospects for which are currently extremely limited. However, we should not abandon the poor people of Burma. DFID, along with other international agencies, can and does play an important role in addressing the humanitarian needs of poor people of Burma through programmes on HIV/AIDS, health, and the protection of human rights.

  The UK's wider policy on Burma is designed to effectively keep pressure on the Burmese regime and those who support and benefit from its misrule. The policy will be maintained until Burma is irreversibly committed to substantive, lasting political change.

  Chad and Cameroon Pipeline
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the transitional procedures in relation to the Chad and Cameroon Pipeline Project have been completed. [117385]

  Hilary Benn
  In their December report, the International Advisory Group (IAG) recommended that interim arrangements be made for management of oil revenues allocated to the oil-producing region of Chad, pending completion of the Regional Development Plan. We await forthcoming reports from the IAG and the External Compliance Monitoring Group to judge progress on this issue. We are not aware of other transitional procedures on the Chad/Cameroon Petroleum Development and Pipeline project.

  Coffee
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures her Department has established to manage better the international supply of coffee. [117075]

  Hilary Benn
  We share the concern for the way that coffee growers and coffee growing countries have been hit by low prices due largely to global over supply and structural imbalances in the industry.

  It is however important to recognise that coffee is traded on a free market and it is unlikely that attempts to intervene in the international coffee market to manage supply will be successful. The UK does however, support act ion to improve the sustainability of the coffee supply chain and to improve co-operation between all market participants. The UK is a member, through the EU, of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO), a United Nations body established to, among other things, "achieve a reasonable balance between world supply and demand on a basis which will assure adequate supplies of coffee at fair prices to consumers and markets for coffee at remunerative prices to producers".

  UK Government officials regularly attend meetings of the ICO. They also meet with representatives of the coffee trade, other interested organisations and other Government Departments with an interest in coffee matters to pursue other approaches to reducing the vulnerability of poor people and poor countries dependent upon coffee.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what restrictions are placed on aid payments to Colombia; and if she will make a statement. [18598]

  Hilary Benn
  We are reducing bilateral assistance to Colombia in line with our focus on the poorest countries in the region. By the end of this year, it will be limited to a £140,000 fund to support civil society. We also contribute the equivalent of about £2 million a year to EC programmes. In recognition of the circumstances in Colombia, these focus on supporting the peace process and humanitarian aid.

  Deforestation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what net percentage of forest cover worldwide has been lost in each of the last 10 years; and what total acreage this represents. [117602]

  Hilary Benn
  According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, during the period 1990–2000, which are the latest data available, the net percentage of forest cover lost worldwide was 2.4 per cent. This represents an annual average loss of 0.22 per cent. or approximately 23.2 million acres.

  Europe
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the
  771W
  conclusions were of the European Commission's review of progress towards the commitment that by 2006 an EU average of gross national income provided as overseas development assistance w ill reach 0.3 per cent.; what decisions were reached when this review was discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 20th May; and if he will make a statement. [117754]

  Hilary Benn
  In its summary report on follow-up to the International Conference on Financing for Development the European Commission noted that in 2002, eight member states had met the target of 0.33 per cent. of GNI as oda. In 2003, 10 member states will reach this objective. Progress already made corresponds to around one third of the amount of additional oda per year that should be made available by the EU from 2006 onwards.

  The conclusion of the discussion on this review at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in May 2003 invited the Commission to continue to monitor on a regular basis, and to report annually on, the follow-up to the Monterrey commitments.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development, what agreement was made at the G8 summit on the transparency of payments to governments by oil and mining companies. [118431]

  Hilary Benn
  At Evian, the G8 countries emphasised their determination to fight corruption which is one of the key obstacles to economic and social development. They agreed an action plan that includes piloting, on a voluntary basis, an intensified approach to transparency in countries where revenues from extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) are important.

  The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) will help develop measures to implement this Action Plan.

  At the EITI multi-stakeholder conference being held in London on 17 June, we will be asking those present (governments, oil, gas and mining companies, industry bodies, international institutions, investors and NGOs) to make public statements of support for a Statement of Principles and Actions and to set out how they propose to take the initiative forward.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what reports the Department has received from(a) UNMAS and (b) other sources on the number of (i) air-launched and ground-launched cluster munitions and (ii) unexploded bomblets at the sites where cluster munitions were used during the recent conflict in Iraq. [117198]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not aware of any comprehensive assessment on the number of air-launched and ground-launched cluster munitions used during the recent conflict, nor on the number of unexploded bomblets remaining. However the Ministry of Defence report that during the conflict UK forces dropped 66 air-delivered cluster bombs and fired some 2,000 artillery-delivered bomblet shells.
  772W
  We recognise that unexploded ordnance (UXO) is a matter of grave humanitarian concern. The UK is fully committed to facilitating the clearance of UXO as part of the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. Demining organisations funded by DFID (UN Mine Action Service £4 million and Mines Advisory Group £81,000) are working alongside local organisations and the Coalition military to plot the locations of all UXO and to carry out disposals.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much of the £60 million for Iraq announced in this year's budget has been allocated; and to which agencies. [117633]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has so far committed £115 million towards humanitarian assistance in the current crisis. This finance is channelled though the organisations best placed to deliver assistance on the ground: UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs. We have set aside a further £95 million for additional needs as they emerge.

  In addition, HM Treasury have earmarked an extra £60 million from the Central Reserve to meet humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Iraq. £5 million of this has been provided to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund UK secondees to the Coalition Provisional Authority. The remaining £55 million remains available to DFID to call upon when required.

  Medical Assistance.
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what use has been made of the tax measures introduced in the 2002 Budget to encourage private sector research and development of new treatments for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in developing countries and responsible donations of medical supplies and equipment to developing countries. [117755]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are committed to significantly improving access to medicines in developing countries. We need to tackle all the key factors affecting access if we are to make lasting improvements.

  The factors recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that can improve poor peoples' access to medicines are: affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  Clare Short chaired a High Level Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World, which examined these factors in detail and made a series of recommendations for action in its report of November 2002. Officials across Whitehall are taking forward these recommendations with stakeholders.

  One recommendation was to encourage companies to increase Research and Development into medicines and vaccines for diseases prevalent in developing countries, namely TB, malaria and relevant strains of HIV/AIDS, taking forward implementation of the R&D tax credits announced in the budget. The special tax relief for companies developing drugs and vaccines for TB,

  773W
  malaria and HIV/AIDS applies to expenditure incurred on or after 22 April 2003. As it is claimed by companies when they complete their tax returns, which they can submit up to 12 months after the end of the accounting period in question, the Inland Revenue do not yet have any information on claims.

  Section 55 of the Finance Act 2002, which provides relief from any possible tax penalty on donations of drugs and equipment abroad, is a deregulatory measure which requires no claim by the donor. Accordingly, the Inland Revenue keeps no record of the amounts involved.

  Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development which UK-based nongovernmental landmine clearance organisations are being supported by the Department. [117187]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is currently supporting the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group (MAG) for landmine clearance.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development in which countries, and to what purposes, the UN's Mine Action Service are putting their most recent allocation of funds from the Department. [117188]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) has allocated funds provided by DFID during the past and current financial year to country programmes, as follows:

  Country

  Amount (£)

  Purpose

  Sudan

  161,573

  Demining Nuba mountains

  Sudan

  65,333

  Mine action co-ordination

  Sudan

  2,333,333

  Mine action centres

  Kosovo

  171,760

  Demining teams

  Eritrea

  45,000

  Mine survey

  Afghanistan

  4,800,000

  Demining

  Iraq

  4,000,000

  Demining

  Eritrea/Ethiopia

  35,000

  Mine action co-ordination

  DR Congo

  65,333

  Mine action co-ordination

  S. Lebanon

  133,333

  Mine action centre

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the total amount of aid sent to Montserrat since 1997(a) from the EU and (b) directly from the UK. [117857]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID disbursements for each UK Financial Year since 1996–97 have been as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1996–97

  14.441

  1997–98

  37.866

  1998–99

  31.096

  1999–2000

  22.640

  2000–01

  20.811

  2001–02

  24.417

  2002–03

  123.797

  Total:

  175.068

  1 Provisional: subject to adjustment

  774W
  Over the same period, the European Commission has allocated £19 million (about £12.5 million) in development assistance to Montserrat for use up to 2007, of which the UK share is about £1.5 million.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department has given to Sierra Leone, since UK forces entered the country, in respect of victims of the Revolutionary United Front. [117320]

  Hilary Benn
  The entire country could be said to be a victim of the Revolutionary United Front as well as other fighting factions over a period of 10 or so years. On that basis, all assistance from the Department has been designed to assist victims of the conflict. Since the middle of 2000, this has amounted to some £100 million.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will hold discussions with the Government of Sierra Leone in order to set a target date for all amputees to be fitted with serviceable artificial limbs. [117321]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department's strategy for engagement in the years ahead is set out in a Memorandum of Understanding that was signed with the Government of Sierra Leone (GOSL) last November. The benchmarks for progress by GQSL do not include targets relating to treatments for the disabled.

  All amputees in camps have either been fitted with artificial limbs or offered them. Many prefer not to use them. Some additional people are coming in from the remoter communities of districts to register as amputees. It is expected that Hope International and Handicap International will continue to provide assistance.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the numbers of amputees(a) in the amputees' central camp and (b) elsewhere in Sierra Leone. [117323]

  Hilary Benn
  It is very difficult to give accurate figures for amputee numbers countrywide. Some organisations such as Handicap International have been assisting amputees and other war affected people in Sierra Leone for several years. They have found that the number of surviving amputees is much smaller than originally thought since many died as a result of their injuries. Also, some were in inaccessible areas and could not be assisted or even counted. Some of those from remote locations are however coming to Freetown for treatment but numbers are uncertain. Very vulnerable people may still be afraid to come forward despite encouragement to do so. In spite of this the estimate of amputee numbers has not changed since the former Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member on 3 December 2001 at which time it was estimated at around 1,000.

  Two years ago there were 220 registered amputees in the Murray Town camp and an unknown number of war wounded in Grafton Camp on the Western Peninsular. Since then good progress has been made in

  775W
  re-housing many amputees and their families. We understand that so far 239 beneficiaries and their families have been re-settled in greater Freetown and across 17 Chiefdoms, in effect reintegrated into local communities. When the final 70 houses are finished this year and the amputees relocated, the Murray Town camp will be closed.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the numbers of amputees are in Sierra Leone who(a) are awaiting and (b) have received artificial limbs since United Kingdom forces entered the country. [117324]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available. All those in camps have been fitted with artificial limbs or have been offered them. Hope International, Handicap International and Mercy Ships have found that their services in this area were much under utilised if they concentrated on amputees alone. They, therefore, expanded their programmes to also cover war-affected disabled and polio victims.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the sources from which artificial limbs have been made available to the amputees in Sierra Leone. [117325]

  Hilary Benn
  These are made locally through Hope International workshops at Murray Town and Wellington in Freetown and at Bo. Local technicians have been trained to manufacture the prostheses. Handicap International and Mercy Ships also provide help with this service. Some amputees have also gone abroad to have artificial limbs fitted.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what plans the Department has to facilitate the(a) rehabilitation and (b) resettlement of the amputees in Sierra Leone. [117326]

  Hilary Benn
  This work is the responsibility of the Government of Sierra Leone's Reintegration Coordination Committee that meets monthly. Among its tasks is monitoring all aspects of assistance for registered amputees. It comprises the National Commission for Social Action, the National Recovery Committee, the local representative of the Red Cross, the International Committee of the Red Cross and three international NGOs, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Cause Canada and Handicap International. DFID is not and has no plans to be represented on this body.

  The majority of amputees who have been in camps in Freetown have already been relocated to the areas of their choice through a programme administered by the NRC. It was funded mainly by a donation of $1 million from the United States and Norwegian governments.

  Once relocated the amputees are provided with food by the World Food Programme. They are assisted further by Cause Canada who provides skills training, micro credit and other services.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the meetings his Department has held with representatives 776W
  of (a) the Sri Lankan Government and (b) the Tamil people to discuss development in each of the past five years. [117585]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID maintains an office within the British high commission in Colombo. In the course of their work to design and implement development programmes, staff in this office meet with representatives of the Sri Lankan Government, political parties, the LTTE, and with ordinary Sri Lankans all around the island as well as other donors, international organisations and NGOs. Currently, meetings focus especially on action to support the peace process and to create the conditions for lasting reconciliation.

  Staff in Colombo are supported through frequent visits by staff from DFID's regional office in Bangkok as well as periodic visits from London based senior staff.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-Levels
  Air. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many meetings there have been between officials from the DfES, the awarding bodies and the QCA with regard to Clause 95 of the Tomlinson Inquiry into A-level standards. [110102]

  Mr. Miliband
  DfES and QCA officials hold regular meetings. The preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and QCA has been discussed on a number of occasions.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much school arson cost in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [117904]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures. However, we take very seriously the threat that arson poses to some schools.

  If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  To help schools manage fire safety, The Department published "Managing School Facilities Guide 6, Fire Safety", in 2000. This offers guidance on how to minimise the risks of both accidental and malicious fires occurring, and advises on how to identify hazards and carry out risk assessments. It also gives advice on training and on fire detection and alarm systems.

  Children's Diets
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research he has commissioned into the take-up of free school meals; and if he will make a statement. [117389]
  777W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department funded a study that examined how the nature of the school, its meal provision and its management and administration, influenced the take up of free meals. The research was commissioned by the Child Poverty Action Group and resulted in the publication of a report entitled `Improving the Take up of Free School Meals' in May 2001.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage headteachers and governors to monitor the contribution of vending machines and school tuck shops to children's diets; and if he will make a statement. [117390]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department supports the healthy eating strand of the National Healthy Schools Standard which states that coherent and consistent messages about healthy eating, food hygiene and safety and practical food preparation are promoted to pupils. The 'Food in Schools' programme, a joint Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health initiative, aims to develop sustainable programmes to encourage healthy eating. The initiative will take the form of a range of projects, two of which will aim to challenge schools and the vending industry to make healthy options available in school vending machines and provide schools with guidance on how to develop healthy tuck shops.

  Document Costs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2003,Offical Report, column 1002W, on document costs, what the budget was allocated to each policy team, for expenditure on documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers in 2002–03; and what budget he has allocated to individual policy teams for expenditure on documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers in 2003–04. [118604]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Programme budgets within the Department are not allocated specifically to categories of expenditure such as the production of documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers, the information requested is therefore not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his written answer of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 1002W, on document costs, what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of public relations and media consultants in the publication of documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers in each of the last five years for which information is available. [118607]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has not published any documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers through public relations or media consultants in the last five years.

  Education Funding
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken by his Department to increase budgetary provision for(a) the current academic year, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05. [117637]
  778W
  Mr. Miliband
  The overall increase in funding for schools and local education authorities between last year and 2003–04 is some £2.7 billion. Within this total, we have made available extra grant to ensure that the effective increase is no less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil for all authorities. Our plans allow for a further increase of £1.4 billion between this year and 2004–05. Details of the allocations to individual local education authorities will be announced later this year under the normal arrangements.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to incorporate school character assessment into performance-related league tables, as outlined in the recent Excellence and Enjoyment document. [117176]

  Mr. Miliband
  The document 'Excellence and Enjoyment—a Strategy for Primary Schools', launched on 20 May, acknowledged the need to keep the accountability framework, including the performance tables, under review by looking for ways of improving and refining the information provided to parents and others. That included the possibility of offering more information about the rounded achievements of schools, perhaps by reporting a headline judgement from a school's most recent Ofsted report. We will put forward a more detailed proposition after consideration of responses to this proposal.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of pupils have an entitlement to modern foreign language learning at Key Stage 2; and if he will assess the likely impact that the demotion of foreign language study at Key Stage 4 will have on the wider success of language learning initiatives at key stage two; [117171]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the content of the new primary strategy for developing modern foreign languages. [117175]

  Mr. Miliband
  Our National Languages Strategy, "Languages for All: Languages for Life—A Strategy for England", published last December, made clear that by the end of the decade we want every pupil, throughout Key Stage 2, to have the opportunity to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations.

  Our strategy document "14 to 19: Opportunity and Excellence", also confirms our commitment to supporting language learning. It confirms our belief that requiring schools to leach languages to every young person beyond the age of 14 is not the best way to achieve that objective. We expect that the more widespread learning of languages during Key Stage 2 will enhance interest, motivation and proficiency and that this will, in time, increase the numbers wishing to continue language learning after the age of 14.

  Our new strategy for primary schools, "Excellence and Enjoyment", outlines a range of approaches that will support teachers in developing their learning and

  779W
  teaching skills across the primary curriculum. The strategy dovetails with work to support particular subjects such as our National Languages Strategy.

  Further Education
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made with discussions with Customs and Excise to reconsider the value added tax rules relating to sixth form colleges; whether such colleges will receive compensation for the value added tax payments they are required to make; and if he will make a statement. [117421]

  Margaret Hodge [holding answer 9 June 2003]
  The Department for Education and Skills has regular ongoing discussions with Customs and Excise to consider the impact of VAT and there are no plans to change the VAT rules as they apply to sixth form colleges' purchase of general goods and services. Colleges gained a range of important financial advantages from incorporation, including control over their own assets such as land and buildings, and the freedom to employ their own staff and determine their terms and conditions. Costs such as VAT need to be met from college funds and we have announced the largest ever investment in further education over the next three years. Funding will rise by £1.2 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, between 2002–03 and 2005–06. We are awaiting advice from Customs and Excise on the levying of VAT on further education capital projects.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the draft regulations for registration and monitoring of independent schools; [117746]

  (2) what the cost to individual schools will be if the draft regulations for registration and monitoring of independent schools are implemented; [117747]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) individual independent schools, (b) the Headmasters Conference, and (c) other bodies representing the independent schooling sector regarding the draft regulations for registration and monitoring of independent schools; [117748]

  (4) what communication he has had with Ofsted regarding the draft regulations for registration and monitoring of independent schools. [117749]

  Mr. Miliband
  Legislation relating to independent schools has remained largely unchanged since 1944. The Education Act 2002 introduced strengthened regulation and monitoring arrangements to reflect the needs and expectations of parents and pupils in the 21st century.

  Many of the standards set out in the new regulations already apply to independent schools, but we have strengthened our powers in some areas to ensure that independent schools educate children in a safe and secure environment and offer a curriculum that enables pupils to fulfil their potential.

  Schools will have to meet inspection charges and compliance costs. Most independent schools will not incur significant compliance costs, but we cannot
  780W
  quantify costs that will fall on schools that have to make improvements. Inspection charges are related to the number of pupils at each school, with a cap of £10,000 for larger schools. In determining the level of charges we gave careful consideration to the pressures on schools operating on limited budgets. We propose that charges will not meet the full cost of inspection and will be based on a sliding scale, depending on the number of pupils at the school, with small schools paying least. For example, a school with 100 pupils would pay £4,500 every six years, or £7.50 per pupil a year.

  We issued a consultation document on 27 February 2003 to all independent schools, the independent school associations, including the Headmasters Conference and the Independent Schools Council, the teacher unions and other interested parties. The consultation period ended on 30 May 2003 and departmental officials are in the process of analysing the responses.

  OFSTED has played a major part in the process of drawing up these regulations. They have been consulted regularly and we have taken full account of their advice and recommendations.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on the Partnership with Independent Schools scheme in the last year for which figures are available. [118038]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03, a total £900,000 of departmental funding was spent on the independent/ state school partnerships grant scheme. Independent evaluation of the scheme has found that it is achieving its aims and objectives and provides good value for money. As a result, the scheme has been allocated a significant increase of funding over the next three years: £1.25 million in 2003–04, rising to £2 million in 2005–06.

  Key Stage One
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will assess the value of standardised testing at Key Stage 1. [117183]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is committed to raising standards in schools and believes that national testing of children's progress is necessary in order to achieve higher standards. It has a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning and provides a comparable picture of a child's progress against local and national standards for schools, parents and the wider community.

  We propose to trial, in 2004, an approach that uses testing to underpin teacher assessment and feed into a single overarching teacher judgment rather than being reported separately.

  Looked After Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to ensure all state-funded schools give priority to looked after children from care homes in their admissions policies; what the procedures are for
  781W
  monitoring that this happens; and what penalties he has at his discretion to ensure compliance with the guidance. [117111]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The School Admissions Code of Practice recommends that admission authorities give looked after children top priority in their oversubscription criteria; and they must have regard to the Code's guidance. The Secretary of State may direct admission authorities to comply with the Code.

  Admission authorities must consult on their proposed admission arrangements. Local schools and other admission authorities may object to the Schools Adjudicator on any aspect of those arrangements, including failure to give top priority to looked after children. If the Adjudicator decides that proposed admission arrangements should be changed, that decision is binding.

  Admission Forums have been set up to consider existing and proposed admission arrangements for schools in their area. They are also responsible for seeking to ensure that looked after children are effectively provided for. Admission authorities must also have regard to any advice given by their local Forum.

  Music Standards Fund
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was allocated to each London education authority through the Music Standards Fund in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [115534]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Music Standards Fund was established in 1999 and so no allocations were made in 1992 or 1997.

  Music Standards Fund allocations for London local education authorities in the financial year 2002–03 are available on the Standards Fund website at www.dfes.gov.uk/standardsfund and are set out in the table:

  LEA number and name

  Allocation (£)

  201 Corporation of London

  1,753

  202 Camden

  373,500

  203 Greenwich

  264,228

  204 Hackney

  360,380

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  157,481

  206 Islington

  222,002

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  85,513

  208 Lambeth

  233,044

  209 Lewisham

  277,833

  210 Southwark

  361,237

  211 Tower Hamlets

  404,449

  212 Wandsworth

  263,101

  213 Westminster

  363,500

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  217,091

  302 Barnet

  193,251

  303 Bexley

  210,000

  304 Brent

  254,159

  305 Bromley

  176,838

  306 Croydon

  267,764

  307 Eating

  335,508

  308 Enfield

  289,111

  309 Haringey

  358,000

  310 Harrow

  158,000

  311 Havering

  160,286

  782W

  LEA number and name

  Allocation (£)

  312 Hillingdon

  203,534

  313 Hounslow

  360,000

  314 Kingston Upon Thames

  143,000

  315 Merton

  168,221

  316 Newham

  513,737

  317 Redbridge

  211,511

  318 Richmond Upon Thames

  159,600

  320 Waltham Forest

  269,225

  319 Sutton

  131,322

  Nursery Staff
  Mr. James Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many nursery staff are estimated to have been employed in each year since 1997; and what plans he has to increase numbers of nursery staff: [115129]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the level of pay of nursery staff in each year since 1997; and what plans he has (a) to increase pay levels and (b) for other financial support of nursery staff; [115130]

  (3) what tasks nursery staff are expected to carry out; what plans he has to improve conditions of work; and if he will make a statement on the value of nursery staff to the (a) children and (b) community. [115131]

  Maria Eagle
  We do not collect annual data on the numbers of staff working in nurseries. In 2001, there were 274,528 people working in childcare in England, of whom 94,302 worked in day nurseries. This represents an increase from 226,340 childcare workers in 1998, of whom 43,080 worked in day nurseries.

  A national childcare recruitment campaign has been running since 2000 to encourage people to consider a career in childcare. Local authorities promote childcare locally, and offer taster courses and links to further training.

  Nursery staff are employed by a range of providers, including local authorities, private providers and voluntary organisations. These employers determine levels of pay and other rewards, and the tasks which their staff are expected to carry out.

  According to the Labour Force Survey, the mean pay for all childcare workers in spring 2001 was £5.29 per hour. We do not collect annual data on levels of pay for nursery staff.

  Nursery staff play a key role in giving young children a good start in life, by promoting their physical, intellectual and social development. Childcare and early education services are important community resources, helping parents work, learn and study; and promoting strong families and strong communities. Government funding for Sure Start, early years and childcare is planned to reach £1.5 billion budget by 2005–06.

  Office of Fair Access
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has given to universities on measuring potential for the purpose of adhering to the statement of principles issued by the Office of Fair Access. [115685]
  783W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Office for Fair Access (OFFA) will not issue a statement of principles. Universities are responsible for their own admissions policies and procedures.

  My right hon. Friend has asked Professor Steven Schwartz, Vice Chancellor of Brun el University, to lead a team to identify good practice in admissions and we expect one of the outcomes of Professor Schwartz's work to be a statement of high level principles about admissions which we would hope all universities would adopt.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109464]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Monitoring progress towards the Department's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  School Catering
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on schools to which chicken adulterated with beef protein has been supplied. [116851]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Schools are encouraged to follow the Department's guidance on nutritional standards. However, it is the responsibility of the LEA, or schools with delegated budgets, to decide on the suppliers and quality of the products they use in the preparation of school meals.

  It is extremely regrettable that this has happened.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the merits of the value added methodology used(a) in his Department's evaluation of the performance of specialist schools and (b) in the 2002 secondary school performance tables; and if he will make a statement. [116503]

  Mr. Miliband
  The value added methodology used in the secondary school performance tables in 2002 has been developed over a number of years, and following extensive consultation with schools and other stakeholders. We continue to keep our approach under review.

  Our evaluation of the merits of specialist schools takes account of all the evidence we have seen, including the Department's value added measures and those used by Professor David Jesson (University of York) in his analysis of specialist schools performance.

  School Workforce Agreement
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions he has had with(a) local education authorities and (b) head teachers concerning the National Agreement on Restructuring the School Workforce; [117638]
  784W
  (2) what representations he has received from (a) local education authorities and (b) head teachers concerning the implementing of the National Agreement on Restructuring the School Workforce. [117640]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following the publication of "Time for Standards" in October 2002, I chaired a series of meetings of national partners, including the local authority employers and head teacher associations, which culminated in the National Agreement signed in January 2003. Since then, I have continued regularly to meet the signatories, both bilaterally and in the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group, to discuss implementation.

  Specialist Status Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answers of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 560W, and 21 May 2003, Official Report, column 831W, on GCSE point scores, if he will make a statement on the academic impact of specialist status on sports colleges. [117316]

  Mr. Miliband
  Using a value added measure based on KS2 point scores and GCSE 5 or more A*-C outcomes in schools and sports colleges in 2002 produced an added value measure of + 1 percentage point compared with a - 1.5 percentage points compared with all nonselective, non-specialist schools and non-selective sports colleges.1
  1Educational outcomes and value added by specialist schools, 2002 Analysis, Professor David Jesson, University of York.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 560W, on GCSE point scores, what the average capped GCSE/GNVQ point score was for pupils in specialist languages colleges in 2002; and if he will make a statement. [117317]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002 the average capped1 GCSE/ GNVQ point score2 for Language Colleges (operational as at September 2001) was 39.1.

  Language Colleges raise standards of achievement and the quality of teaching and learning in modern foreign languages, using this as a catalyst for whole school improvement.
  1 Average capped GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated using the best 8 GCSE/GNVQ results.2 GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated as follows:GCSE grades A* to G count as 8 to 1 points respectively, GCSE Short Courses grades A* to G count as 4 to ½ respectively. The GNVQ grades D, M and P count as 7½, 6 and 5 points respectively at Intermediate level, and 4, 3 and 1½ points respectively at Foundation level. These points need to be multiplied by 2 for GNVQ Part One and by 4 for Full GNVQs.

  Supply Teachers (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers are working in schools in the London borough of Wandsworth. [117150]

  Mr. Miliband
  Occasional teacher numbers (teachers on contracts of less than a month who were in service for the whole of the survey date) in the maintained schools sector in Wandsworth local education authority are shown in table 17 of the January 2002 edition of Statistics of
  785W
  Education: School Workforce in England. This table shows data for January 2002 the most recent data currently available at local authority level. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DIES website at: www.dfes.qov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0380/456417.htm.

  Synthetic Phonics
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the role of synthetic phonics in the National Literacy Strategy Searchlights reading programme; [117181]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to strengthen the role of synthetic phonics within the framework of the National Literacy Strategy; [117174]

  (3) when he plans to publish the report of the recent departmental seminar on phonics, as referred to in the recent Excellence and Enjoyment document; [117177]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Jolly Phonics programme. [117178]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The 2002 Ofsted report of the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) says that:"there has been a marked shift in teachers' understanding of and attitudes towards the place of phonics and spelling."

  This has contributed to the best primary school results ever. The NLS advocates the 'Searchlights' model of reading, and is based on the view that children should be taught to read using synthetic and analytic phonics as well as other strategies such as knowledge of grammar and context. The 'Searchlights' model emphasises the central importance of early phonics but also accepts that children will attempt to make sense of a wide range of print and texts in the course of mastering the phonic code and need to be helped to do so efficiently. This is particularly true with English where, because of its linguistic heritage, a significant proportion of words are not phonetically regular.

  The teaching of phonics in the NLS is based on international research over the last 30 years and on good practice seen in England and other countries. The NLS view is supported by international research such as The National Reading Panel Report commissioned by the US Federal Government, 'Teaching to read', in 2000.

  The Department for Education and Skills held a seminar on 17 March 2003 to review the latest research and effective practice in the teaching of phonics. An independent report on the seminar is being finalised and will shortly be published. We will then respond to that report and set out our plans for further strengthening the teaching of phonics in primary schools.

  The Jolly Phonics programme has been adopted by a number of schools, and some teachers have found it effective in helping children learn to read. Schools are able to choose from a range of phonics programmes including the NLS programme Progression in Phonics (PiPs). It is up to schools and teachers to decide which programme they consider most effective in meeting the needs of their children.

  I have today placed a copy of the Early Literacy Support programme video in the Library.

  Teachers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grant is available to headteachers from 1 April 2003 to meet the cost of threshold payments for teachers in school; and if he will make a statement. [113517]

  Mr. Miliband
  Threshold payments will continue to be fully funded.

  UKEU Project
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the monitoring arrangements for government expenditure via the UKEU project. [114137]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) have arranged for public investment in UK eUniversities Worldwide (UKeU) to be handled by a Holding Company (the eLearning Holding Company Ltd.), which is owned by the higher education institutions of the UK. HEFCE currently requires that the Holding Company maintains at least a 50 per cent. stake in UKeU so that it may oversee the value for money represented in the services provided, and to oversee quality and standards of a venture which carries a brand backed by UK higher education. The Holding Company appoints three Directors to the Board of UKeU who have rights of veto over decisions of the UKeU Board. The Holding Company has rights to receive any information it requests from UKeU. The Holding Company monitors the venture and reports annually and by exception on the progress of the business to HEFCE as well as to its members, UK higher education institutions. As with all public funds routed through HEFCE, HEFCE are accountable to the Department's accounting officer for their appropriate disbursement. In addition, HEFCE regularly reviews the progress of UKeU, and I meet routinely with both HEFCE and UKeU to keep abreast of developments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Scotland are in receipt of housing benefit, broken down by local authority. [117098]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit recipients in Scotland by local authority— November 2002

  Local Authority

  Housing Benefit Recipients

  Aberdeen

  15,180

  Aberdeenshire

  9,500

  Angus

  6,370

  Argyll and Bute

  6,020

  Clackmannanshire

  4,600

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  1,340

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10,330

  Dundee

  18,840

  East Ayrshire

  11,890

  787W

  Housing Benefit recipients in Scotland by local authority— November 2002

  Local Authority

  Housing Benefit Recipients

  East Dunbartonshire

  3,960

  East Lothian

  5,930

  East Renfrewshire

  3,400

  Edinburgh

  32,110

  Falkirk

  12,730

  Fife

  27,330

  Glasgow

  98,590

  Highland

  13,330

  Inverclyde

  9,400

  Midlothian

  5,150

  Moray

  4,400

  North Ayrshire

  12,730

  North Lanarkshire

  33,480

  Orkney

  840

  Perth and Kinross

  7,290

  Renfrewshire

  16,830

  Scottish Borders

  6,950

  Shetland

  910

  South Ayrshire

  8,590

  South Lanarkshire

  27,500

  Stirling

  5,420

  West Dunbartonshire

  11,870

  West Lothian

  12,890

  Total

  446,000

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Local authority figures are rounded to the nearest ten, the total for Scotland is rounded to the nearest thousand. Figures do not sum due to rounding.

  3. The totals include estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  4. Figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly statistical inquiry, November 2002.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115195]

  Maria Eagle
  The Information is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the operation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative in(a) the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, (b) Teesside and (c) the Government Office North East region, including the (i) level of funding and (ii) number of child care places created. [115533]

  Maria Eagle
  The Neighbourhood Nurseries Programme is making good progress.

  Overall, 5,375 places are planned for the North East Region supported by £11.618,599 capital and £27,796,549 revenue funding. Our monitoring returns show that over 500 Neighbourhood Nursery places have so far been provided in the region. In Middlesbrough
  788W
  South, a 50-place Neighbourhood Nursery will be provided in Coulby Newham serving the disadvantaged wards of Henlington, Stainton and Thornton. In East Cleveland, 84 places will be provided in the following wards:

  Skelton—34 places

  Loftus—10 places

  Guisborough—40 places.

  1,528 places are in various stages of development in the Tees Valley.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether there is equality of treatment between men and women with regard to the way tax credits are taken into account when CSA assessments are made. [113718]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Yes.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints about the standard of service offered by the agency were handled by the Child Support Agency over the past three years; and what the average length of time taken to deal with each complaint was. [115751]

  Malcolm Wicks
  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. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 June 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 complaints about the standard of service offered by the Agency were handled by the Child Support Agency over the past three years; and what was the average length of time taken to deal with each complaint.
  I am unable to tell you how many of the complaints we receive relate to the standard of service offered by us. I do however have some relevant information relating to overall numbers of written complaints to the Agency.
  The average live caseload during the 3-year period was around 1,000,000.1 estimate that we received around 71,000 written complaints and within that total, around 15,000 were directed to me as chief executive. The average length of time taken to deal with this latter group of complaints was around 19 working days. The average number of complaints received as a percentage of the live caseload during the period was around 1.6%.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects assessments made by the CSA under the old system will be assessed according to the new criteria. [117901]

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of progress in the implementation of the new child support system; when the full transfer of existing child support cases onto the new system will take place; and if he will make a statement. [117735]
  789W
  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friends to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 919W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115886]

  Maria Eagle
  In the correspondence section, which forms part of the Private Office, 20 staff deal with the registration, tracking and commissioning of replies to letters addressed to Ministers. This figure has not changed since the Department was formed in 2001.

  Throughout the Department a large number of staff are involved in drafting letters for Ministers or replying to letters on Ministers behalf as part of their duties. This includes the 44.5 staff in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit who are involved in the drafting of replies to correspondence across a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter of 5 February 2003 from the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Banff and Buchan regarding the topic of job seekers allowance and offshore workers. [118549]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A reply was sent on 5 March. I am arranging for a further copy to be sent.

  Annual expenditure on Disability Living Allowance in Great Britain in each year from 1996–1997 to 2002–2003

  (£ million cash)

  1996–1997 outrun

  1997–1998 outrun

  1998–1999 outrun

  1999–2000 outrun

  2000–2001 outrun

  2001–2002 outrun

  2002–2003 estimated outrun

  4,498

  4.953

  5,316

  5,660

  6,044

  6,580

  7,046

  Notes:

  Expenditure for 2002–03 reflects the latest benefit-by-benefit estimate of outturn, and not the amounts voted by Parliament.

  Source:

  Information and Analysis Directorate Benefit Forecasting and Modelling Division Benefit Expenditure tables, in nominal [cash] terms— published on 15 May 2003.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114127]

  Maria Eagle
  There was no specific target for efficiency savings set for the Department for 2003–04. However, there were a number of targets set to improve value for money and increase the efficiency of administration. PSA targets for 2003–04 cover both SR2000 and SR2002.

  Following SR2000 a PSA target was set to increase the efficiency of social security administration full details are available in the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2003.

  As part of SR 2002 a new target was set "to improve delivery of the Departments services by setting

  Court Judgment (Kehoe)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the implications of the judgment in R (on the application of Mary Kehoe) v. the Secretary of State. [118132]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The implications of the judgment on R (on the application of Mary Kehoe) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are under active consideration by the Department. The Department has been granted leave to appeal.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [pursuant to his answer of 15 May to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark),Official Report, columns 407–08W, on Disability Living Allowance, how many people are eligible for Disability Living Allowance; how much has been spent on Disability Living Allowance in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [116043]

  Maria Eagle
  As regards eligibility, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 May,Official Report, Vol 406, Col 49W. At the end of November 2002, the latest date for which such information is available, some 2.44 million people in Great Britain were receiving Disability Living Allowance1. The requested information about expenditure is in the table.

  1Source:

  Disability Care and Mobility benefits—November 2002 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  published annual targets for each major business, addressing accuracy. unit costs and customer service, becoming progressively more demanding over the three-year period." Details of its application to each of DWP's Businesses are published in their individual Business Plans and are available in the Library. Details of the unit costs targets have still to be finalised and will be published separately.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which he is responsible. [116388]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  791W

  System

  Use

  Comet (including filenet)

  A correspondence scanning system

  Canon Scanfile

  A document imaging system used in six locations

  Tower Iimaging and Document Management

  A system used to support processing using the Empower model

  Stellent

  The DWP Intranet Content Management system

  Northern Ireland Industrial Injuries Branch Document Image Processing

  A document Imaging system used for Industrial Injuries claim forms

  Tax Credits
  Ms Joan Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what advice is made available to those persons on income support when claiming(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit; [116477]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the administration costs for those applying for (a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit. [116375]

  Maria Eagle
  The majority of families on income support (IS) and income based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)) do not need to claim tax credits now as they will be migrated to Child Tax Credit from April 2004. MIG customers will be migrated by October 2003 to coincide with the introduction of Pension Credit. However a small number of families may be better off claiming tax credits now. Therefore from November 2002, families on benefits, including IS and JSA(IB), have been sent information about, the new tax credits, including information to help them to identify if they will be better off claiming tax credits now. These families can receive further information and help with their claims from their local Jobcentre Plus office, where staff are able to take tax credits claims and change of circumstances, deal with general enquiries and provide calculations to help customers to decide whether they want to claim tax credits now.

  Inland Revenue helpline staff are also advising families who are on benefits that Jobcentre Plus can help them in this way. In addition they are advising benefit customers that they will be contacted by the Department for Work and Pensions with more information about the migration to Child Tax Credit nearer the time.

  Inland Revenue is primarily responsible for the administration of tax credits. The estimated cost of Jobcentre Plus helping benefit customers to transact tax credits business, including taking tax credits claims and change of circumstances, and dealing with customer inquiries, is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  2003–4

  5.4

  2004–5

  7.9

  2005–6

  1.7

  These estimated figures are service delivery costs for Jobcentre Plus. In the light of live running experience, costs and volumes of work will be reviewed during the course of the year.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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
  792W
  Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113939]

  Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 22 May 2003]
  The Department is fully committed to delivering the objectives of sustainable development (SD) both through its core business policies and its operations. A Departmental Strategy is under development, and progress against cross-Government and DWP specific targets is published annually. A Ministerial SD Task Force has been established to consider WSSD outcomes and review the UK Strategy for SD, at which I will represent DWP.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Iraq. [117951]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Saddam Hussein has been removed. His capacity to murder Iraqi people in their thousands has been ended. The coalition are seeking to build a process to create a democratically elected Iraqi Government. Coalition forces have not found WMD but (the Government says) this will take time.

  The UN and the international community has since shown its resolve to unite in the effort to help Iraqis rebuild their country. UN Security Council Resolution 1483 adopted unanimously on 22 May provides a post-conflict framework for Iraq.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq. [117953]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UNSCR 1483 unanimously adopted on 22 May welcomes the appointment the UN Special representative on Iraq and resolves that the United Nations should play a vital role in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the United States with respect to the administration in Iraq. [117955]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK and US governments are working closely on the administration and reconstruction of Iraq, drawing on the shared vision for the future of Iraq put forward by our two governments at the Azores Summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has discussed the administration of Iraq with
  793W
  President Bush on frequent occasions, most recently at the G8 Summit at Evian, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Defence Secretaries are in frequent contact with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld.

  On the ground, John Sawers, the UK Special Envoy for Iraq, is working alongside Ambassador Paul Bremer, President Bush's appointee as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to ensure the involvement of women in political reconstruction in Iraq. [117957]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The PM's Special Representative to Iraq, John Sawers, and his team in Baghdad, are working closely with Ambassador Bremer and officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority to endeavour to ensure that women are fully involved in the key meetings dealing with the reconstruction of the political process in Iraq.

  Ambassador Bremer and John Sawers recently met with (40) Iraqi women to listen to their views and concerns as well as discuss ways to ensure their full and equal participation in the political reconstruction process.

  A gender expert has been seconded from the Women and Equality Unit to the Coalition Provisional Authority. In collaboration with other secondees in the CPA, she is reaching out to women, facilitating their participation in key meetings and discussing with them how they can play a full role in shaping the new Iraq.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether access to all information in his possession on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was given to(a) the Chief Weapons Inspector and (b) the Director General of the IAEA. [117959]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government shared all relevant information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction with the weapons inspection teams from both UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the future of Iraq. [117962]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Iraq Nuclear Verification Office since 1 December 2002 on access of inspectors to Iraqi nuclear sites. [116919]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The matter of a return to Iraq by INVO was discussed during a visit to the UK by Dr. El-Baradei on 12 May. Dr. El Baradei reported on INVO access to Iraq's nuclear facilities in his reports to the UN Security Council on 14 February and 7 March 2003.
  794W
  IAEA inspectors are currently on their way to Iraq to resume monitoring under the IAEA/Iraq Safeguards Agreement.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if UK officials will liaise with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in order to prepare guidelines outlining the role of the UN in Iraq. [117033]

  Mr. Rammell
  The role of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Iraq is outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1483, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The UK is, and will remain, in close touch with the Secretary General's Special Representative for Iraq. He enjoys our full support.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official communication channels there are between British officials in Iraq and UN agencies involved in humanitarian efforts. [117034]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UN Officials in Iraq are cooperating with many UN and other humanitarian agencies working in Iraq, including the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Iraqi administrators and NGOs. We are communicating with them both in Iraq and through our missions to the UN in New York and Geneva. In addition DFID has provided seven secondments to UN agencies.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a representative from his Department will be attending the weekly meetings between the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq and NGOs in the region. [117063]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A DFID adviser on the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) attends weekly meetings between the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq and NGOs in the region.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Iraq Planning unit was set up; how many personnel were assigned to it and from which Departments; how long the Iraq Planning Unit is expecting to continue its operations; what the annual budget is of the Iraq Planning Unit; what recommendations the Iraq Planning Unit made for Iraqi reconstruction; and if he will make a statement. [118054]

  Mr. Straw
  The Iraq Planning Unit (now the Iraq Policy Unit) (IPU) was set up on 10 February this year. It began with six personnel. It now has some 30 staff. The majority of staff have come from the FCO, but other Government Departments, the MOD, DfID, and HMT, also have officials working in it. There is no present plan to close down the IPU. It does not have a separate budget, but is funded from within the Middle East and North Africa Directorate budget. In its four months' existence, the IPU has written papers on all aspects of reconstruction in Iraq.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Russian government about its security policy in Chechnya. [117952]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise the issue of Chechnya with the Russian authorities both in our bilateral dialogue and through the EU. As recent suicide bombings show, Russia faces a serious security problem in the region. However, we continue to stress that operations in Chechnya must respect human rights and the rule of law.

  Middle East Road Map
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress on the Middle East road map. [117954]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The publication of the road map and the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh has created a vital new opportunity in the Middle East Peace Process. This is the best opportunity to make progress for over two years, The parties must seize it, acting in parallel to improve the security and humanitarian situation.

  I welcome President Bush's continuing engagement, as demonstrated by his summits with Arab leaders at Sharm al-Shaikh and with Prime Ministers Abbas and Sharon at Aqaba.

  Both sides have made important commitments: the Palestinians on ending terrorism and incitement, the Israelis on dismantling settlement outposts and improving the humanitarian situation. The Palestinian and Israeli people now need to see deeds that match these words. Extremists must not be allowed to prevent progress and condemn the people to further suffering. All parties must remain courageous and committed to peaceful dialogue. The Palestinian and Israeli people now need to see deeds that match these words. Progress will require parallel actions.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress with the road map for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. [117960]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).

  Afghanistan
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Afghanistan. [117956]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK and international community continue to work closely with the Afghan Transitional Administration to support the full implementation of the 2001 Bonn Agreement, assist Security Sector Reform, deliver effective reconstruction across the country, and counter the threat from narcotics.
  796W
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of the campaign to restrict the supply of drugs from Afghanistan. [117394]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Transitional Administration adopted a national drug strategy on 19 May. The UK has committed £70 million over the next three years to assist in the objective of eliminating opium poppy from Afghanistan and will post additional British Embassy personnel to Kabul in the coming months to help the Afghan Transitional Administration to achieve their objective.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to visit Harare in the next three months to discuss the future of support for the Zimbabwean economy and the maintenance of democracy. [117958]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Harare in the next three months.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of other southern African governments on the position in Zimbabwe. [117961]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). In addition, President Mogae of Botswana will visit the UK this week.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures the EU and the UK will take to restore good governance in Zimbabwe. [116958]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to work with our EU, Commonwealth and other international partners towards restoring good governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

  We supported the EU statement of 2 June calling on the Government of Zimbabwe to desist from violence.

  At the G8 summit in Evian my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other G8 leaders took the opportunity to discuss with President Mbeki and other African leaders the steps they are taking to resolve the current crisis in Zimbabwe.

  The G8 condemned the action taken by the Zimbabwean authorities on Monday 2 June against their own people and called on the Zimbabwean Government to accept its citizens' right to demonstrate against the regime peacefully.

  Agricultural Work Permits
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme permits have been issued during 2003(a) in total and (b) from the United Kingdom embassy in Ukraine. [118355]
  797W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme is quota-based. The Home Office issues work cards to the operators of the scheme (agricultural businesses in the United Kingdom.) The work cards are then issued to prospective participants (who must be aged between 18–25 and in full-time education) by the operators of the scheme on behalf of the Home Office.

  A total of 25,000 work cards were made available to operators of the scheme for 2003. Our embassy in Kiev has issued visas to 2,338 holders of work cards under the scheme this year.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the issuing of Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme permits from UK embassies overseas. [118356]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our overseas posts deal with the entry clearance applications of visa nationals who hold SAWS work cards as and when they are submitted. Non visa nationals holding SAWS work cards need to seek entry clearance before travelling to the UK.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days the UK embassy in Ukraine was open in May 2003 to issue Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme permits. [118357]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British embassy in Kiev was open for 19 working days in May, and worked an additional Saturday as overtime in order to facilitate the issue of Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme visas.

  China
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government on behalf of Chinese British citizens, on the process of adoption of children from China, concerning the issue of closed borders due to the SARS outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [118048]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have made no representations. We understand that the China Centre of Adoption Affairs has postponed the issuing of adoption papers to foreign adopters to help prevent the spread of SARS in China, and that they will lift their restrictions as soon as SARS permits.

  Conflict Prevention Pool
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what percentage, and how much, of the Conflict Prevention Pool budget for the financial years(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05 is allocated to (i) military activity, (ii) humanitarian relief, (iii) education, (iv) military equipment, (v) direct grants to governments and (vi) administration; and if he will make a statement; [117909]

  (2) what the priority (a) countries and (b) themes are for the Conflict Prevention Pool; and if he will make a statement; [117910]
  798W
  (3) what money is available for use in each of the priority areas of the Conflict Prevention Pool; and what percentage these allocations represent as a proportion of the total budget. [117911]

  Mr. Straw
  For 2003–04, the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) has a programme allocation of £74 million. Programme allocations fund 14 strategies, which can be regional or thematic. The allocations to GCPP priority countries and thematic strategies for financial year 2002–04, set in March 2003 by a Ministerial Committee, which I chair, are:

  Strategies

  £ million

  Percentage

  Afghanistan

  16.60

  18.87

  Belize and Guatemala

  1.79

  2.04

  Central and Eastern Europe

  4.80

  5.46

  India/Pakistan

  2.00

  2.27

  Indonesia/East Timor

  1.48

  1.68

  Middle-East and North-Africa

  5.00

  5.68

  Nepal

  6.00

  6.82

  OSCE

  1.00

  1.14

  Russia/Former Soviet Union

  11.50

  13.07

  Security Sector Reform

  5.05

  5.74

  Small Arms, Light Weapons

  9.45

  10.74

  Sri Lanka

  1.10

  1.25

  TheBalkans

  11.50

  13.07

  United Nations

  10.69

  12.15

  The total allocated is higher than the Treasury funding allocation for financial year 2003–04 of £74 million because it incorporates funds carried over from previous years and over-programming on the basis of experience of previous spend patterns. Final allocations for 2004–05 will not be set until later this financial year.

  Strategies allocate funds to specific projects, which may include a number of activities, though the provision of humanitarian aid is not generally a call on the Conflict Prevention Pools. Projects within Global Pool strategies cover a wide range of activity. To provide a budgetary breakdown would incur disproportionate costs.

  The planned Global Conflict Prevention Pool report will, however, give a better insight into activities under each strategy. It is due to be published later in the year and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [117931]

  Mr. MacShane
  Valery Giscard d'Estaing has been asked to present, at the 19–20 June Thessaloniki European Council, the final report on the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Government are confident that the convention's final output will be good for the United Kingdom and good for the kind of Europe we want: enlarged, more effective, more accountable and more efficient.

  The convention will be followed by an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), where decisions will be taken by unanimity.

  Counter-terrorism Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what categories, activities and equipment are funded from the counter-terrorism assistance budget of(a) his Department and (b) the Global Opportunities Fund. [118261]

  Mr. Straw
  I announced on 8 May 2003 that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had established the Global Opportunities Fund. The Counter-Terrorism Programme, which replaces the previous FCO Counter-Terrorism Assistance budget, was one of the first five programmes to be launched.

  Over the last 14 months, funds from these budgets have been used to deliver specific counter-terrorism training to over 70 countries on five different continents. To date, no equipment has been supplied under the counter-terrorism programmes, but assistance has been delivered covering the drafting of counter-terrorism legislation, efforts to combat the financing of terrorism, aviation security, crisis management, bomb disposal and police investigation and forensic skills.

  Counter-terrorism assistance from the GOF will rise to £4 million this financial year and continue to rise over the next two years.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the future of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [117649]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 22WS.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo concerning internal conflicts; what advice was given; and what assistance was offered. [117694]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have regular discussions with the President and Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and with President Kabila's National Committee for the implementation of the Global Accord, signed by all Congolese parties in December 2002. In concert with our international partners we continue to underline to all parties to the conflict the importance of abiding by their commitments to the peace process, and of reuniting the country under a transitional national government to prepare for elections.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Governments of(a) Uganda, (b) Rwanda, (c) Angola arid (d) Zimbabwe concerning the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [117695]
  800W
  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Great Lakes with regional governments, including Rwanda, Uganda and Angola. We remain concerned by the situation in the DRC, particularly the humanitarian crisis in the north-eastern Ituri region. We were active in encouraging the governments of Rwanda and Uganda to respond positively to the UN Secretary-General's request to send an Interim Emergency Multinational Force to Bunia (Ituri region).

  Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Cuba on the imprisonment of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet; and if he will make a statement. [117572]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK, along with EU partners, is deeply concerned by the recent arrests and harsh sentencing of 75 political opponents of the Cuban regime, including Dr. Biscet. We have repeatedly underlined this concern to the Cuban Government, both in Havana and in London, and we will continue to call for their release.

  EU Draft Constitution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what other areas besides marine resources the EU is allocated exclusive competence on the draft EU constitution. [117726]

  Mr. MacShane
  The latest draft of the EU constitutional treaty proposes in Article 12 of Part 1 that "the Union shall have exclusive competence to establish competition rules within the internal market, and in the following areas: monetary policy, for the member states which have adopted the euro; common commercial policy; customs union; the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy."

  In the amendments that the Government have submitted to the Convention, we have stressed that the competences exercise should largely clarify existing competences rather than extend Union competence. For this reason we have proposed that the competence to establish competition rules within the internal market be listed under Article 13 as an area of shared competence rather than in Article 12 as an area of exclusive competence.

  EU Regulations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European Community regulations(a) came into force on United Kingdom entry, (b) have become applicable since the UK's Accession and (c) are in force; how many regulations introduced since 1973 have been (i) amended and (ii) replaced existing regulations; and where EC Regulations are listed in a form easily accessible to the General Public. [117092]

  Mr. MacShane
  The precise number of EC regulations which came into force for the United Kingdom on accession, and which currently remain in force, is not held centrally by the Government. Equally,
  801W
  records of the number of regulations which have come into force since accession are not held. Many such regulations will have merely amended or repealed existing regulations. It would incur disproportionate cost to compile thisinformation.

  However, a directory of all Community legislation currently in force is available freely to the general public on http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/index.html. This is structured in an easily accessible format by policy area and indicates where legislation has been amended or updated.

  European Union (Marine Resources)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make on the draft EU constitution's provision for an exclusive EU competence over the marine resources of the sea. [117725]

  Mr. MacShane
  In the amendments to the draft EU Constitutional Treaty that the Government have submitted to the Convention, we have emphasised that the competences exercise should clarify existing competences rather than extend Union competence.

  The Government believe that the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy at draft Article 12 of Part 1 of the draft Constitutional Treaty, as an area of exclusive Union competence, represents an accurate reflection of the current position with regards to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

  The European Court of Justice held, in Case 804/79 (Commission v UK) that, "since the expiration on 1 January 1979 of the transitional period laid down by Article 102 of the [UK's] Act of Accession, power to adopt, as part of the common fisheries policy, measures relating to the conservation of the resources of the sea has belonged fully and definitively to the Community." That said, Council Regulation 2371/2002 gives member states the right to introduce non-discriminatory conservation measures, up to 12 miles from the shore line. Such measures must conform with the CFP and must be cleared with the Commission in advance.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan about Kashmir. [116957]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly raises our concerns about Kashmir with the Governments of India and Pakistan, including during frequent telephone calls. The Foreign Secretary and Indian Foreign Minister Sinha also discussed Kashmir during their meeting on 20 May. We hope there will be further opportunities to discuss Kashmir with senior Pakistanis and Indians in the near future.

  As the Foreign Secretary said in his press statement of 2 May, we warmly welcome the announcement that India and Pakistan are to resume full diplomatic relations and re-establish transport links between the two countries. We hope that these positive
  802W
  developments prove to be the first steps in a process of building confidence, normalising bilateral relations and resolving outstanding differences, including Kashmir.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Europe next plans to visit Spain. [117869]

  Mr. MacShane
  I visited Madrid on 6 June 2003 when I had a useful discussion on a number of European issues with my opposite number, Ramon de Miguel.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of Montserrat; and when he next plans to visit Montserrat. [117858]

  Mr. MacShane
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, then Minister for the Overseas Territories, met the Governor of Montserrat on 1 May 2003 at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Baroness Amos last visited Montserrat in December 2001, when she had the chance to meet the Governor and Members of the Government of Montserrat. There are no plans for a further visit at present.

  Opium Poppy Eradication Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the extent to which the Opium-poppy Eradication Programme has(a) deferred Afghan farmers from opium-poppy production and (b) decreased the supply of heroin to the UK. [117185]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Transitional Administration estimate that around 25 per cent. of the crop was destroyed as a result of their eradication programme for the 2002 harvest. A potential 79 tonnes of heroin, two to three times the UK's annual consumption, was taken out of the supply chain. A proportion of this was bound to be destined for the UK but it is not possible to gauge exactly how much.

  The Afghan National Drug Strategy, which was adopted on 19 May, recognises that eradication will not eliminate drugs from Afghanistan on its own and must be balanced with other measures to interdict drugs and to encourage development of rural communities to promote sustainable alternatives for poppy farmers.

  Pakistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on(a) the impact of the invasion of Iraq, on public opinion in Pakistan and (b) support for fundamentalist Islamist views. [117361]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the military action in Iraq there were several relatively small, and mostly peaceful, demonstrations in Pakistan. There was, understandably, wife media coverage and public debate, mostly critical of coalition action. The religious alliance the MMA, secured 12 per cent. of the vote in the October 2002 elections. It is an alliance of six parties
  803W
  reflecting many shades of conservative Muslim opinion in Pakistan. Thereare no clear indications to suggest their support base has strengthened further in recent months.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British citizens have been ordered in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan to veil themselves in public. [117360]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are not aware of any British citizens who have been ordered to veil themselves in the north west frontier province or elsewhere in Pakistan. We are aware that the North West Frontier Province Assembly has passed the Shariat Bill which envisages an Islamic way of life in the Province. However, the law is not yet in force and its constitutionality has reportedly been challenged in the Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules Fedex imposes on its acceptance of visa applications for visits to the UK from Pakistan; what arrangements there are where such an application is outside those restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [117765]

  Mr. Rammell
  This information is available on the UKvisas website, the address of which is www.ukvisas.gov.uk.

  The Visa Section in Islamabad remains unable to accept personal callers and all applications for entry clearance must be made through the courier service, Gerry's Fedex. The High Commission is currently only able to resolve certain categories of application and advises Gerry's Fedex which types of application they are able to accept.

  The types of visitor application which can currently be considered are:
  Those who have travelled to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the USA within the last five years as a visitor.
  Business visitors with a letter of invitation from a company in the UK who have travelled to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the USA within the last five years and has evidence of this travel.
  Persons aged 60 and over going to visit close relatives in the UK.
  Visitors with urgent and compassionate reasons to travel, who have prior agreement from the Britist High Commission that the application will be accepted.
  Someone wishing to undertake urgent medical treatment, with evidence of the referral from a doctor in Pakistan and an appointment letter from a doctor in the UK.

  Upon receipt of the correct fee, Gerry's Fedex will forward the application to the Visa Section in Islamabad for consideration.

  Those persons who wish to visit the UK but do not meet the criteria outlined, may apply for a visit visa in a third country. This should be done with the prior agreement of the visa issuing office of the British Mission(s) in that country. Those applications where there are exceptional and compassionate circumstances involved are considered on their own merits. The procedure allows the applicant to fax the visa section, detailing the kind of application they wish to make and why it should be treated as an urgent/compassionate
  804W
  case. If the Visa Section agrees that it can be considered. the applicant is sent a letter to take with their application to Gerry's Fedex where it will be accepted.

  Sharia Law
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Nigeria concerning the sentence imposed on Amina Lawal; and if he will make a statement. [117383]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 440W.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his Department's policy is on the return of internally displaced Tamil people to their villages and towns; [117510]

  (2) how many internally displaced Tamil people live in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement; [117512]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the internal displacement of Tamils in Sri Lanka. [117513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UNHCR estimates that the Sri Lankan conflict has displaced over 800,000 people. (Of the 600,000 surveyed, some 80 per cent. are Tamil, and 14 Muslim and 5 per cent. Sinhalese.)

  Since the ceasefire in February 2002, some 270,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) have returned home spontaneously. However, the British Government cannot endorse organised returns for IDPs while the UNHCR recommends against it (given the lack of infrastructure to support returnees, and the large amount of unexploded ordinance in the north and east).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings his Department has held with representatives of(a) the Sri Lankan government and (b) the Tamil people to discuss development in each of the past five years. [117511]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  FCO staff in Sri Lanka meet regularly with representatives of the Government, all political parties, the LTTE, as well as ordinary Sri Lankans of all ethnic communities, throughout the island. They discuss many issues, including development. The most recent high-level meeting on development took place in Sri Lanka on 4 June when the High Commissioner met senior LTTE representatives.

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace-process in Sri Lanka. [117514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The peace process has made remarkable progress since February 2002, particularly the agreement to pursue a political solution through a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. However, at present it is in a critical state. The LTTE has suspended its participation in the peace talks and did not attend the Donors Conference in Tokyo on 9/10 June.
  805W
  We are working with all concerned to encourage both sides to continue dialogue and for the LTTE to return to the negotiating table.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights record of the Sri Lankan government. [117515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Sri Lanka is a signatory to all six core human rights instruments, and established a Human Rights Commission in August 1997. We are encouraged that the Government of Sri Lanka has taken measures to improve its human rights record. However there are still significant human rights issues that need to be addressed by both the Government and the LTTE. During the peace talks both sides have made commitments to address these issues, including the needs of women and children, particularly those affected by armed conflict. We hope these commitments will he taken forward once peace talks are resumed.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on 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. [116641]

  Mr. Rammell
  None of the bodies referred to in the question has a specific remit for sustainable development. However, the FCO expects these organisations to reflect the strategic objectives of the Department.

  These include a long-standing commitment to promoting international sustainable development based on the outcome of the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 and more recently the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Promoting sustainable development is one of the top seven strategic policy priorities for the FCO over the next ten years.

  The FCO has two Public Service Agreements that relate to sustainable development (Business Plan 2003–06):

  Public Service Agreement 7:

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

  Public Service Agreement 11:

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

  Uganda (Child Soldiers)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions 806W
  have been held with the Government of Uganda concerning child soldiers participating in past and current internal disputes; and if he will make a statement. [117690]

  Mr. Rammell
  We support the Government of Uganda in its determination to bring an end to the suffering caused by the rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army, who are known to kidnap and use children as soldiers. In recent discussions we have encouraged the government to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict.

  We have also discussed with the Ugandan Government the recent reports of underage soldiers being recruited by government defence units in the north. The Government of Uganda have assured us that they are cooperating with UNICEF to identify and demobilise the recruits. Our High Commission is monitoring the situation.

  West Papua
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (I) what investigation the UK representative to the UN supported into the conduct and operation of the 1969 Act of Free Choice in West Papua; and if he will make a statement;[117697]

  (2) what papers are held by his Department on the 1969 Act of Free Choice in West Papua whose publication has been withheld under the Seventy Five Year rule. [117698]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been no UN or UK investigation into the conduct and operation of the 1969 Act of Free Choice beyond the observation of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative. In November 1969 the UN General Assembly discussed the Report of the Special Representative who oversaw the implementation of the Act of Free Choice. A Resolution was adopted to take note of the Report and the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the Secretary General under the 1962 Dutch/Indonesian Agreement. The Resolution, sponsored by Belgium, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Thailand, and Indonesia was supported by the United Kingdom. 84 member states voted in favour, none against and 30 abstained.

  All identifiable papers on the incorporation of Papua (West Irian) into Indonesia have been released with the exception of extracts from a 1969 Research Department memorandum which contain marginal references to security and intelligence material; the substance of the memorandum has been released.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether she plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in her Department. [117451]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans at present to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing staff within my Department. We continue
  807W
  to work closely with the unions, having a constructive dialogue with them particularly on our modernisation programmes (such as the Courts and Tribunals Modernisation and the Unified Courts Administration Programmes) underpinned by our joint consultation agreement.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights on the legal position of transsexuals. [117119]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's policy on transsexual people remains unchanged from that set out in my Statement of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 36WS. We are committed to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights. Our aim is to publish a draft Bill later this Session with legislation following when Parliamentary time allows.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Afghans with(a) exceptional leave to remain in Britain and (b) awaiting a decision on an asylum application on appeal have received a resettlement grant in each month since August 2002. [108049]

  Beverley Hughes
  [Pursuant to my reply, 28 April 2003, Official Report, column 62W], I regret to say that as a result of an administrative error, the figures within the table and the text were incorrect.

  The table details the number of individuals who travelled under the Return to Afghanistan Programme (RAP) each month between 20 August 2002 (when the Programme commenced) and 31 March 2003. In total there were 39 returnees and each received a resettlement grant (£600 per individual, up to a maximum of £2,500 per family).

  Number of persons returned individually

  Number of persons returned as part of a family

  Total number of persons returned

  August 2002

  1

  0

  1

  September 2002

  2

  0

  3

  October 2002

  2

  1(6)

  8

  November 2002

  3

  1(7)

  10

  December 2002

  0

  0

  0

  January 2003

  4

  0

  4

  February 2003

  1

  0

  1

  March 2003

  7

  1(5)

  12

  Source:

  Local management information provided by the Home Office Assisted Voluntary Return Team.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the status of refused asylum seekers from Zimbabwe who are no longer being deported; and if he will make a statement. [116410]
  808W
  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a suspension on enforced returns of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe on 15 January 2002. We have, however, continued to process asylum claims.

  Those who are refused asylum may be granted some other form of leave if they have a protection need or there are other particularly compelling reasons to do so. In such cases a person would have been granted exceptional leave before 1 April 2003, or humanitarian protection or discretionary leave since then.

  Where a person has not been granted asylum, exceptional leave or humanitarian protection or discretionary leave, it follows that we do not consider that they have demonstrated a protection need or a compelling reason why they should be allowed to remain here. As a result, while we are not enforcing the removal of such individuals to Zimbabwe at present, they have no right to remain in the United Kingdom and are expected to return voluntarily.

  I consider that it is right that leave should not be granted to those who do not qualify for it under our international obligations or under the immigration rules or Government policy. Such individuals have no basis of stay in the United Kingdom and it would be inappropriate to grant a formal period of leave simply because removal was not currently being enforced.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 523W, if he will make a statement on the systems that are in place to track and monitor failed asylum seekers. [116680]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) maintains databases containing address details for failed asylum seekers, which are also recorded in the individual's Home Office file. All applicants, and their representatives, are told of their obligation to notify the Home Office of any subsequent change of address.

  A large proportion of failed asylum seekers are required to report periodically to the United Kingdom Immigration Service (UKIS) and verification of the place of residence occurs during the reporting event. UKIS make regular checks, by letter and personal visits, to ensure that all individuals still reside at the recorded address.

  There are eight designated reporting centres to assist in managing reporting regimes and, in addition, a person may he required to report to a police station near their address.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which countries failed asylum seekers are not being removed; and for what reasons. [117376]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not currently enforce returns to: Burundi,where the general security situation is poor; to Iraq, previously due to the nature of the Saddam regime and subsequently due to the recent conflict; to Somalia, due to conditions arising from fighting between rival militia; or Zimbabwe, where we introduced a temporary suspension of enforced removals in January 2002 due to the political situation.
  809W
  We continue to monitor conditions in these countries carefully and enforced returns will be resumed as soon as circumstances allow. We do not accept that any of these countries are wholly unsafe, or that failed asylum seekers would be at risk of persecution if they returned. However, those unsuccessful asylum applicants who have exhausted their appeal rights, and do not return voluntarily, will not be forcibly removed at the present time.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to inform hon. Members of changes in the list of countries to which failed asylum seekers are not being removed. [117377]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not currently enforce returns to Burundi, Iraq, Somalia, or Zimbabwe. We continue to monitor conditions in these countries and other asylum producing countries carefully.

  There is no list of countries which is periodically published. Specific decisions are taken in response to changes in individual countries and announced in the most appropriate way at that time.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up surgeries for hon. Members to discuss asylum cases. [117906]

  Beverley Hughes
  I do not have any plans to set up any surgeries to discuss asylum cases.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the interdepartmental group on the 3Rs to report on the recommendation, contained in the House of Lords' report on the use of animals in scientific procedures, that an administration centre for the 3Rs be set up. [116190]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In our response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, published on 20 January 2003 (Cm 5729), the Government agreed to explore further the recommendation that a centre should be set up for research into the 3Rs—advanced methods which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. The Interdepartmental Group on the 3Rs, led by the Home Office and comprising members from the Department of Health, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Health and Safety Executive and other agencies, has been tasked with taking this forward. I expect to receive a progress report on its findings in the autumn.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been granted for experiments involving animals sponsored by government departments since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [116351]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Licences for programmes of work involving scientific or other experimental procedures on protected animals are granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  810W
  The number of such licences granted over any period is not indicative of the amount of animal research and testing work in progress in any sector or category, since licences are granted for varying terms up to a maximum of five years. More informative is the number of licences in force at the end of each year. Both sets of data have since 1998 been published in the annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain, copies of which are placed in the Library (the latest one, covering 2001, was published as Command 5581).

  For ease of reference the total number of project licencesin force at the end of each year, from 1998 to 2001, is shown in the table, with an indication of the percentage of licences operative in Government establishments:

  Year

  Total number of project licences in force at end of year

  Percentage of total project licences held in Government establishments

  1998

  3,650

  5

  1999

  3,378

  5

  2000

  3,481

  5

  2001

  3,650

  4

  Many other licensed programmes of work are financed from public funds, for example in higher education establishments, but collated data on funding and sponsorship sources is not readily available.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the proposal to establish a 3Rs administration centre as recommended in the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, HL Paper L50-I; and if he will make a statement on the funding to establish such a centre. [117363]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In our response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, published on 20 January 2003 (Cm 5729), the Government agreed to explore further the recommendation that a centre should be set up for research into the 3Rs—advanced methods which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. The inter-departmental group on the 3Rs, led by the Home Office, has been tasked with taking this forward. Issues of funding will form part of its review. I expect to receive a progress report on its findings in the autumn.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to consult on the proposed centre for the 3Rs in respect of animal experimentation and what timescale has been set out for the consultation process. [117609]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In our response the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, published on 20 January 2003 (Cm 5729), the Government agreed to explore further the recommendation that a centre should be set up for research into the 3Rs—advanced methods which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. The Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs, led by the Home Office, has been tasked with taking this forward.
  811W
  As a first step, the Inter-Departmental Group has conducted a survey to gather information on what is currently being done by way of research and development of methods and strategies allied to the 3Rs, what more scientific stakeholder; would like to see done, and how best further action might be pursued. I expect to receive a progress report on the Inter-Departmental Group's findings, including any proposals for further consultation, in the autumn.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and what plans he has to amend it; [116074]

  (2) if he will amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to prevent the duplication of experiments. [116350]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The 1986 Act provides a strong regulatory framework. It regulates any experimental or other scientific procedure applied to a "protected animal" that may have the effect of causing that animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. It provides an effective means by which to balance the need to protect animals from unnecessary suffering with the legitimate requirements of the scientific community (and the public) for medical and other essential research and safety testing. The system set up under the 1986 Act is flexible and responsive to changing circumstances and requirements and its enabling provisions allow changes to be made quickly and easily by administrative means, or using secondary legislation.

  The Animal Procedures Committee (ARC) review of the operation of the Act, published in its Annual Report for 1997, concluded that the Act provides a good framework for a well-regulated and responsible use of animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom. A number of recommendations arising from the ARC review to enhance the effectiveness of the Act have subsequently been implemented and further improvements are continually being sought. Further reviews are currently in hand of the cost benefit assessment (by the ARC) and of section 24 of the Act. A review of the format and content of the statistics of use of animals in scientific procedures has also recently been announced.

  We have no evidence that unnecessary duplicate testing takes place.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last 10 years for breaches of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [116352]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  During the 10 years 1992 to 2001 one prosecution is known to have taken place under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involving persons licensed under the Act. This was in 1998. However, prosecutions can be brought for carrying out scientific procedures on animals by persons not licensed under the Act but reliable information is not available on such cases.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received 812W
  from the Firearms Consultative Committee on Clauses 42 to 44 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [115972]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 28 April supporting the introduction of clause 42 but expressing some reservations, which not all members shared, about the proposed changes in the age limits for the unsupervised use of air weapons by people under 17 years old as set out in clause 43. The Committee were also concerned that the order-making power proposed in clause 44 for dealing with weapons that use the air cartridge system was too widely drawn and that compensation should be paid to existing owners if a ban was introduced. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has been made of the effectiveness and ease of implementation of anti-social behaviour(a) order and (b) contracts; what advice he is giving to (i) local councils and (ii) the police on the merits and drawbacks of each; and if he will make a statement. [117334]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Legislative changes were introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in response to problems identified by the Home Office review of ASBOs published in April 2002. These changes were accompanied by Home Office guidance on both ASBOs and Anti-Social Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) which was distributed to local authorities and police in November 2002.

  Further feedback from practitioners since the implementation of these measures has informed the proposed changes to ASBOs in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Unit is continuing to work with practitioners across the country to spread good practice in using the available tools, including ASBOs and ABCs, to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department will take to ensure that the Government's proposed pilot for extending fixed penalty fines for antisocial behaviour to 16 and 17-year-olds does not(a) breach Article 27 UN CRC, and (b) adversely affect its targets on reducing the level of child poverty; and if he will make a statement. [117795]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The pilots are intended to deal with antisocial behaviour by young people in an appropriate way without recourse to the full criminal justice process. This is in the interests both of society in general and of the young people themselves. We will however, consider how to evaluate the direct and any indirect effects of the scheme.

  Bail
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to ensure that prosecutors may appeal against bail decisions in cases where it is highly likely defendants may re-offend; [116243]
  813W
  (2) whether his proposals to provide the prosecution with extended rights of appeal against bail will apply to decisions taken in a Crown court; and if he will make a statement. [116244]

  Paul Goggins
  The Bail Act 1976 provides that the court may refuse bail if there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would commit an offence if released on bail. Where (in the case of an adult defendant) the evidence of such a risk is the fact that he was already on bail at the date of the offence, Clause 14 of the Criminal Justice Bill requires the court to refuse bail unless it is satisfied that there is no significant risk that he would commit an offence.

  The Bail Amendment Act 1993 gives the prosecution a right of appeal to the Crown court against a decision by magistrates to grant bail, but this is at present limited to cases where the defendant is charged with or convicted of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for five years or more (or an offence of taking a conveyance without authority or aggravated vehicle taking). Clause 18 of the Criminal Justice Bill extends this right of appeal to cover all imprisonable offences, as recommended by Lord Justice Auld. It will continue to apply only to decisions taken by magistrates courts.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to inform victims and witnesses of decisions relating to bail conditions of suspects and early release of prisoners. [116245]

  Paul Goggins
  In England and Wales (separate arrangements apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland), the police are generally responsible for keeping victims informed of case developments, up to and including their conclusion in the courts. At present, this would not routinely include informing victims about bail decisions although the police have discretion to do so in cases where, for example, it would put the victim at risk of harm if they were not so informed.

  One of our manifesto commitments is to introduce a Victims of Crime Bill during the course of this Parliament. The Bill, which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows, is likely to include a statutory Code of Practice to replace the Victim's Charter. The Code will place some 70 to 80 obligations on criminal justice agencies to deliver specific services, within prescribed timescales, to victims. Among these obligations will be a specific requirement for the police to inform victims of bail decisions and, when relevant, bail conditions.

  The Code will apply to victims, including those who go on to give evidence as witnesses. We also recognise that we need to do more to support witnesses who are not victims. An interagency working group has recently undertaken a wide-ranging review of the services provided to witnesses. Among other recommendations, it proposed improving the information given to witnesses and that good practice guidance be developed and disseminated following local pilot studies in witness care.
  814W
  Victims already have a right to be consulted about the release of prisoners. Since April 2001, the National Probation Service For England and Wales has had a statutory duty to consult and notify victims about all release arrangements and release conditions where an offender receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for a sexual or other violent offence. There are currently no plans to extend this service to witnesses.

  CCTV
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to his Department for CCTV funding have been rejected in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [117687]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A potential £170 million will be spent funding 684 CCTV schemes under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative.

  Under round one of the initiative in 1999–2000, 354 funding application s worth a potential £63 million were successful, 382 were unsuccessful and a further 12 were withdrawn.

  Under round two of the initiative in 2001, 332 funding applications worth a potential £106 million were successful, 449 (including statements of intent) were unsuccessful and a further 10 were withdrawn. Funding was subsequently withdrawn from two successful applicants.

  Charities Bill
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for the proposed Charities Bill. [116820]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit Report is a report to Government and does not represent settled Government Policy. Home Office officials have now completed their analysis of the responses for which the Home Office has responsibility. It is the Government's intention to publish during the summer a summary of the responses to the consultation and an indication as to how the Government propose to take the review's recommendations forward.

  Where recommendations have commanded general support and do not:require legislation, we aim to move as quickly as possible to implement them, although some may first need further policy development work.

  However, legislation would be needed to give effect to many of the recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given a commitment to publish a draft Charities Bill as soon as possible.

  Crime Statistics (East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population of each prison in Haltemprice and Howden was in the last quarter for which figures are available; and what the figures were for the preceding four quarters. [116733]

  Paul Goggins
  There are two prisons in the hon. Member's constituency, Everthorpe and Wolds. The population data for each of the two prisons for the most recent and the preceding four quarters is given in the following table.
  815W

  31 March 2002

  30 June 2002

  30 September 2002

  31 December 2002

  31 March 2003

  Everthorpe

  385

  374

  374

  365

  375

  Wolds

  405

  409

  403

  3111

  348

  1 Decrease in population at Wolds because of change of use from local prison to category C training prison.

  Crime/Policing (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the chance of becoming a victim of crime in Merseyside was in each year since 1995. [116473]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The larger sample size of the British Crime Survey (BCS) in 2001–02 has resulted in the ability, for the first time, to analyse data (questions that are asked of the whole sample) by police force area such as Merseyside. Results for the Best Value Performance Indicator 120 measuring risk of victimisation of both personal and household crime for Merseyside for 2001–02 interviews can be found in "Crime in England and Wales 2001–2002', Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02 (table 7.05). There is no comparable data for the years preceding 2001–02.

  Prior to the 2001–02 BCS there is only information available for the old Government Office Region (GOR) of Merseyside for the 1998 BCS (covering crime in 1997). Victimisation rates for violence, burglary and vehicle crime by GOR can be found in 'The 1998 British Crime Survey' Home Office Statistical Bulletin 21/98 (appendix tables A5.4, A5.10 and A5.15). This definition of GOR was not used in previous sweeps of the BCS.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of community support officers in the Sefton authority area; how many officers have been appointed; and what their primary duties are. [116476]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Merseyside police are currently evaluating the impact of their community support officers (CSOs). The results of this will be released in late October. To date, I understand, the CSOs have been very well received within the community.

  The Sefton area has nine CSOs, all of whom are allocated to the Bootle neighbourhood. Their primary duties are to supply a highly visible uniform presence within the neighbourhood and to assist in the gathering of information.

  Detention Cells
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the specifications for police detention cells differ from those for magistrates courts detention cells; and what proposals he has to enable dual use where new combined courts and police stations are constructed. [115240]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 22 May 2003]Cells in magistrates courts are designed to hold detainees during the periods when the courts are in session and may be used for multiple occupancy. Where detainees are held overnight they are usually transferred from magistrates court cells to other accommodation.
  816W
  Police cells are designed to hold detainees for 24 hours or longer and consequently usually do have provision for sleeping and in cell sanitation.

  Consideration is being given to some sharing by the police of magistrates court cells outside of the periods of court operations. This model is planned to be implemented and monitored at the new Warwickshire Criminal Justice Centre joint police station and magistrates court project.

  DNA Profiles
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 524W, on DNA profiles, what estimate he has made of the number of people without previous convictions who will be affected by his policy of permitting the retention of DNA information from people who are arrested and then released without charge in the first year of operation of the new policy. [116277]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My earlier reply stated that it was estimated that in the region of 300,000 arrests would be affected by this change in policy. Further research work indicates that around 177,000 people could potentially be liable to have a sample of DNA taken in the first year who would not have been previously. However, it is not currently possible to indicate how many of these people may have previous convictions.

  Dogs
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs were reported stolen in each year since 1997. [116843]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Double Jeopardy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to extend the exception to the rule of double jeopardy to offences other than those listed in schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [116246]

  Paul Goggins
  It will be necessary to include in Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Bill additional offences of equal seriousness, arising from changes to sexual offences currently before Parliament in the Sex Offences Bill. Other than this we have no plans to extend the exception to the double jeopardy rule to other offences.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted of drug dealing in the Greater London area in each of the last three years; and how many have been (i) sent to prison and (ii) fined; [117164]
  817W
  (2) how many foreign nationals have been convicted of drug dealing in the Greater London area in each of the last three years and when sent to prison have been recommended for deportation. [117165]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of men and women convicted in the Greater London area of drug dealing are given in the table, together with information on the number sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment or given a fine. The figures relate to 1998–2000, the last three years for which data are currently available.

  No information is collated centrally concerning the nationality of those convicted of drug offences.

  Number of persons convicted of drug dealing by gender and whether (i) sentenced to imprisonment or (ii) fined, Greater London, 1998–2000

  Year and gender

  Convicted

  Imprisoned

  Fined

  1998

  Male

  1,551

  896

  128

  Female

  190

  76

  7

  1999

  Male

  1,380

  882

  3

  Female

  189

  84

  6

  2000

  Male

  1,169

  738

  42

  Female

  105

  53

  4

  Notes:

  1. Police forces included in the total for the Greater London area are the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police Service.

  2. The term 'dealing' is taken to cover the following drug offences: possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply, and unlawful import/export.

  Source:

  Drug and Alcohol Research Programme.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many deaths have been caused by firearms within the Greater London area in each of the last five years; [117154]

  (2) how many crimes involving firearms have occurred in each of the last five years in the London borough of Wandsworth. [117156]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of homicides involving firearms in the London region in the last five years are given in the table.

  Number of firearm homicides

  19971

  26

  1998–99

  19

  1999–2000

  24

  2000–012

  28

  2001–022

  44

  1 Figures are on a calendar year basis for 1997, and thereafter on a financial year basis (12 months to Match).

  2 Figures recorded on the new boundary basis, as the Metropolitan Police ceded some areas to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey on 1 April 2000.

  Numbers of other firearm deaths are not collected by the Home Office.

  Numbers of firearm offences by London borough are not collected centrally.
  818W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the number of i legal firearms in circulation in the Greater London area. [117155]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The fact that firearms are being held illegally means it is difficult to assess accurately the numbers in circulation. However, steps are being taken to provide a clearer picture.

  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has expanded its firearms section and has a key role in pulling together, acting on and sharing good quality intelligence, particularly on the supply and movement of firearms.

  The setting up of the National Firearms Forensic Intelligence Database, supported by £1.4 million from the Home Office, will facilitate the linking of firearms offences through th; automatic correlation of ballistics tests. This will con tribute to a strategic overview of national firearms trends which will be available to all forces. Data is already being recorded on the information database in respect of cases submitted to the Forensic Science Service after 1 April 2003.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answers of 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 216W, on gun crime, how many weapons, and of what type, have been handed in (a) in total and (b) to each United Kingdom police force as part of the national gun amnesty. [117584]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Final figures for the amnesty will be made available soon. We are still waiting for confirmation of totals, together with detailed breakdowns of what was handed in, from a small number of police forces.

  Interface with Faith Communities
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way faith communities were consulted on the membership of his Department's Working Group which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities. [115973]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom and the Inner Cities Religious Council were consulted on the membership of the Working Group. These highly experienced bodies are fully representative of the wide range of faith communities living in the United Kingdom.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average age is of the faith community members of his Department's Working Group which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities. [115974]

  Beverley Hughes
  Age was not a consideration in inviting individuals from the faith communities to join the group. The sole criterion for selection was that individuals should have significant personal experience of having been involved in consultations by Government. The need to restrict the Group to a manageable size meant that only one such individual could be included from each of the five largest faith communities, as well as two further members to represent the Black-led Churches and the smaller faith communities.
  819W
  Adults of all ages have the opportunity to contribute to this review through their inputs to the questionnaires which have been sent to 106 faith representative organisations across the country.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria have been established for use by his Department's Working Group which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities, to assess which organisations will represent faith communities in consultations with different Government departments. [115976]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Working Group will consider draft criteria at its next meeting on 20 June 2003.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) membership and (b) terms of reference are of his Department's Review Steering Group to whom his Department's Working Group, which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities, will report. [115977]

  Beverley Hughes
  These details will be announced later this month.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Gurdwara councils formally consulted as part of the mapping exercise by his Department's Working Group which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities; and what criteria were used to select the councils. [115978]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend, (Lord Filkin) will write to my hon Friend with a list of the Gurdwara Councils which have been consulted. These were selected on authoritative advice as those which have particular experience of having been consulted by local and national Government, and to achieve a regional spread

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which Sikh organisations a questionnaire has been sent by his Department's Working Group reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities; and what criteria were used to select the organisations. [115979]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend, (Lord Filkin) will write to my hon. Friend with a list of the 38 national and local Sikh organisations which have been sent the questionnaire.

  Regarding the criteria used in their selection, I refer my hon. Friend to the second part of the written reply given to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on 19 May 2003, Official Report, column 643W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam's written questions tabled for answer on 7 May on the Criminal Records Bureau. [113535]

  Paul Goggins
  The hon. Member's questions were answered on 21 May 2003,Official Report, columns 865–67W, 22 May 2003, Official Report, columns 986–88W, and 28 May 2003, Official Report, column 92W, and on 2 June 2003, Official Report, columns 140–43W.

  Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers based in the London borough of Wandsworth have been subjected to physical attacks during the last 12 months. [117157]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Police Response Vehicles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police response vehicles are available(a) in each London borough and (b) to the British Transport Police; and if he will make a statement. [117689]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of police response vehicles available in each London borough is set out in the table. The three British Transport Police operational areas covering London (which police an area larger than that covered by the London boroughs) have 21 response cars and 17 response motorcycles.

  London borough

  Instant response vehicles

  Area cars

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  4

  9

  Barnet

  20

  3

  23

  Bexley

  8

  2

  10

  Brent

  15

  2

  17

  Bromley

  11

  3

  14

  Camden

  12

  5

  17

  Croydon

  12

  4

  16

  Ealing

  9

  2

  11

  Enfield

  5

  5

  10

  Greenwich

  12

  5

  17

  Hackney

  11

  5

  16

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  3

  11

  Haringey

  10

  3

  13

  Harrow

  7

  2

  9

  Havering

  8

  4

  12

  Hillingdon

  10

  4

  14

  Hounslow

  12

  2

  14

  Islington

  12

  4

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6

  2

  8

  Kingston

  9

  1

  10

  Lambeth

  21

  6

  27

  Lewisham

  9

  3

  12

  Merton

  7

  3

  10

  Newham

  10

  5

  15

  Redbridge

  12

  4

  16

  Richmond

  8

  2

  10

  Southwark

  21

  6

  27

  Sutton

  6

  1

  7

  Tower Hamlets

  10

  4

  14

  Waltham Forest

  9

  5

  14

  Wandsworth

  14

  4

  18

  Westminster

  17

  4

  21

  Heathrow

  7

  —

  7

  Total

  353

  112

  465

  Note:

  All the above vehicles are classed by the Metropolitan police as "response vehicles", However, there are many other vehicles used in Boroughs that also respond to calls e.g. vans, panda cars, CID cars.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many police response vehicles have been in road accidents while on operational duty in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement. (20617)
  821W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of accidents in England and Wales involving police vehicles which were engaged in immediate/emergency response or pursuit at the time of the accident, are as follows:

  Number of accidents

  2000–01

  6,019

  2001–02

  4,985

  Notes:

  1. The information is provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to which forces submit statistical returns.

  2. All figures are for financial years.

  3. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  4. Two forces did not submit a return in 2001–02.

  The Government welcome the recognition by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that they must work to reduce the number of collisions involving police vehicles.

  ACPO are working closely with the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) to identify why they occur and how they might be avoided. Useful information can be expected from the increasing use by forces of Automatic Data Recorders (ADR) and Vehicle Accident Data Recorders (VADR). These operate in a similar way to aircraft black boxes, providing data on such issues as speed, gear changes, braking, and the use of blue lights.

  Police Standards Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has taken place of the Police Standards Unit since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [117335]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The work of the Police Standards Unit (PSU) is assessed regularly and its contribution to the Department's Public Service Agreements scrutinised. In addition, its programme of work is subject to management monitoring through regular programme board meetings on accepted programme management procedures. Its major projects, including, for example, performance improvement work with forces and the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and the Policing Priority Areas projects, are the subject of rigorous independent evaluation providing an assessment of success against objectives. Where appropriate, such evaluation produces good practice models for promulgating to the police service.

  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents police vehicles have been involved in, in each year since 1997. [116920]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The total number of police vehicle accidents in England and Wales since 1997 are as follows:

  Number

  1997–98

  16,946

  1998–99

  17,338

  1999–2000

  18,068

  2000–01

  19,266

  2001–02

  16,826

  822W
  Notes:

  1. The information is provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to which forces submit statistical returns.

  2. All figures are for financial years.

  3. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  4. The figures include all incidents in which a police vehicle sustains damage, including those where no other vehicle is involved. They encompass a very wide range of incidents from the very serious to the trivial, such as a scratched vehicle in a police yard.

  Policing Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces applied for the special grant available to meet additional policing costs arising from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee; how much each police force applied for; how much was granted; and if he will make a statement. [117329]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Police authorities are expected to make financial provision to deal with unusual or infrequent events. Where exceptional additional costs cannot be met from existing police authority reserves it is open to forces to apply for a special grant. Any such applications are considered within existing departmental provision for special grants.

  The only force to make application for additional grant in connection with the costs of policing the Golden Jubilee was the Metropolitan Police Service which subsequently received an additional £49 million to counter increased risks of terrorism, including funding to cover the Golden Jubilee costs.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much counselling is given to prison officers following serious incidents in order to allow recovery. [116949]

  Paul Goggins
  Counselling is available to staff following a serious incident in the Prison Service. The Prison Service Staff Care and Welfare Service (SCWS) provides an externally sourced, specialist service for those staff who are assessed as requiring counselling. BMI Health Services, the occupational health advisors to the Prison Service also assess and where appropriate, recommend treatment designed to support staff as part of their return to work programme.

  In the last 12 months, over 400 prison staff have been provided with an average of seven counselling sessions per person following incidents in establishments. The counselling budget available to SCWS has been significantly increased in the current financial year recognising the importance that the Prison Service places on staff support services.

  Additionally, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), a specialised service for staff suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has been introduced. Between January and April 2003 three staff have been referred for EM DR treatment. Contact has also been made with 'Combat Stress', an armed forces welfare society for ex-forces staff. They provide specialist support services for those staff that are found to be suffering from PTSD, which has been specifically linked to incidents experienced while on active service. A fast track psychological referral system

  823W
  is also being piloted in two Prison Service areas for staff suffering from work related stress, anxiety and depression. Funding for this activity is being provided by area managers.

  Appropriate use is also made of counselling services provided by general practitioners and specialist treatment services available within the NHS.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist for prison officers to be moved to non-inmate contact work following stress related incidents in the Prison Service. [116950]

  Paul Goggins
  Support for staff following stress related incidents is managed by the establishment at which they work. There are a number of options in each establishment to deploy officers on non-prisoner contact duties. Such duties are given for a time bound period to assist in rehabilitation and recovery from a stress related incident.

  The individual needs of an officer are considered in each case and the decision to offer alternative work is guided by medical and support service advice. Establishments have full access to occupational health advice. It is a mandatory requirement to seek occupational health advice in serious stress related illness cases. Staff care and welfare services will also provide additional support and counselling services.

  While the non-prisoner contact duties will vary between prisons, they would normally include training, gate duties, administration or non-contact security work. Officers may also be relocated outside of the prison at which an incident occurred.

  Prison Service
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce staff shortages in the prison service. [116047]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service has increased prison officer recruitment from an average 1,000 a year to 2,096 during 2002–03. In line with all other staff recruitment, responsibility for officer recruitment has now been devolved to area and establishment level in order that areas of specific need can be addressed more effectively by local advertising and recruitment campaigns.

  Recruitment campaigns are currently being run in areas where shortages have been identified and provision has been made to train a further 2,200 new officers during the current financial year. Additionally, to assist in the retention of staff in areas of high turnover, local allowances have been introduced.

  Recovered Assets Fund
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial benefits from the confiscation of criminals' assets have been designated to the Recovered Assets Fund; what this money has been spent on; and if he will make a statement. [117683]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A total of £14.5 million of receipts recovered from confiscated criminal assets was distributed through the Recovered Assets Fund (RAF)824W
  in the year 2002–03. 48 projects received funding under the scheme. Grants were allocated to projects under the following RAF criteria:
  Asset Recovery—six projects at a cost of £1.6 million;
  Pro-active anti-drugs projects—16 projects at a cost of £6.5 million;
  Innovative law enforcement and crime reduction—15 projects at a cost of £5.4 million;
  Community regeneration and crime reduction—11 projects at a cost of £964,000.

  Special Constables
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables are employed in each police area in England. [117772]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Police strength figures are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. The latest available figures for Special Constables in England are for March 2002 and are shown in the table.

  Police forces (England)

  Strength at 31 March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  364

  Bedfordshire

  118

  Cambridgeshire

  207

  Cheshire

  191

  Cleveland

  85

  Cumbria

  102

  Derbyshire

  260

  Devon and Cornwall

  689

  Dorset

  253

  Durham

  134

  Essex

  381

  Gloucestershire

  154

  Greater Manchester

  338

  Hampshire

  444

  Hertfordshire

  206

  Humberside

  207

  Kent

  327

  Lancashire

  363

  Leicestershire

  143

  Lincolnshire

  155

  City of London

  36

  Merseyside

  468

  Metropolitan police

  680

  Norfolk

  244

  Northamptonshire

  177

  Northumbria

  256

  North Yorkshire

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  341

  South Yorkshire

  206

  Staffordshire

  384

  Suffolk

  308

  Surrey

  187

  Sussex

  306

  Thames Valley

  356

  Warwickshire

  209

  West Mercia

  339

  West Midlands

  598

  West Yorkshire

  349

  Wiltshire

  147

  Theft from Vehicles
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what priority his Department is giving to reducing the incidence of the theft of goods from heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement; [118594]

  (2) how many thefts of goods from heavy goods vehicles with a value in excess of £10,000 took place in each of the last three years. [118595]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Reducing vehicle crime, including thefts from heavy goods vehicles, is an essential part of the Government's crime reduction strategy. One measure of the priority that the Home Office attaches to reducing such thefts is the support we are giving to the National Stolen Lorry Load Desk. The Desk, run by the Metropolitan police, collects and analyses information about thefts from heavy goods vehicles and shares it with police and industry to help prevent and detect this crime. The Home Office supported the Desk financially with contributions of £36,000 in 2001–02 and £50,000 in 2002–03, and we are providing £50,000 in 2003–04; matching contributions are raised by industry.

  Information on the numbers and values of thefts of goods from lorries is not available centrally. But information provided by the National Stolen Lorry Load Desk shows that the value of property stolen from heavy goods vehicles in thefts notified to and recorded by the Desk amounted to £100 million in 2000, £145 million in 2001 and £124 million in 2002.

  Traffic Offences
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which constabularies operate quotas for the minimum number of people fined for traffic offences; and if he will make a statement. [116461]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No constabulary operates such quotas. When a motorist is detected committing an offence the police must decide according to the circumstances of each particular case whether to offer a fixed penalty. If a fixed penalty is not offered, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide on prosecution and if there is a prosecution for the court to decide on conviction and any consequent fine.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were issued with fixed penalty notices by each constabulary in England and Wales in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [116462]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information for 1997 and 2001 (latest available) can be found in Tables 20(a), (b) and (c) of the annual Home Office publication, Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales: supplementary tables. Copies are in the Library. 2002 data will be available in the autumn.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people under the age of 826W
  18 were serving custodial sentences in England and Wales on 1 May 2003. [116711]

  Paul Goggins
  There were 2,259 young people under the age of 18 serving custodial sentences in England and Wales on 1 May 2003.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been granted(a) indefinite leave to remain and (b) exceptional leave to remain in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [115228]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 May 2003]: The latest available information is given in the table.

  By way of background, indefinite leave to remain (ILR) can be granted in a variety of circumstances, for example to married and unmarried partners who have successfully completed a two year probationary period, long residence, in employment and business categories, such as work permit employment. A migrant can apply to settle in the United Kingdom as long as they meet the requirements set out in the Rules. In general these are that the migrant has been continuously resident in the UK save for a short trips abroad, for a minimum of four years; and still meets the requirements for stay under that category; and is still required in the UK for employment. Since July 1998, a person granted refugee status will have also been granted ILR concurrently.

  Under the Immigration Rules, ILR will also be granted to dependent children of people settled here who are aged under 18. Also, children who are admitted for adoption to someone settled here will qualify for ILR, once the formal adoption proceedings have been completed.

  A person who has completed four years exceptional leave may also apply for ILR. The rises in grants of exceptional leave to remain (ELR) have been contributed by a record number of initial decisions in 2001 (119,015) and high levels in 2002 (82,715), and by changes in the mix of applicant nationalities. All cases are decided on their individual merits. The main nationalities to be granted ELR in 2002 were Iraqi (8,130), Afghans (4,710) and Somali (1,400).

  On 1 April 2003, exceptional leave for failed asylum seekers was replaced by two forms of leave—Humanitarian Protection (HP) and Discretionary Leave (DL). They are more focused than exceptional leave and early signs are that we will see a reduction in those granted HP and DL compared to those who were previously granted exceptional leave. We have also ensured that the Secretary of State's over-riding discretion in immigration matters has been retained by introducing the concept of Leave Outside the Rules (LOTR). This, as previously, will be used in those wholly exceptional cases in which it would be inappropriate to remove someone from the UK even though they do not qualify under the Rules.
  827W

  Table 1: Grants of settlement and exceptional leave to remain1, United Kingdom2, 1998–2002

  Total grants of settlement

  Asylum cases granted ELR

  Exceptional leave granted when applicant had not applied for asylum

  Total

  On removal of time limit (ILR)

  Settlement on arrival (ILE)

  Cases considered under normal procedures3

  Considered under backing clearance exercise4

  1998

  69,790

  66,895

  2,895

  3,910

  —

  2,830

  1999

  97,115

  90,275

  6,845

  2,465

  10,195

  1,480

  2000

  125,090

  117,750

  7,335

  11,495

  10,020

  1,780

  20015

  106,820

  96,460

  10,355

  19,845

  —

  680

  20025

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19,965

  —

  n/a

  n/a = Not yet available

  1 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  3 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  5 Provisional data

  Note:

  Data for 2002 will be published in August 2003.

  Work Permits
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people with Tier One work permits renewed their visa in each year from 1997 to 2002. [116065]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of Tier One work permit extensions issued since 2000 (the earliest date for which data is held) is as follows:

  2000 11,613

  2001 19,830

  2002 27,010

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual budget is of Work Permits UK; how many staff it employs; how much it will spend this year on marketing its services within the UK; and how many work permits it is empowered to issue each year. [116885]

  Beverley Hughes
  The budget allocation for Work Permits (UK) for the financial year 2003/2004 depends on the outcome of continuing discussions between the Home Office and the Treasury. However, from 1 April 2003, employers are charged £95 for the consideration of each work permit application and this will enable WP (UK) to recover a large part of the cost of running the organisation, plus relevant Home Office overheads. Apart from the new Sectors Based Scheme, which is subject to a quota 20,000 permits, the work permit service is demand-led and responds to the needs of UK employers to recruit overseas workers. Staffing levels within WP (UK) are set according to this demand. WP (UK) currently employs 480 staff.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the number of work permits for the leisure and hospitality industry. [118351]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a number of ways in which it intends to maximise benefits to the UK economy of managed migration routes to fill skills shortages and improve productivity. This includes the new sector-based work permit scheme which began on 30 May 2003 and will operate in the hospitality and 828W
  food manufacturing sectors. Each sector will have a quota of 10,000 permits. Following consultation, these sectors were identified as having labour needs that could not be met by the United Kingdom or the European Economic Area workforce.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued for non-EU residents for the leisure and hospitality industry in each year since 1999. [118352]

  Beverley Hughes
  The following figures are all approved work permit applications in the hospitality sector for the years in question:

  Year

  Hospitality sector

  1999

  1,027

  2000

  2,046

  2001

  5,379

  2002

  12,136

  2003(January-May)

  6,029

  Separate figures are not available for the leisure sector.

HEALTH

  Additives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Government plans to recommend a maximum number of additives in a product; [116892]

  (2) what steps he is taking to inform parents of additives in children's food; and what publicity material has been issued. [116891]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the responses I gave him on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 365W.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the
  829W
  use and abuse of alcohol in other EU countries with special reference to (a) binge drinking and (b) young people; [117823]

  (2) what recent research he has commissioned into the treatment of alcohol abusers in the European Union; [118608]

  (3) what comparative research he has commissioned into the costs to health services in the EU of alcohol abuse. [118609]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has been working closely with my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister's strategy unit on a project to develop the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. As part of this project, the strategy unit is due to publish an interim analysis in the summer. The analysis will consider issues around treatment for those with an alcohol problem and the costs to health services of alcohol-related harm. It will also make reference both to binge drinking and young people and will draw, where relevant, on international and European comparisons. The final report, which will set out the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy is planned for publication in the autumn.

  Anaesthetic Machines
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are anaesthetic machines capable of delivering hypoxic gas mixtures used in the NHS that operate without an(a) oxygen analyser and (b) antihypoxic guard. [116947]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) published SN2001(15) in May 2001 on "Anaesthetic Machines: Prevention of Hypoxic Gas Mixtures". This advised that all anaesthetic machines capable of delivering hypoxic gas mixtures must have a hypoxic guard fitted or use oxygen analyser with audible alarms to warn of the delivery of hypoxic gas mixtures.

  As a follow up to this safety notice, in October 2001, Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Dr. David Jefferys, Chief Executive of MDA, wrote joint letters to chief executives of trusts and regional directors of public health requesting that they report back on how the actions recommended in the safety notice had been implemented. By 31 October 2002, all 5,843 anaesthetic machines in national health service hospitals in England complied with the safety notice by having either an anti-hypoxic guard or an oxygen analyser with alarms.

  We do not centrally hold records of the number of anaesthetic machines which have both the guard and the analyser as this information was not required in either the safety notice or CMO/MDA joint letter.

  Asthma
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is undertaking into the links between allergies and asthma. [116446]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the cause and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. Asthma is a priority area for the MRC. It supports a wide range of research projects looking at asthma ranging from basic 830W
  research to clinical studies. The MRC spent an estimated £3 million in 2001–02 on research in this area, including research of direct relevance to allergies and asthma.

  The Department of Health is funding research on air pollution and asthma under its Policy Research Programme (PRP). Current work is focused in two areas:
  potential confounding effects of allergens in ambient air in determining the effects of air pollution as asthma exacerbations, effects of other air pollutants on patients with asthma.

  The Department is also funding a £100,000 project at the David Hide Asthma & Allergy Research Centre on the effect of a low allergen indoor environment on exacerbations of asthma.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were tested for HER2 last year. [114726]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health does not collect figures on the level of HER2 testing.

  Decisions on whether to carry out HER2 testing will be made by clinicians, based on factors such as the extent of the disease, previous treatment experience and the patient's fitness and wishes.

  Care Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the specification for the integrated care records system will be completed. [118101]

  Mr. Hutton
  The specification for the integrated care records service (ICRS) was completed in early May 2003, and issued on 16 May 2003 to the successful candidates who had progressed from the pre-qualification stage of the procurement process. 22 have been long-listed as potential local service providers and seven as potential national application service providers.

  The specification will enable bidders to propose a solution to the stated requirements.

  For the purpose of the procurement, the country has been split into five geographic areas ('clusters').

  A second specification will be issued at a later stage of the procurement process to provide details relevant to each cluster.

  Chest Pain Clinics
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of rapid access chest pain clinics. [116896]

  Ms Blears
  The Government has no plans to increase the number of rapid access chest pain clinics. These clinics are now serving all parts of the country. National health service service providers in some parts of the country may decide to open additional clinics, should this be required to ensure that all patients are seen within two weeks of referral by their general practitioner.

  8/Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the terms and conditions under which diagnostic and treatment centres (DTCs) will provide non-urgent surgery to the NHS; how many non-NHS units and companies have been asked to tender; what the(a) nationality and (b) company HQ address is of the non-NHS companies on the list; what terms and conditions will be applicable to non-NHS staff working in DTCs; and what legal protection will be offered to patients receiving treatment outside the NHS from private DTCs. [115174]

  Mr. Hutton
  There will be national health service run and independent sector-run diagnosis and treatment centres (DTCs) providing non-urgent surgery to NHS patients. NHS-run DTCs will be part of NHS trusts and will be subject to NHS governance and standards; independent sector DTCs will be expected to meet independent sector standards and will be regulated and inspected by the National Care Standards Commission. The intention is that the contracts for independent sector DTCs will be based on a standard project agreement containing a common core set of terms and conditions reflecting this. 15 companies have been short-listed and their details can be found at: http:// www.doh.gov.uk/growingcapacity/news.htm This will be updated with further information on a regular basis.

  To comply with employment and health and safety legislation, guidance on pre and post-employment checks and all clinical staff will need to be registered with the appropriate regulatory body and properly trained and competent to carry out the roles required of them.

  Patients treated at NHS expense in DTCs will remain NHS patients and their rights as NHS patients will not be affected. They will, for example, have a right to use the NHS complaints procedure, and providers will be expected to co-operate with the investigation of complaints under that procedure.

  Chewing Tobacco
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the sale of chewing tobacco. [116887]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health's policy aims to reduce tobacco consumption in any form. Chewing tobacco is a legal tobacco product, though it is not as widely available as other forms of tobacco and is popular among some ethnic communities. The national health service offers support through its Smoking Helpline on 0800 169 0 169, its Asian helplines and smoking cessation services across the country for those who wish to quit.

  In common with all other tobacco products, chewing tobacco is required to be labelled under the Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002, which require health warnings to be displayed. On chewing tobacco products, this warning reads "This tobacco product can damage your health and is addictive."

  Communicable Disease Report
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which agency produces the Communicable Disease Report; how frequently it is issued; and to how many NHS organisations it is distributed. [116884]

  Ms Blears
  The Communicable Disease Report (CDR) is produced by the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre (CDSC) of the Health Protection Agency and is published weekly on its web site. An email version of the CDR is also available on request, at no charge, which is currently sent out to around 1,700 addresses every week—including at least 1,000 recipients in the national health service.

  The CDSC no longer routinely produces paper copies of this publication.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 24 April 2003 regarding a constituent, ref P01028404. [117205]

  Ms Blears [holding answer 9 June 2003]
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 6 June 2003.

  Drug Dependence
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of treatment for drug dependence in people with severe personality and psychotic disorders in London. [116501]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 11 national health service providers of mental health services in London. These providers either directly provide or have made arrangements for the provision of NHS and independent sector in-patient, out-patient and community services for people with drug dependence who also have severe personality or psychotic disorders.

  The local borough-based planning and commissioning of these services is co-ordinated by the local drug action teams.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114115]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Spending Review 2002 value for money public service agreement target requires that value for money in the national health service and personal social services will improve by at least 2 per cent. per annum, with annual improvements of 1 per cent. in both cost efficiency and service effectiveness.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116090]

  Ms Blears
  There is a number of Council and Commission groups dealing with matters of concern to the Department. The most appropriate nature of
  833W
  attendance by officials depends on the particular matter, or matters, under discussion and therefore what expertise is required to take discussions forward.

  Exercise Pilots
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the scope of the local exercise pilots, due to begin in September 2003. [116889]

  Ms Blears
  The local exercise action pilots (LEAP) programme will evaluate the effectiveness of nine primary care trust led, community pilots across the country, aimed at increasing levels of physical activity in priority groups.

  Individual pilots will aim to reach a minimum of 50,000 people, including individual target groups of approximately 1,000 people. Each pilot site will receive up to £200,000 funding over three years to develop interventions.

  The pilots will cover a variety of innovative approaches, ranging from incorporating activity into everyday life to providing structured opportunities in local facilities.

  While all of the pilots will take place in neighbourhood renewal fund areas, the interventions will take place in a range of locations including urban, rural areas, green spaces, market towns and sport action zones. The key target groups for the interventions are:

  children and young people;

  older people;

  black and ethnic minority groups;

  people at risk of illness; and

  people recovering from heart attack or stroke.

  In addition, other groups have been identified such as people with diabetes, teenage mothers and people on low incomes.

  A national evaluation will, qualitatively and quantitatively, assess the overall effectiveness of the programme and the individual pilots in increasing levels of physical activity.

  Food Ingredients
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received for(a) industry bodies, (b) consumers and parent organisations, (c) hon. Members and (d) others, about the proposal for amending EU Directive 2000/13/EC on ingredients present in foodstuffs. [116358]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is in regular contact with a wide range of interested parties, including representatives of industry, consumer groups, enforcement authorities and health professionals regarding the proposal for amending EU Directive 2000/ 13/EC on ingredients present in foodstuffs. Most recently, the FSA has received a number of representations from consumer and industry representatives, including concerns about the implications for labelling of some processed ingredients.
  834W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by(a) his Department and (b) the Food Standards Agency to ensure that proposed amendments to European food labelling legislation do not require the labelling of products as containing wheat or egg if the only such presence is a derivative of the original substance which no longer contains the established allergenic component. [116359]

  Ms Blears
  As currently drafted, the European Commission's proposal for amendments to European Union labelling rules would require not only that all derivatives of listed allergenic ingredients be declared in the ingredients list, but that the same allergenic ingredient, for example, wheat or egg, also be declared. In cases where the derivatives no longer have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, this additional information is unnecessary and could cause undue concern to allergic consumers. The Food Standards Agency has discussed this issue with interested parties and is supporting revision of the proposal to address this issue by establishing a list of derivatives for which the source allergenic ingredient would not need to be declared, pending evaluation of scientific evidence supporting a permanent exemption.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposal for amending European legislation on ingredients in foodstuffs on(a) coeliac patients, (b) those at risk of anaphylaxis, (c) those with special dieting requirements and (d) diabetics. [116360]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have consulted widely on the European Commission's proposal to amend the European Food Labelling Directive 2000/13/EC, as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs. Its assessment of the implications has included consideration of the potential benefits to consumers, the implications for enforcement authorities and the potential costs to the food industry. Its view is that the proposed changes would be of particular benefit to consumers with anaphylaxis and with coeliac disease, because it will ensure food labels provide comprehensive information on those ingredients which are most likely to cause intolerance reactions. The proposal would also have a wider benefit for all consumers, including those with special dietary requirements such as diabetics, because it would remove the 25 per cent. compound ingredient rule, which currently allows declaration of a compound ingredient rather than its constituent ingredients, so long as that ingredient contributes less than 25 per cent. of the weight of the product.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has undertaken an assessment of the labelling changes for foodstuffs on the UK market, and other implications of the European proposal for amending Directive 2000/13/EC on derived ingredients. [116361]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has consulted widely on the European Commission's proposal to amend the European Food Labelling Directive 2000/13/EC, as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs. Its assessment of the implications has included consideration of the potential benefits to consumers, the implications for enforcement authorities and the potential costs to the food industry. The Government are broadly supportive of the
  835W
  proposal, which will deliver benef ts to all consumers, but particularly to allergic consumers. As far as derivatives are concerned, however, the Government's view is that the proposal, as currently drafted, would require, in some cases, unnecessary, and potentially misleading, additional labelling as to the source of the ingredient. The Government are supporting revisions which would prevent this unnecessary labelling.

  The FSA continues to consult with interested parties as negotiations progress and to refine its impact assessment as amendments are made.

  Foundation Hospital Trusts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the role of foundation hospital trusts will affect the role of primary care trusts as commissioning bodies. [117331]

  Mr. Hutton
  In their role as commissioners, primary care trusts will continue to take the lead in needs assessment and specifying service requirements, with national health service foundation trusts developing and providing services in partnership with other providers in the local health and social care community.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts were rejected in the recent assessment of those eligible to proceed with an application for foundation status. [116877]

  Mr. Hutton
  Three national health service trusts were not shortlisted. These are East Cheshire, Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases and Frimley Park. In each case the trusts have decided to defer establishing as NHS foundation trusts until October 2004 in order to be better placed to make a success of the new freedoms.

  GPs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practice posts there are within the national health service in England. [117079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The total number of all general practitioners in post in England as at 31 March 2002 was 32,011.

  Health Service Statistics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of Quarter 4 2002–03 emergency readmission and delayed discharge figures in the Library. [117125]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Quarter 4 (March 2003) figures on delayed discharge and emergency readmission should be completed by the end of June and when they are available I will place a copy in the Library.

  Hip and Knee Replacement
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is to the NHS for the parts needed for a replacement(a) hip and (b) knee operation. [117200]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect this information.
  836W
  The National Joint Registry was launched on 1 April 2003, and will collect data on total hip and knee replacement operations. This will provide national health service trusts with information about the performance of hip and knee implants and will allow them to improve their evidence based purchasing of implants.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the NHS is of hip operations carried out on British patients in hospitals in(a) France and (b) Germany. [116682]

  Mr. Hutton
  A procurement process identifying spare capacity abroad is currently active, so the costs of specific procedures abroad are commercially sensitive. However, prices are comparable to spot purchasing in the United Kingdom private sector.

  Hospital Financing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional capital will be available to the NHS when NHS foundation trusts are able to access capital from both the public and private sectors. [116291]

  Mr. Hutton
  Capital spending by national health service foundation trusts will count against the Department's spending limits agreed through the Spending Review process. However, subject to legislation, under the new arrangements capital spending by foundation trusts will be determined locally according to each trust's needs. Block capital needs (to cover care and maintenance) will be covered in the national tariff paid to foundation trusts for NHS services under contracts with primary care trusts. Providing they act in a way that is consistent with their terms of authorisation, foundation trusts will be free to borrow capital up to a prudential limit for spending on strategic developments. Foundation trusts will also be free to enter into joint venture arrangements—which may provide an additional source of capital investment that helps deliver their NHS functions. And as now they will be able to enter into Private Finance Initiative arrangements for major developments.

  Hospital Operations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the suspension guidelines for waiting lists for NHS trust hospital operations. [116013]

  Mr. Hutton
  The guidelines for suspending patients are available on the National Health Service Information Authority data standards website at www.nhsia.nhs.uk/datastandards/pages/ddm/index. htm

  Hospital Trusts (Liability)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will be required to accept vicarious liability for the actions of all their employees for the purposes of insurance. [116839]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is a well-established common law principle that employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, when acting in their capacity as employees. This principle will apply to national health service foundation trusts.

  Hospitals (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on admissions to hospitals in the London Borough of Havering in the last year for which figures are available. [115331]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not have data at borough level. However, Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust, the trust in the borough of Havering, had 57,825 elective admissions for 2002–03, a growth increase of 10.4 per cent. from 2001–02 and 37,730 non elective admissions for 2002–03, a growth increase of 1.1 per cent, from 2001–02. It should also be noted that this trust includes hospitals from outside the Havering area, notably the King George Hospital in Ilford.

  In-patient Deaths
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance is made for local population ages when assessing hospital performances for in-patient death rates. [116455]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current indicators of in-patient death rates use a technique called 'age—sex standardisation' to take into account the different age structures of the patients treated by different hospital trusts.

  Induced Abortion
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the links between induced abortion and(a) clinical depression and (b) breast cancer. [117167]

  Ms Blears
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' evidence-based guideline, "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion" (2000), considered the mental health implications of termination and concluded that only a small minority of women experience any long-term, adverse psychological sequelae after abortion. Referral for counselling is available for those women.

  The guideline also concluded that the available evidence on an association between induced abortion and breast cancer is inconclusive. Cancer Research UK is undertaking a study which is considering the full range of potential risk factors for breast cancer. This is an important and complex international research project. We understand that Cancer Research UK intends to publish the work when it is available.

  Legal Action
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what redress there is. for patients who believe they have been mistreated as a witness in an NHS disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of a doctor against whom they have made a complaint. [116821]

  Mr. Hutton
  A disciplinary process concerning a doctor is a matter between the doctor and the national health service trust as his/her employer. Patients who believe they have been mistreated as a witness can complain to the appropriate level of authority, for example, the chair of the panel, the chair of the trust, or, if appropriate, the relevant professional body.

  Medical Staff (Malawi)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses from Malawi are working in the UK. [116408]

  Mr. Hutton
  At 30 September 2001, census data in England recorded five doctors qualified in Malawi in the national health service hospital and community health services sector and none in general practice.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) registers all nurses who work in the United Kingdom and holds statistics for the number of overseas nurses who are accepted onto their register. Being placed on the NMC register does not equate to being employed.

  In the past five years, the number of nurses from Malawi that have been accepted on to the NMC register is:

  Nurses from Malawi accepted on to the NMC register

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Malawi

  1

  15

  45

  75

  57

  Information on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken on vaccination strategy and its possible impact on meningitis. [117549]

  Ms Blears
  Clinical trials are currently being carried out to examine the suitability of including pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the childhood immunisation programme. Research is also being undertaken to decide whether a routine Hib booster will be needed in future.

  Following the success of the Meningitis C campaign, Meningococcal B vaccines are in development and will be considered for inclusion in the childhood programme as soon as they become available.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on links between HiB vaccines and strains of meningitis. [117600]
  839W
  Ms Blears
  Hib vaccine prevents infection from Haemophilus influenzae type B (HiB) disease. Wherever the vaccine has been introduced, there has been no evidence of any effect on non-type B Haemophilus strains, nor has it been thought that there was any effect on other infections causing meningitis.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the pilot scheme in Lambeth to raise awareness of and treatment for young men suffering from depression. [115095]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am informed that there is no specific scheme in Lambeth, which particularly targets young men with depression. However, I understand that there are a number of projects and services which contain elements of such a scheme but all can be accessed by both genders. Some of these services include:A Health Promotion Team based at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Trust which, as part of its programme, offers training in mental health awareness aimed at reducing stigma and increasing willingness to access services.
  Access to practice-based counselling services by most Lambeth general practitioners to which they can refer people with mild—moderate depression.
  The Lambeth Early Onset (LEO) service aimed at reaching people in the early stagesof a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia to help prevent deterioration in their mental health. The service is for young people aged 18–35.
  24 hour access to mental health services through the accident and emergency based psychiatric liaison service and home treatment team, both located at St.Th Dmas' Hospital.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to conduct a tracking investment exercise to establish where funds promised for the development of mental health services are being utilised. [117571]

  Jacqui Smith
  With the publication of the mental heath national service framework (NSF) a local structure was developed to support delivery, the local implementation teams. There are 166 of these across England, and they are teams who represent the whole of the local mental heath community.

  Since the mental health NSF was published, there has been an annual assessment of progress. That assessment has developed and now contains the following elements:

  self assessment of progress by local services;

  service mapping; and

  financial mapping.

  Through these elements the investment in developing mental health services is tracked.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional(a) crisis resolution teams, (b) assertive outreach teams, (c) community gateway staff, (d) staff to give breaks to carers and strengthen carer support, (e) court assessment schemes and (f) medium secure services have been established in the South Wiltshire area of the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust in 2003–04; whether there is now a full community mental health team in South Wiltshire; and by how much the mental health budget will change in South Wiltshire this year. [114671]
  840W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Advice from the Avon Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is that in the South Wiltshire area of the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership National Health Service Trust in 2003–04:there have been no additional crisis resolution teams although plans are in place to develop this service;
  there has been one additional assertive outreach team:
  there has been no additional community gateway staff, although this element of the service is subject to review;
  there have been no additional court assessment schemes as the SHA believes the current court assessment scheme meets the need in the area;
  there have been no additional medium secure services as the SHA believes there are already sufficient medium secure beds in the South Wiltshire area;
  the primary care trust and local authority fund a carers support organisation in South Wiltshire through direct grant support and use of the carers grant; and
  the South Wiltshire area has a full community mental health team in place.
  The SHA advises that the mental health budget in South Wiltshire is expected to increase by £382,000 in 2003–04.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has recently made an assessment of the possible uses of nanotechnology in the national health service. [117007]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health funds the National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC) at the University of Birmingham to provide advance notice of new and emerging technologies that might require urgent evaluation, consideration of clinical and cost impact, or modification of clinical guidance. The NHSC is monitoring progress in nanotechnology and clinical applications in this field, which will be considered alongside other emerging technologies for future published NHSC briefings.

  NHS Boards (Nurses)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the election of nurses to the management boards of NHS hospitals; [111762]

  (2) if he will make a statement on proposals that nurses be elected to NHS boards to participate more actively in the running of local hospitals. [112694]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will provide for applicants for national health service foundation trust status to determine the detail of their constitutional arrangements within the parameters set out in Schedule 1. It will be for each applicant to decide whether to include an executive nurse on the Board of Directors, taking account of its local circumstances and any responses to consultation on the proposals set out in its application.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the likely timescale before all the residents within the Portsmouth Primary Care Trust have access to an NHS dentist; [118108]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2003, Official Report, column 966W, how many residents within the areas of (a) the Portsmouth Primary Care Trust, (b) the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust and (c) the Southampton City Primary Care Trust have been unable to register with an NHS dentist. [118115]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 June 2003.

  NHS Management Training Scheme
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many entrants were recruited on to the NHS Management Training Scheme in each of the last six years, broken down by(a) the number and percentage of university graduates, (b) the number and percentage who are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, (c) the number and percentage with HND or an equivalent qualification and (d) region; [115983]

  (2) how many in-service professionals from nursing and other clinical or health-related backgrounds were recruited on to the NHS Management Training Scheme in each of the last six years; and, within these totals, (a) how many and what percentage were graduates, (b) how many and what percentage were non-graduates and (c) how many and what percentage hold a nationally recognised managerial qualification; [115981]

  (3) what the overall costs were of the NHS Management Training Scheme in each of the last six years. [115982]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Management Training Scheme is a post graduate development programme which leads to a Diploma in Health Service Management and Certificate in Managing Health Services.

  The entry criteria appropriate for these programmes are a degree, or equivalent professional qualification.

  Over the last six years, 22 per cent., or 87 of those recruited were from a clinical or health related background and all will have had either a first level degree or equivalent professional qualification. Since we do not distinguish between these criteria on entry, we do not have a breakdown of the numbers. Increasingly, in-service candidates have a post graduate or second degree. A management qualification will not be regarded as required or necessary for entrance to the programme, so again figures are not kept.

  The cost of the scheme last year was £5 million, of which 74 per cent., relates to salaries for trainees and schemes staff. The remainder of the costs relate to the education programme costs, marketing, recruitment and selection. This represents a 6 per cent., decrease on the previous year's costs. Costs for the previous four years remained stable.

  All participants on the scheme will have a degree or equivalent post graduate qualification. A Higher National Diploma does not qualify applicants for the scheme. Of all trainees over the last six years, 10 per cent.,
  842W
  have been Oxbridge graduates–40 out of 392 total. We offered eight or nine places per year in each of the old eight national health service regional offices. Applicants, however. are drawn from across the country and can choose which region they would prefer to be placed in. Choice of region will not effect the application process—many students apply during their third year of their degree and will therefore be living away from home, or in a different location from where they ultimately want to be based.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether clause 27 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill allows for the differentiation of pay and conditions between trust and non-trust hospitals. [112828]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts, like other NHS bodies, will have flexibility when it comes to staff pay and conditions. However, it is essential that NHS foundation trusts act in ways that are consistent with equal pay principles and that do not prejudice the interests of the wider NHS, including other NHS employers. NHS foundation trusts will be subject to the same statutory duty of partnership that applies to all NHS bodies—duty to cooperate in the exercise of their functions.

  No-smoking Policies (Assaults)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults on hospital staff in 2002–03 were linked to at tempts to enforce no-smoking policies. [116875]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the level of assaults by type of incident is not collected centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there were per head of population in(a) each region and (b) England in each year since 1997. [115552]

  Mr. Hutton
  The in formation requested is available in the Library. Between 1997 and 2001 the number of nurses employed in the National Health Service has increased by 31,520 and the number of qualified nurses per 1,000 population has increased from 6.6 to 7.1 in the same period. Provisional figures for September 2002 show a further increase of around 17,000 qualified nurses since September 2001.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there were per head of population in each region in each year since 1996. [116894]

  Mr. Hutton
  Because of boundary changes, information on nurses per head of population by region in 1996 is not available. The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Oxaliplatin
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) efficacy and
  (b) availability within the NHS of oxaliplatin. [117166]
  843W
  Ms Blears
  In March 2002, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) published recommendations on the use of oxaliplatin for the treatment of advanced bowel cancer.

  NICE recommended that oxaliplatin, in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid, should be considered for use as first-line treatment for advanced bowel cancer in patients who have metastases that occur only in the liver, which may become operable following treatment.

  The national health service is now implementing NICE'S recommendations on this drug.

  NICE is due to review these recommendations in April 2005.

  Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much his Department spent on(a) polymerase chain reaction and (b) other DNA-identification tests in each of the last 10 years; [116853]

  Completed in year

  Range of foodstuffs included

  No. of projects

  Total cost (£s)

  2000

  Food mixtures, meat.

  3

  75,021

  2001

  Meat, wine, seafood, fish, olive oil, chicken.

  6

  423,098

  2002

  Potatoes, rice, meat, olive and hazelnut oil.

  5

  343,549

  2003

  White fish, jams and yoghurts, vegetarian foods, meat, rice, potato, chicken breasts.

  10

  725,286 (estimated)

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many food samples were subjected to polymerase chain reaction tests by the Food Standards Agency in each year since the Agency was established; and what proportion of those tests identified DNA from products other than the food sample tested, broken down by category. [116855]

  Date/year

  Title/Purpose of study and foodstuff sampled

  Number of samples collected

  Number of samples containing foreign DNA

  Proportion of samples containing foreign DNA (%)

  December 2001

  Survey of meat content, added water and hydrolysed protein in catering chicken breasts

  68(1 sample = 10kg. Carton)

  2 samples contained pork DNA.

  3

  January 2002

  Pilot study: Analysis of GM soya content in retail baked goods (including bread, cakes, burns and rolls).

  203

  31 samples contained traces of GM soya, but only 3 of these contained more than 1% GM soya.

  15(of which only 1.5% above legal threshold limit).

  March 2003

  Co-ordinated enforcement exercise on meat content, added water, and hydrolysed proteins in catering chicken breasts.

  25

  11 samples contained pork DNA. 1 sample contained pork & beef DNA.

  48

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will urge the chief executives of primary care trusts in England to ensure that all funding earmarked for the development of primary care services is passed on to GP practices; and if he will make a statement. [112840]

  Mr. Hutton
  Within primary care trust (PCT) unified allocations, £315 million in 2003–04, £394 million in 2004–05 and £460 million in 2005–06 has been identified nationally as the minimum expected spend on primary care enhanced services.
  844W
  (2) what steps the Food Standards Agency is taking to improve the polymerase chain reaction testing regime. [116854]

  Ms Blears
  The Department did not fund development of any such tests until the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established in April 2000. Since then an estimated total of £1.5 million has been spent on methods using DMA techniques to identify the presence of specific ingredients in foodstuffs. A breakdown of the amount spent per year is shown in the table. The projects have been looking at use of DNA methods to check the labelling of a wide range of foods, especially meat and fish products. All but one of these methods use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based techniques.

  The FSA is currently funding ten research projects aimed at improving PCR methodology for use in authenticity surveys and enforcement of labelling legislation. These tests are aimed at developing methods for identifying ingredients of a wide range of products, including vegetarian foods, and identifying varieties, for example of potatoes and rice.

  Ms Blears
  Since the Food Standards Agency was established, it has completed three surveys using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the basis of checking the description or labelling of foods. The details of these surveys are shown in the table.

  PCTs are expected to spend at least this level of resources on primary care service providers; in particular general practitioner practices, but also other providers.

  The Department has reminded primary care trusts, through the strategic health authorities, of their requirement to spend at least this level of resources in the next three years.

  If the new general medical services contract is accepted by the profession, expenditure on primary care will rise from £5 billion in 2002–03 to £6.8 billion in 2005–06. There will be a gross investment guarantee that these resources will be delivered.
  845W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health [pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 620W], on primary care trusts, what the population was of each of the old primary care trusts in Redbridge and Waltham Forest; and what the population is of each of the new trusts. [116747]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Primary Care Trust

  Population

  Population for 2003–04 under old configuration

  Chingford Wanstead and Woodford PCT

  118,719

  Redbridge PCT

  164,385

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone PCT

  163,75

  Population for 2003–04 under new configuration

  Redbridge PCT

  218,984

  Waltham Forest PCT

  227,295

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics census populations.

  Prostate Cancer
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to increase awareness of the symptoms of prostate cancer. [117900]

  Ms Blears
  We want men to know what their prostate gland is, what it does, and what can go wrong with it. However, we do not want to scare them, so we need to raise awareness in a responsible way. The Department has funded the following regarding public awareness:section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase the information available about prostate cancer;
  section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to improve awareness of the risks and symptoms of prostate cancer in African and Afro-Caribbean men in Britain; and
  the Database of Individual Patient Experiences (DIPEx) in prostate cancer.

  Public awareness is a key element of the terms of reference of the newly established prostate cancer advisory group. The group is chaired by Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director. It met for the first time on 10 June 2003.

  In addition, as part of the prostate cancer risk management programme, evidence-based primary care resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in England in September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer, ensuring the men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the membership of the Prostate Cancer Advisory Group; [117414]

  (2) if he will publish the terms of reference of the Prostate Cancer Advisory Group. [117415]
  846W
  Ms Blears
  The prostate cancer advisory group is chaired by Professor Mike Richards and the members are:

  David Rowlands, PeASO Prostate Cancer Network;

  John Neate, Prostate Cancer Charity;

  Alan George, Coalition Against Prostate Cancer;

  Mr. Mark Fordham, Urologist;

  Mr. Roger Kochelbergh, Urologist;

  Mr. John Anderson, Urologist;

  Mr. David Gillatt, Urologist;

  Amanda Baxter, Cancer Nurse at the Royal Marsden;

  Martin Ledwick, Cancer Nurse with CancerBACUP;

  Dr. Ian Banks, GP;

  Dr. Mike Kirby, GP;

  Professor Peter Armstrong, Radiologist at St. Bartholomew's;

  Dr. Pat Harnden, Pathologist;

  Dr. Chris Parker, Oncologist;

  Dr. Heather Payne, Oncologist;

  Dr. Dan Ash, President of the Royal College of Radiologists;

  Dr. Noel Clarke, Oncologist;

  Dr. Jane Melia, Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit;

  Professor Colin Cooper, Researcher at the Institute of Cancer Research;

  Professor David Neal, Research;

  Tim Elliott, Department of Health, Cancer Policy Team, Secretariat:

  Dr. Helen Cambell, NHS R&D Programme;

  Dr. Graham Cadwallader, National Cancer Research Institute; and

  Julietta Patnick, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.

  Terms of reference for the prostate cancer advisory group are:
  to review progress in implementation of the prostate cancer elements of the NHS Cancer Plan and the NHS Prostate Cancer Programme and the effectiveness of current delivery of diagnostic, treatment and palliative care services;
  to advise on future policy programmes and priorities to tackle prostate cancer, including the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on improving outcomes in urological cancers, the assessment of future resource needs and the improvement of information sharing on all aspects of prostate cancer;
  to advise on future public awareness programmes on prostate cancer;
  to advise on future research priorities and the implications of research results for poky on prostate cancer; and
  to consider and advise as appropriate on the development of the prostate cancer risk management programme (PCRMP), taking on board advice from the PCRMP scientific reference group.

  Sixteen-week Rule
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with the European Commission on the proposed 16-week rule. [116898]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has been in discussions with the European Commission about the proposed Directive on Recognition of Qualifications, which includes a 16-week provision of services proposal, at the
  847W
  European Council Working Group and in bilateral discussions with the Commission. where our concerns with this proposal have been raised.

  Sustainable Develo pment
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he makes of bids for(a) grants and (b) contracts awarded by his Department (i) of the environmental impact and (ii) against sustainable development criteria; who makes the assessment; and whether they are published. [114505]

  Ms Blears
  In specifying contracts for goods and services, there is a requirement to take environmental issues embodied in the Department's sustainable development strategy into account. This strategy forms a key part of the Department's policies and operations. Assessment against specified criteria (including environmental and sustainable development) is carried out as part of the overall tender evaluation process. The sustainable development principles, on which criteria for individual contract evaluation is based, can be found on the Department's website.

  Criteria for awarding research grants and those provided under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, and the assessment process, can be found on the Department's website.

  The Department is working closely with the Sustainable Development Commission to explore ways of strengthening the links between health, health care and sustainable development. The overall aim is to embed sustainable development in the Department's policy objectives for health and social services.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remit relating to sustainable development is required by his Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116675]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's strategy on sustainable development reflects the Government's overall sustainable development strategy. The Department's strategy seeks to promote and encourage sustainable development principles throughout the Department and the national health service, including those agencies and other bodies for which the Department has responsibility.

  Departmental agencies and other bodies may draw up their own sustainable development strategies. For example, the Department's NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) has recently published its new sustainable development policy. This is available on the PASA website at http://www.pasa.nhs.uk/environment/

  Progress on Department of Health sustainable development activity can be tracked on the Department's web page at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ sustainabledevelopment.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of(a) temporary
  848W
  nurses and (b) locum doctors in the NHS, with particular reference to NHS institutions covering Portsmouth and the rest of Hampshire. [115093]

  Ms Blears
  A range of initiatives are underway to get better value for temporary staff in the National Health Service. Along with the roll-out of NHS Professionals, the aim is to reduce agency costs and to improve the quality of staff through agency framework agreements. Agency framework agreements fix the cost of agency staff, which can only increase in line with the recommendations of the pay review body.

  NHS trusts are using the national medical locum agency contract, with the contract value in the first quarter being £15 million. This is expected to show an average saving of 6 per cent. per trust on the medical locum expenditure per annum.

  The aim is to roll-out agency agreements and NHS Professionals to cover all aspects of the temporary healthcare labour market. This means covering not just nurses and doctors but also the Allied Health Professions and other healthcare professionals.

  Medical locums are already covered by a national agency framework agreement, and a NHS Professionals service for doctors is being developed.

  By ensuring that all temporary staffing demand is handled through NHS Professionals, the savings and outcomes from the agency project will be maximised. The new NHS Professionals Special Health Authority will enable better strategic management of the healthcare temporary staffing labour market and ensure that all NHS trusts are using NHS Professionals by April 2005.

  Hampshire and The Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority have advised that trusts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, including Portsmouth are working towards using NHS Professionals by the target date of April 2005 and are using, or working towards using, the national medical locum agency contract.

  Tranquiliser Drugs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the guidelines issued by his Department in prescribing tranquiliser drugs. [117578]

  Jacqui Smith
  The CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) issued advice in 1980 on the use of benzodiazepines for short-term (two to four weeks) relief of severe anxiety. The CSM said that the use of benzodiazepines to treat short-term 'mild' anxiety was inappropriate and that benzodiazepines should be used to treat insomnia only when it is severe, disabling, or subjecting the individual to extreme distress.

  In 1994. the Department of Health issued copies of "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence", published by the Mental Health Foundation, to all health authorities and recommended their use by general practitioners. "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" was then issued in 1999. The British National Formulary (BNF), updated twice yearly, is

  849W
  issued free to all doctors, and gives guidance on the prescription of benzodiazepine drugs as well as management of benzodiazepine dependence.

  This guidance has led to an overall reduction in prescribing of these drugs and the attendant dependence problems.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has started work on the development of a clinical guideline on the management of anxiety. This will cover both drug and non-drug (psychological) treatments.

  Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those countries where NHS patients have been sent for treatment in the last five years. [116683]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients can be referred for treatment abroad under the European Union-wide health care coordination regulations (the E112-scheme) or through direct referral from their national health service trust.

  In the last five years, NHS patients have been referred under the El 12 referral arrangements to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

  Under the direct referral scheme, patients have received treatment in France, Germany and Belgium.

  Tuberculosis
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of reported cases of tuberculosis in(a) London and (b) the London Borough of Havering in each of the past five years. [116484]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Protection Agency (HPA) is responsible for the number of cases reported to its statutory notifications of infectious disease (NOIDS) database. Therefore, the following table provides data of tuberculosis notifications from the NOIDS database, which collects surveillance data on all cases of clinically diagnosed tuberculosis, whether or not microbiologically confirmed. 2002 data is not yet available.

  TB Notifications (NOIDS) for London and Barking and Havering HA 1998–2001

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  London

  2,444

  2,509

  2,938

  2,917

  Havering

  12

  25

  62

  49

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the health implications of the inhalation of volatile organic compounds from products designed for indoor use. [117364]

  Ms Blears
  The adverse effects of deliberate inhalation of volatile organic compounds can vary greatly depending on the specific substance. Use can be fatal, even on the first occasion. Fatalities are mainly 850W
  caused by the toxicity of the substance, cardiac arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm), inhalation and choking on vomit and asphyxia through the use of plastic bags over the face. In addition deaths can be caused by accidents while disorientated. These may include falls, vehicle accidents and drowning. A number of deaths and serious injuries have also been caused by fire or explosion when vapour from the substance ignites. More general effects include cold sweats, fainting, headache, nausea, vomiting, palpitations, confusion, dizziness and risk of accidental injury.

  Waiting Times/Lists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting longer than 12 months for heart operations within the Greater London area. [117160]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest published figures show that no patient waited over 12 months for heart operations (coronary revascularisation procedures) within the Greater London area.

  Working Time Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the European Working Time Directive on midwives. [110956]

  Mr. Hutton
  The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) was transposed into UK law and became the Working Time Regulations on 1 October 1998. It applies to all employees, including midwives, working in the UK with the exception of those in the excluded sectors. Doctors in training are currently excluded, but EWTD will apply to them from 1 August 2004. We are working with the Modernisation Agency, piloting solutions to EWTD in a range of trusts, which involve "new ways of working", in terms of role development and the substitution.

  An agreement was made in the General Whitley Council on the operation of the regulations for nonmedical staff on national contracts, which also includes midwives. Additionally, the Department of Health also issued guidance in Health Service Circular 1998/204, "Working Time Regulations—Implementation in the NHS". It is the responsibility of local national health service employers to implement the regulations as they see fit to meet local circumstances. We are not aware of any particular national problems in the implementation of the Whitley agreement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 May 2003,Official Report, column 861W, on the Working Time Directive, by how much he expects the number of doctors on an individual rota on call to have to increase to implement the 2004 requirements. [116902]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of doctors required on an on-call rota to comply with the 2004 Working Time Directive (WTD) requirements will vary, depending on a range of local factors, for example the way in which services are organised and/or the skill mix of the staff who provide them.
  851W
  There are a range of solutions to WTD compliance which involve changing the working practices of both medical and non-medical staff and building on the increases in consultant and specialist registrar numbers.
  852W
  This will enable the national health service to deliver increases in both the quality and quantity of service delivery whilst minimising the additional costs of WTD implementation.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determination) Regulations 2003
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  On Friday 6th June I laid before Parliament new regulations providing for local standards committees to consider allegations of councillor misconduct. These regulations form an important part of the framework for promoting high standards of conduct in local government, complementing the work of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for England.

  New codes of conduct for councillors were introduced in November 2001, and have applied to members of all local authorities in England, and of police authorities in Wales, since May 2002. It is open to anyone to make an allegation to the Standards Board for England that a member has breached the code of conduct and the Standards Board can require an Ethical Standards Officer to investigate an allegation.

  The Ethical Standards Officer may find that there is no evidence of a breach of the code, or that no action need be taken. He may also find that the matter should be referred to the Adjudication Panel for England, which could then impose against the member sanctions of up to five years disqualification.

  It is also open to the Ethical Standards Officer to refer a matter to the monitoring officer of the relevant local authority. These new regulations concern the procedures to be adopted when a matter is referred to the monitoring officer.

  The regulations require monitoring officers to arrange for any matters referred to them by an Ethical Standards Officer to be considered by a meeting of the standards committee. They include provisions relating to the conduct of a hearing by the standards committee, and allow the committee to impose sanctions of up to three months suspension.

  The regulations allow a member who has been the subject of a hearing by the standards committee to seek leave to appeal against the committee's findings to an appeals tribunal drawn from the Adjudication Panel for England.

  These new regulations will allow standards committees to play a more active role in promoting high standards of conduct within their authorities. They have been prepared following extensive consultation: a summary of the consultation responses is available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister http://www.odpm.gov.uk/ and in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Depressive Illness (Children and Adolescents)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  Following interest in both Houses about the issues surrounding the safety of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), including Seroxat, this statement informs the House of new advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) against the use of Seroxat in children under the age of 18 for the treatment of depressive illness.

  New data from clinical trials in children and adolescents were received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) at the end of May 2003. These new data have been reviewed by an expert working group on SSRIs and the CSM. These data do not demonstrate efficacy in depressive illness in this age group and show an increase in the risk of events including episodes of self-harm and potentially suicidal behaviour in the Seroxat group compared to placebo. Various analyses suggest that the risk of these events is between 1.5 and 3.2 times greater with Seroxat compared to placebo. On the basis of these data, CSM has advised that the balance of risks and benefits of Seroxat is unfavourable when used to treat depressive illness in this age group. CSM has advised that Seroxat should not be used in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years to treat depressive illness. Ministers have accepted the Committee's advice.

  Seroxat is not and never has been licensed for use in those under 18 but it is used in this age group outside its licensed indications where prescribers make a judgment on their own responsibility that it is the right treatment for a particular patient.

  SSRIs, including Seroxat, have been under close continuous review by the MHRA and the CSM for a number of years with the CSM issuing advice in 2000 and 2001. The product information for SSRI antidepressants already contains advice that suicidal thoughts and behaviour are likely to increase in the early stages of treatment of depression (as with all antidepressants) and patient information leaflets already contain advice to seek medical advice urgently in the event of such symptoms.

  The recent concerns expressed by patient groups and in the media over the safety of Seroxat have been taken very seriously. In response to concerns of an association of Seroxat with withdrawal reactions and suicidal behaviour, a new expert working group of the CSM has been convened to further review the safety of SSRIs and to ensure the advice in the product information for both patients and prescribers is optimal for the safe use of these products. This group will be incorporating the experiences of patients in its safety evaluation.

  Communications to patients and prescribers are taking place today. The expert working group of the CSM, convened to look at the wider issues relating to the safety of SSRIs, will examine urgently what implications, if any, these new findings have for the use of Seroxat in adults and for other SSRIs. The benefits of taking Seroxat are well established and patients over 18 and patients who are benefiting from Seroxat should not be frightened into stopping their medication. Patients

  43WS
  who are experiencing any side effects or are concerned about their treatment should discuss these with their doctor.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the wider aspects of suicide prevention remain at the top of the agenda and the National Institute for Mental Health in England has made suicide prevention one of its core policy programmes.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit Green Paper
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  On 18 November 2002 I laid before the House a consultation document entitled "Pathways to Work—Helping People into Employment".

  I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government's response to this public consultation today. This document gives an overview of the responses received and summarises the issues raised through the consultation on each of our proposals. I have arranged for copies of the response document to be placed in the Library and to be available to Members from the Vote Office.

  Over 140 responses were received from individuals and organisations representing many different areas of expertise. The proposals were, in general terms, positively received and we will be pressing ahead with most of the recommendations. Key proposals are based around:
  More skilled personal adviser support and help to return to work.
  Easier access to existing employment programmes plus new work-focused rehabilitation programmes.
  Improved financial incentives to move into some form of employment.
  Additional help for those having to move across from incapacity benefits to Jobseeker's Allowance.
  Engagement of other key stakeholders—notably employers and Gps.

  As I previously announced in written statements on 26 March, Official Report, Col 11–12WS and 5 June, Official Report, Col 26WS, seven pilots will run in the Jobcentre plus districts of Bridgend, Derbyshire and Renfrewshire (from October 2003) and Essex, East Lancashire, Gateshead and South Tyneside and Somerset (from April 2004). The pilots will run until April 2006.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charity Commission Report
  The Minister for Citizenship, and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am today announcing the publication of the Charity Commission's spring departmental report for 2003. Copies of this Report are available in the Library.

  Crime Reduction and Drugs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  I am pleased to announce that we are putting in place a single, flexible crime fighting fund to help local agencies better tackle crime and drug-related crime. The new Building Safer Communities fund brings together into a single funding stream funding that was previously provided through three separate crime reduction programmes: the Communities Against Drugs Programme (CAD), the Safer Communities Initiative (SCI) and the Partnership Development Fund (PDF).

  Funding for these three programmes in 2003—04, and hence for the new single fund, formed part of the package of funding to tackle crime and drug-related crime, amounting to £190.2 million in total, announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 21 January 2003. Ninety four million pounds of this funding was for use by the 376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Drug Action Teams (DATs) across the country to help them tackle crime and drugs in their communities. £82.3 million of this is now being made available to CDRPs under the Building Safer Communities Fund and the remainder, separately, to DATs.

  In announcing the new funding for CAD, the SCI and the PDF in January, the Home Secretary indicated that he wished to consult with local groups—those at the sharp end, including CDRPs, DATs, voluntary groups and national bodies concerned with crime reduction—about whether they wished to see a merger of these programmes in order to reduce the bureaucratic burden on them, thereby allowing them to concentrate on delivery rather than paperwork. There was clear support for the idea of a merger and a "single pot" of funding but a strong wish to ensure that the level of drugs spend was maintained.

  Practitioners have been aware for some time that plans were being drawn up for this new fund, and activities are already well under way to spend the money, with many already drawing down grant and progressing their work. My Department will today be issuing administrative guidance on how the new fund will operate and formal conditions of grant.

  This is a three year funding programme and CDRPs can expect to receive the same levels of funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06. My officials are devising monitoring procedures to ensure that accountability at CDRP level for their spend, including that on drugs crime, is fully preserved, and that the balance of spend between the different aims of the CAD programme is maintained.

TREASURY

  Public Statistical Analyses (Corrected Tables)
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Treasury is today re-issuing the tables for public expenditure by country and region that were
  45WS
  released in Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA 2003), published on 6 May. These tables are being re-issued in order to correct for errors in the estimates of spending per head by country and region arising from the use of wrong population data.
  46WS
  PESA 2003 was published as a Command Paper (Com 5901). The revised tables are being re-issued, and laid before Parliament, as a corrigendum to Cm5901. The revised tables have also been placed on the Treasury website.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee
Lord Campbell-Savoursasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to establish a defence exports scrutiny committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, during the passage of the then Export Control Bill, the Government were unable to accept my noble friend's proposal for a defence exports scrutiny committee to undertake prior scrutiny of export licence application. The Secretary of State has therefore not put forward any proposals, but inter-departmental discussions are taking place to see whether we can take additional steps to achieve greater accountability and transparency in the export licensing process.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the discussions have gone on for 12 months and nothing has happened. Does my noble friend recall that 311 elected Members of Parliament in another place supported the Motion calling for the committee to be set up? Why can we not have more rapid decision-taking on such matters?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the discussions have been taken forward by the Cabinet Office. We should be able to report on them in the summer.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, do the Government believe that there should be wider scrutiny of the global defence trade? Do they have any policy on the offset trade that is part of most arms deals today?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we are keen to see greater transparency and accountability in the process. That is why we are having the discussions. Offset is a different issue that needs to be considered in a different way.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords. the Minister talked about greater transparency, which I am sure that everyone wants in all kinds of deals. However, does he agree that there would be a risk to the commercial confidentiality of potential purchasers as
118
well as of exporters? It would need to be handled very carefully to make sure that they did not take their business elsewhere.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when we turned the proposal for a defence exports scrutiny committee down during our discussions on the then Export Control Bill, we gave three main reasons why we did not think it appropriate. The third was that there was a danger that it would give rise to legal difficulties, cause delay and possibly compromise confidentiality without necessarily improving the quality of decisions. That was a key consideration.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government accept that the record is somewhat depressing? Have we not seen too often weapons and ammunition that we have exported used against either civilian populations or even our own military forces?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, everyone agrees that the control of arms is extremely difficult. However, I do not think that our record is depressing. On the whole, there has been very close control in what are difficult circumstances.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are any defence export orders outstanding for Indonesia? In view of the fact that the Indonesian Government have refused to give an undertaking that it will not use the Hawks and Scorpions with which we supplied them in the past in the civil conflict in Aceh, will the Government not consider some means whereby Parliament can scrutinise the orders outstanding for that country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not aware of what discussions are taking place, and I will write to the noble Lord on that point. However, I should point out that the discussions are confidential until an export licence is given or not.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Quadripartite Select Committee in another place, which has a great interest in such matters, recently produced a further report. What does he think of its latest findings on the recommendation that was made last year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid to say that I have not read the report in great detail. I will go back and read it very carefully and give my noble friend an answer.

National Service Framework for Children
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made on developing the National Service Framework for Children.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the first set of children's national service framework documents was

119
published on 10th April. It includes the standard for hospital services—the first standard of the NSF—which emphasises the importance of shaping hospital services around the child, and an emerging-findings consultation document setting out the direction of travel for the NSF. A draft standard for child protection was included with the documents for consultation.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will she expand on it by saying when the rest of the framework will be published and how it will fit into the overall NHS Plan?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. The full NSF will be published in 2004. It is the most complex of the national service frameworks. It includes eight working groups covering health and ill-health of children and all aspects of care. More than 300 different stakeholders are involved, and a great deal of hard work has already gone into producing the first standard.
Essentially, the framework offers a new way of looking at not only services, but children, and will mean that NHS and care staff are looking for new ways of approaching their working, and even for new attitudes towards children. It fits into the NHS Plan—it is central to it—and will benefit from other measures such as emergency care and improving patient access, which will also lift the NHS.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, how do these proposals fit in with the Laming conclusions and the establishment of multi-agency children's trusts at local level?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is important that we get all this together and that it is consistent. The NSF has a working party which is looking at vulnerable children. That includes children in care. As regards the Laming report, certain action has already been taken. I refer, for example, to improved guidance. The response to the report will be published soon. We are waiting for that in relation to the Green Paper on children at risk to help inform the NSF. Therefore, it is extremely important that all this works together.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, there has been an increase in the incidence of diabetes in children, especially diabetes number two. Will such children fall under the NSF for children, or that for diabetes, or both?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the beauty of the NSF for children is that it covers all conditions in all children, including the wellbeing of children. We are therefore looking at healthy children, too. They will certainly fall under the external working group that is looking at ill health in children and also under the diabetes framework.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister be clearer about the parameters of the
120
national service framework? She hinted that it involves not just the NHS but many other issues, too. Does not that cross over into education and so forth? Can she be clearer about that?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as the framework deals with wellbeing as well as health, it involves the care of children. Of the eight external working groups, some are looking at vulnerable children. That involves children in care and young carers. Obviously, a good deal of work is being done on ways of improving care services to those young people and that means working closely with the Department for Education and Science as well.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, how will the framework address the needs of children with disabilities? Will it be focused on the needs of the children or will there be cost constraints?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, an external working group is dealing with children with disabilities. It has already made its report and it is on the website. That is informing the standard for improvement which will emerge.
Furthermore, the hospital standard, which was published in April, contains a good section on children with disabilities. The particularly impressive aspect of it is that it uses accessible language to express the importance of treating the child as a human being and of treating the whole child. It is also important to involve the parents in becoming the carers and the experts around the child.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in case other noble Lords are as ignorant as I am, will the Minister tell the House precisely what is wrong with the National Health Service treatment of children that is making this provision necessary? What will the overall cost be and what is currently happening?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much wrong with the way we are treating children. We have expert and excellent services for children in the NHS, but the national service frameworks enable us to look across the whole provision of care and see how we can improve joint working, co-ordination and processes and investigate the organisation of staffing and the development of staff roles. They enable us to look at improving and raising standards so that they are more effective and coherent.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister recognise in what she has said that while there are many good services for children there are huge gaps in provision as regards, for instance, children's mental health and the workforce needed to provide that service? Does she agree that the national service framework is an opportunity for us to think more strategically and carefully in the long term about how to ensure that our children receive the vital input from good quality mental health services?

121
Will she also explain to the House what progress has been made in mapping mental health services for children? Can she confirm that that mapping will be a continuing process so that we can be well advised on the availability of and access to child and adolescent mental health services?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Earl put it very well. Of course we can do much better, and mental health services for children is one such area. It is a relatively neglected area, which is why we are investing £250 million in it over the next three years. The crucial issue in improving the service is to improve the manpower. The noble Earl is right in indicating that we need to develop a new approach to planning the workforce. We are mapping mental health services and will continue to do so as part of our national strategy. But we need also to find new ways for staff to work, earlier identification and more effective services. We have set up a group of experts specifically to look at those issues and the practical measures that can be taken in terms of training and recruitment at all levels.
Baroness David: My Lords, how does this National Framework Service for Children fit in with other initiatives which are already under way? The Minister mentioned the Green Paper on children at risk.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, April 10th was a good day for children and it shows how much we are doing. Apart from the Green Paper, we have all kinds of separate initiatives; for example, Sure Start, a children's taskforce looking at a great deal across health and the action programme on inequalities in health, which is extremely important in terms of improving services for children. Much is therefore happening and I hope that we shall see it all coming together.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, during our recent debate on the trafficking of children, the Minister's noble friend admitted that more than 70 children have disappeared from the care of West Sussex social services. Can she tell us any more about the fate of those children? In the national framework, are the Government looking at this most vulnerable group of children to ensure that the existing inadequate provision is not further weakened?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the follow-up to the trafficking of children. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children will certainly be covered by the external working group that is looking at vulnerable children and children in special circumstances.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's antepenultimate answer, will she be good enough to say what additional resources and funding will be provided to implement the NSF?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is asking about mental health services. If I
122
am wrong, perhaps he will correct me. Yes, additional money is being put into mental health services; £250 million is being provided for child and adolescent mental health services which will be used to develop, for example, early intervention programmes and improved training. We hope that we shall be able to shorten some of the delays that are problematic in terms of the provision of psychiatric services for adolescents.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she said about the wishes of parents in regard to the education and future of their children being respected will be very welcome to the parents of many mentally handicapped children who find that their wishes are totally overridden by local social services, local authorities and others? Often when parents want special schools for their children they are directed towards mainstream schooling against the wishes of those parents.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, throughout the NSF great effort is being made to consult children and parents; for example, the National Children's Bureau has set up 14 consultative opportunities to listen to children.

House of Lords Reform
2.51 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 19th May (HL Deb, col. 495), whether the Prime Minister's future statement will include the issue of whether there will be a House of Lords reform Bill in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord's previous Question, the Government are now considering their response to the report from the Joint Committee of both Houses on the way forward on reform of your Lordships' House. We shall have to address the question and timing of any further reform Bill as part of our deliberations. We hope to be able to publish our response within the normal two-month deadline
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for having tabled this Question again. She did not answer, I am sure inadvertently, some of the points put to her. At the time she told the House that the Prime Minister was to make a statement shortly—that was three weeks ago. Perhaps she could define "shortly". Is it fair to assume that we shall not have a House of Lords reform Bill this Session, or even the next? In those circumstances, when can we expect to see a list of new working Peers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord now asks me four questions. As on the previous occasion, he seeks to tempt me into error. Let

123
me answer as directly as I am able. First, "shortly" is, as "shortly" says, as soon as reasonably practicable. Secondly, whether it will be in this Session or next I am not able to say. All I can say is that these matters are being given anxious consideration. They will be addressed in the response that I know that your Lordships anxiously await.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that your Lordships' House contains many Peers and Peeresses accustomed to various kinds of responsibility such that cannot be found in another place and that, if we were to be democratised, we would become a mere microcosm of another place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, it is our view that this House forms a very important part of the democracy. We are already democratised to that extent. Secondly, it is right that the Peers in this House perform a very wonderful function. We have the advantage of Peeresses visiting the House at certain times, but currently none of them sits on any of the Benches of the House.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I wonder whether I shall have any greater chance of tempting the noble Baroness than the silver-tongued noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Does the Minister accept that at least we all agreed on one matter in the reform committee and in debates both in this Chamber and in another place; namely, that this House has too many Members?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, what would be the point of fattening us up further and making additional appointments at this stage in defiance of the clearly expressed opposition of the House of Commons to an all-appointed upper House?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about there being too many Members. There are those who say that this House is a lean, mean working machine and not one Member will be lost to us. Of course, we have to see what the final resolution will be and the recommendations that will be made. But a tragedy for this House is that in the past two years we have lost 49 of our Members who sat on all Benches. They are sorely missed and there are many who say that they should be replaced.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, if the Government are genuinely considering the report from the Joint Committee, particularly in respect of the recommendation that a statutory appointments commission of some kind should be established, why have the Government recently renewed the appointment of the chairman of the present appointments commission?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no confirmation of that matter. I shall repeat what I have said on a number of occasions. The Government are obliged, in the normal way, to give a response to the committee's report within the average time of two months. We shall use our very best endeavours to do just that. I am afraid that we shall all have to await the outcome of that response.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, given the weight of legislation that now arrives in this House from another place completely unscrutinised and very often even undebated, is it not time for the Government to consider seriously a reform of the House of Commons, particularly as regards the number of Members of Parliament and whether it can still be justified to have over 650 Members sitting in that House?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, thankfully, I can say that that is not a matter for me.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that earlier in the year I introduced a Bill that was—I am sure she will agree—designed to be helpful to the Government. Will that Bill have the Government's support?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have to reply in the way in which I have replied the whole afternoon. Those are matters that the Government will take into account. We shall take those matters into account and respond when we respond—shortly.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, as the Minister has told your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are giving these matters anxious consideration, can she say what is the nature of that anxiety?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, to do that which is right for this country. We hope that we shall discharge our duty in the exemplary manner in which we have done so far.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, if the Government still do not know the way forward, can the noble Baroness say why they started down the road in the first place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have known the way forward. It is right to say that this House is now in good order. An argument has raged backwards and forwards in this House and elsewhere as to what the next step is. That matter is under consideration. The committee has helped us and we are deliberating on our response, which, as is quite clear from the debate today, your Lordships' House is most anxious to hear. I am sure that all those responsible will take keen note of this debate.

EU Developments: Referendums
2.59 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have concluded that referenda are in principle unsuitable for major decisions on European Union matters.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there is no decision in principle about all European Union matters. That the next European treaty will be dealt with through our system of parliamentary democracy is entirely consistent with the way in which all previous EU treaties have been laid before Parliament and subjected to vigorous scrutiny and debate by Parliament before ratification. I look forward to that debate.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Yes, my Lords, quite. I think that noble Lords will share my view that it will he difficult to forget the pained look on the Prime Minister's face yesterday and his anxious consideration as he listened to the Chancellor put pro-euro trimmings on to an anti-euro speech.
In that context, does the Minister accept that, whatever happened in the past, the new European convention to be announced this Friday potentially has greater political implications for this country than the debate on the five economic tests? On that basis, does she accept the view that we need an extensive public debate on the issue, not just a lot of propaganda from either side or phobic fury? Because of that, will the Minister at least keep an open mind about the possibility, if there is to be a paving Bill for a referendum, that the referendum should first be on the new European convention and then on joining the euro?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree that the political implications of the discussions going on at the convention are of greater moment for us than a decision about the euro. The euro is a once-in-a-lifetime decision. The discussions in the convention at present have not yet been completed. We hope that they will be completed towards the end of next week and that the convention findings will then be published at the end of next week. But, as the noble Lord will know, thereafter there will be an IGC, at which a unanimous decision will have to be taken about the way forward, and, after that, the drafting of any treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has got rather ahead of himself on the issue. We cannot judge what the implications will be, first, until the convention reports, secondly, until an IGC unanimously decides the way forward, and, thirdly, until there is ratification on a treaty. It would be sensible to look at the issues then.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, nobody wants to get ahead of themselves. We can all understand the
126
Government's reluctance to commit themselves to a referendum on the convention and its proposals at this stage. But why has the door to a referendum on possible constitutional developments been closed completely for all time? I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain that mystery. Why is it being closed when it is almost certain that there will be constitutional implications of some kind from the convention, when eight other member states will have referenda, and when Brussels officials say that the forthcoming constitutional treaty will be more important than Amsterdam, Nice and Maastricht combined? Why is the door being closed so soon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I deliberately did not close the door on all possible changes ever. That is why I said in the first sentence of my Answer that there was no decision in principle about all European Union matters. But I must say to the noble Lord that this Government today are as reluctant as the party opposite was when it was in government to have a referendum on the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty.
I have been subject to a little insomnia recently, and I have done some very interesting night-time reading. I was reading a biography, from which I shall quote:
"For all the rhetoric of sovereignty and nationhood, by her"—
that is, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—
"agreement to the documents that were to be enshrined in the Single European Act she transferred more sovereignty to the European Community (as it was then known) than anyone has done before or since".
The Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary did not say that; it was the former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, now the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, leaving aside the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary states that the correct plural of "referendum" is "referendums" and not "referenda", which is a gerundive rather than a gerund, did my noble friend hear the interview given by Kenneth Clarke on "The World at One" on 27th May? He said:
"If parliament can't analyse the ultimate version of this treaty, which we all knew was going to come once we enlarged the union, then parliament isn't much use for anything".
Is that not entirely consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said in his interview in the Financial Times a couple of days later? He said:
"Referendums should be a rare exception if we are not to weaken still further our system of parliamentary democracy".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his guidance on the use of "referenda" and "referendums". I did not hear "The World at One" on 27th May. I suspect that I was preparing for Questions in your Lordships' House on that occasion. I agree with what Mr Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said. We have a sophisticated system of parliamentary democracy in this country. It has been my experience, when debating in your Lordships' House the treaties that have gone

127
through—the Nice Treaty and, before that, the Amsterdam Treaty—that they attract a great deal of very knowledgeable discussion. I believe that it is through that parliamentary debate that we shall find a way forward on any possible future treaty coming out of an IGC.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is no longer satisfactory to contemplate the prospect of a referendum vis-à-vis the convention in isolation, and that it must be considered in context? Is it not true that the political context in this country of matters relating to sovereignty in the European Union is of profound public mistrust about the manner in which Parliament has dealt, and continues to deal, with those matters? Is it not fair to say that there is a constant sniping match, a partisan battle, going on between the Conservative and Labour parties about who has done worst vis-à-vis the holding of referendums? Will not the Government please seriously contemplate how public trust in government in this country can be restored, perhaps by having a referendum on the convention, in view of the crucial importance of the issues to the future of this country in Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, thinks that a debate on a referendum would of itself stop parties arguing about who has done better and worst, I am afraid that we live in very different political worlds. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right in saying that there must be a public debate. There should be a public debate about all matters European. Indeed, that is what the convention is being designed to do. It is why we have had parliamentary representatives as well as government ones. We have been well represented in this House in that respect. Doing this through our parliamentary democracy on the basis, in the other House, of those who are elected, and, in this House, of people with considerable experience, is the right way forward for this country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, can the Minister help me by saying what are the political tests that the Government decided to apply when considering whether the British people have their say on any question? We know that referenda will be allowed for local mayors and regional assemblies. The Minister said that the EMU was a once-in-a-lifetime change. Can we take it, therefore, that if the European convention's work results in a once-in-a-lifetime change, there will then be a referendum? What are the criteria? For some of us, it is beginning to look as if there is a political test of whether the Government get the voters to say what they want to hear.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords. The question is whether the issues that we are confronting significantly change how the people of this country are governed. That is the political test. It is appropriate that the resulting new treaty is scrutinised vigorously by Parliament in the way that I have
128
indicated. In contrast, the noble Lord raises the issues of devolution for Scotland and Wales, or perhaps the creation of regional elected assemblies or mayors. Those are changes in how this country is governed by putting in an extra layer of government; therefore, it was deemed appropriate that there should be regional or local referenda about whether that was appropriate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out last week, on the question of the euro, the Conservative Party also said that, had it been in government when the euro question would have been considered, that is the view that it would have taken and there would have been a referendum then. On this question, we do not believe that the outcome of an IGC will fundamentally affect how the people of this country are governed. It will certainly have no more effect than any of the other treaties on which the other side of the House did not hold a referendum.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend not find it much more helpful if, rather than call for a referendum on an outcome that is as yet unknown because the IGC has not yet begun, those with so many views to express on the process of ratification said something about the substance once in a while?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that that would be enormously helpful. I would point out that, of the many opportunities that have been put forward in order to allow Members to do so, not all Members have been as enthusiastic as they might have been to take up those opportunities.

British Energy
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the worse than expected results announced by British Energy on 3rd June will affect the rescue package which the Government have in mind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the restructuring plan announced on 28th November last year is British Energy's plan, not the Government's. The bulk of British Energy's reported loss announced on 3rd June is made up of write-downs in the value of its generation plants. The write-downs are based by the company on the expected future cash flows of the business and consequently have already been taken into account when considering the ongoing viability of the business. Significant progress has been made but the proposed restructuring remains subject to uncertainties, and, therefore, the Government remain prepared for administration.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that during the passage of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill both these Benches

129
and the Conservative Benches expressed concern that the liabilities taken over by the Government from British Energy should be, as far as possible, limited. and that the provision of other support should be used for the purposes defined. As the noble Lord gave certain assurances during the passage of the Bill, will he confirm that they still stand in spite of the recent worsened results?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I give that assurance. As these are essentially write-downs of fixed assets, they do not affect the liabilities.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminds us that it is only two months since we took the Bill through this House. The Government were at the time quite confident that the sums they were prepared to lend to the company would be sufficient to see it through, provided that a restructuring was approved by the competition authorities and the European Union. Is it not now looking much less likely that the competition authorities will smile upon that help as an acceptable state aid given the enormous opposition from many other people active in the electricity market?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no. The situation on state aid is no different from that which we expected, namely, that the Commission would formally investigate and that it would probably take nearly to the 18-month time limit. That is proceeding as we expected.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister concede that one of the difficulties in the sale of Amergen, which was required in the restructuring, is that potential purchasers are aware from numerous government statements that that is a key part of the financial support scheme? British Energy in that respect is at an enormous negotiating disadvantage. Do the Government see any way around that? Do they have any ideas about what should be done given that that company was always going to be required to be sold?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. That is why, even though the deadline of 30th June when the company thought it would sell Amergen has passed—well, it has not passed but it looks unlikely at this point that British Energy will enter into an agreement by that time—we have not insisted on it. That makes for a different situation where the company is not being required to sell under any conditions but has some latitude which will strengthen its bargaining power.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th June
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House.
130
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Palmer set down for tomorrow shall he limited to four hours and that in the name of the Lord Cobbold to two hours.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Code of Practice for Horse-drawn Vehicles]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved the amendment:
Page 2, line 1, after "lay" insert "the Code or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small tidying-up Bill and a small tidying-up amendment. It will not have escaped those of your Lordships who have been perusing the Bill avidly that Clause 1(3) deals with making a code of practice for horse-drawn vehicles and alterations to them. However., the corollary of that is that the Secretary of State must lay the alterations before both Houses of Parliament. It would be sensible that he should lay both the code of practice and the alterations before Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

State Pension Credit (Decisions and Appeals—Amendments) Regulations 2003
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise as I have pulled off the sticker where it said "speech" in my file, just as I was clipping the file to find where I am starting. We need a better quality of sticker in the department. We have obviously been economising with government money.
I am satisfied that the draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They form a small, but nonetheless essential, part of the legislative framework for pension credit.
Regulation 2 amends the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to provide, in relation to pension credit, that there shall be no right of appeal against decisions made pursuant to Regulations 4D, 4E and 26B of the Claims and Payments Regulations. Regulation 4D specifies that a claim for pension credit need not be made in writing but if it is, the claim must be made on an authorised form or in such other written form as the Secretary of State accepts as sufficient in any particular case; and,

131
is not valid unless a written statement of the claimant's circumstances, provided by the Secretary of State, is approved by the claimant.
Regulation 4E provides that a person may make a claim for pension credit at any time within the period of four months before the reaching the age of 60.
Regulation 26B prescribes the time and manner of payments of state pension credit.
The requirements as to what constitutes a valid claim for pension credit purposes are less prescriptive than those which currently apply to income support under Regulation 4 of the Claims and Payments Regulations. Most notably, Regulation 4D does not include a requirement that supporting information and evidence must be included with the claim before it can be considered to be valid. The absence of a right of appeal against decisions regarding the validity of claims for pension credit is in line with the position regarding appeals against decisions concerning the validity of claims for other for benefits across the benefit system.
I emphasise that the decisions in question do not concern the amount of money to which a person is entitled—that remains subject to appeal, or the valid date. A claimant's income or capital and the amount that they receive and from when remain open to appeal. However, if a person failed to send in the form, or to leave substantial areas of questions unanswered, they would not have a valid claim, and that would not be an appealable decision.
Regulation 3 amends the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 to preclude a second right of appeal where a local authority uses the Pension Service's calculation or estimate of income for housing or council tax Benefit purposes. That would not, of course, affect the original right of appeal against the original pension credit decision. The rationale is that it would be simply unfair to allow people who claim housing benefit or council tax benefit a second right of appeal against the original pension credit decision regarding their income. As your Lordships will know, the decision for pension credit purposes for income is passported, so to speak, over to the housing authorities. That is why we do not need two parallel paths of appeal.
The regulations are essentially technical, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness on this occasion, as on many others, for a clear exposition—despite being initially lost for words—of the issues involved in the regulations. More generally, as far as concerns work and pensions matters, it is extraordinary that the Minister for Pensions, who was whisked away into a Labour Party job, has, months afterwards, still not been replaced. One can assume only that the Prime
132
Minister can think of no one in the House of Commons who might reasonably fulfil that task. That being so, there is a strong case, given the noble Baroness's enormous expertise in these matters and the helpful attitude that she always adopts, for moving the job to this House.
I have one or two questions for the noble Baroness. The first is about consultation on the regulations. We are told that consultation has taken place with organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the authorities concerned, but we are not given a clear indication of how widespread it has been. Similarly, we are told that there has been consultation with regard to the Council on Tribunals. The explanatory memorandum explains why that was necessary, but we are not told which issues were referred or what conclusions were reached as a result of the consultation with the Council on Tribunals. Is the council now satisfied that the regulations are appropriate?
We are told that the Government have agreed with the Social Security Advisory Committee that the proposals need not be referred to the committee for further consultation. Every time that the issue of the Social Security Advisory Committee comes up, it seems to be the case that it or the Government—or both—have decided that it need not consider the matter. I have great difficulty in remembering any occasion since I have been in this post on which it has been consulted on anything. The committee seems to have an uncertain role in such matters. Perhaps I misjudge the situation.
Other than that, I have only one or two points to make, and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain them to us. We are told that Regulation 2 does not contain a right of appeal because that is the case for regulations in other parts of the social security framework. That does not explain, in the first place, why there is no such appropriate arrangement.
With regard to Regulation 3, we are told that there is no right of appeal at the stage at which housing benefits and other benefits are considered because the decision on the amount of income and the amount of capital that is applicable in the case has already been made by the Secretary of State at the stage at which the claim was made for council tax benefit. To what extent would it be clear to the claimant that, if he wished to dispute the income or capital assessment, he must do so at the stage at which the claim is initially made and will not be able to do at the stage at which the local authority is concerned with the housing benefit situation? There seems to be a case for not necessarily saying that someone could not come back at the latter stage, when the housing benefit was being considered. The individual concerned may not fully understand the procedures, which are not as simple for claimants as one might wish.

133
Other than that, I think that the noble Baroness made things clear, and I have nothing to add. On balance, the amendments are, as she says, technical and sensible.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his assessment of the position in the Cabinet and in his comments about the noble Baroness. I add my weight to her campaign for a better quality of stationery in the future.
I shall concentrate on many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but shall deal with them slightly differently. My questions are coloured by the fact that, as part of my work—I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern—I see information and advice officers struggling to get to grips with the forthcoming introduction of the pension credit. Therefore, I was particularly interested in what the noble Baroness said about the lack of a right of appeal with regard to what is widely acknowledged to be a complex form.
I recall that we deliberated at some length on the original legislation, and the noble Baroness said that she was confident that a great deal of the uptake would be electronic. I had some concerns about that at the time, and I spoke accordingly. In view of what has been said of late about the department's computers, I was right then. I am even more concerned about it now. Can the noble Baroness shed some light on the extent to which computerisation and training of claimants for computerisation has been taken forward?
The noble Baroness was right about Regulation 3 and the fact that there should be no right to appeal twice. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I would like to know what will be done to ensure that users know at the point at which a pension credit decision is made that there will almost certainly be implications for housing benefit and council tax benefit and what they will be able to dispute.
As usual, I was interested in the issue of consultation. According to the Library notes, there was no consultation on Regulation 2. In view of some of the issues that I mentioned, I would like to know what consultation there has been with prospective users on the matters. Finally, can the noble Baroness, in her pitch for a new job, go slightly further than the dry matter of regulations and say something about the training programme for the administration of the pension credit forms? It seems to be causing widespread concern among practitioners.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am glad that the regulations have been welcomed today. As the comments made have been finely honed, I shall respond to them directly.
It would be fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, basically raised two questions: one about the consultation exercise and one about the provision of information to claimants for housing benefit under Regulation 3. On the question of consultation, I can say that the Council on Tribunals was content with our
134
regulations and had no comment. The noble Lord also raised a general point about how often the Social Security Advisory Committee was consulted. It is required to be involved if regulations are coming into the public domain at least six months after the legislative procedure has completed. Partly as a result of pressure from the noble Lord, I have been able, on behalf of my department, to bring regulations before the House while legislation was going through. That has obviated some of what the committee has clone in the past, and it could be said that previous administrations may have been more dilatory about bringing forward regulations for scrutiny.
There was a substantive point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. It shared the noble Lord's concern that claimants might not appreciate that the Pension Service's assessment of income and capital could have an effect on their entitlement to HB and CTB. That concern was rightly emphasised today by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He is right to say that it is important that pensioners know that that is where the decision has been taken that, for example, having capital of £16,500 might rule them out for HB purposes. The department has undertaken to include warning of that and full information about it in the pension credit notification as soon as is practicable. Obviously, I will do my best to keep an eye on it and make sure that the information is clear and unambiguous, so that people realise that it is a passported statement of information for the next set of regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made various points, but the substantive point, I think, related to our degree of confidence about the introduction of the pension credit system in October. She was worried about the word "electronic". I believe that "electronic" includes telephone. We are expecting people to apply originally by telephone. We do not expect there to be—I hope that I am not wrong—any particular issues that we have not foreseen as regards the introduction of pension credit. First, we are not using a new computer; we are using a tried and tested existing computer. Secondly, we are having a graduated take-on approach. Thirdly, the pension credit is a simple system; it is not a more complex system. Given all of that, we believe that we have anticipated where there may be the inevitable problems associated with the development and extension of an important service to many people.
As regards the telephone service, we are expecting that up until October people will apply by telephone. They will still then receive a written confirmation of that exchange which they then sign. So there is written confirmation. We found from research that elderly people, in particular if they do not have family members to support them, prefer discussion over the phone. It is the best way of ensuring that one has the relevant information on the form. In the past, MIG forms which have been filled out on paper have had to go to and fro because the elderly person has not understood the import of a specific question. The system is designed to be helpful. We have no reason to think that it is not. However, if the organisation with

135
which the noble Baroness is, rightly, proudly associated perceives concerns, I am sure they will be brought to our attention.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Is it proposed that the individual will be told by telephone the calculation of their income and capital which will then go on the form? It will be difficult for many people to understand that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that the information will be discussed with the elderly person on the telephone. That will come through to the department which will then send it out. It may be able to give immediate guidance on whether someone obviously is or is not eligible. But the claim will come when the person has received a written statement of the agreed circumstances. That will constitute the claim. However, the first step is by telephone.
From October, pensioners need not go through that telephone stage if they do not wish to do so. Anyone currently on MIG will go through automatically. The steps for the savings credit will be strange because they are new. People will have had an opportunity for discussion on whether or not they may be eligible and to understand concepts such as income, capital and so on. I have no reason to think that it is not the most supportive way to reduce the hassle factor and extend the reach of what I think will be an important benefit.
The noble Baroness pressed me about staff training. Again, if she has any worries, I ask her to let me know. I have had no suggestion—but it is early days—that staff training is inadequate or incomplete. Nor have I any worries at present about the adequacy or otherwise of the computer system or the forms. We are working closely with Age Concern, Help the Aged, CAB and other organisations. We have a fairly long lead-in period between now and October. If problems begin to emerge, I trust that we will have in place the proper responses to overcome those difficulties. I hope that your Lordships will accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the stickers on these forms are rather more securely in place, I am happy to say.
I move these draft regulations which implement provisions of the European Community's Employment Directive 2000/78 so far as it deals with disability discrimination. The regulations would
136
amend and extend provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 concerning discrimination against disabled people in the fields of work and vocational training. I emphasise that that is what the directive is concerned with. They also make consequential amendments to the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 and other legislation.
As I explain what the regulations do, it may be helpful if I cross-refer back to the original text. Unlike the previous measure where there just two regulations, we have 30 here. Noble Lords may have to turn many pages. It will sound more technical than it need but I thought that that might be the most helpful approach.
While the draft regulations implement the disability provisions of a European directive, I remind the House that many of the main requirements were foreshadowed by the Disability Rights Task Force. The task force's work assisted the Government during negotiations on the directive. It helped us to identify those elements of the DDA, such as reasonable adjustments, that worked and needed to be retained; and those elements, such as current employment exemptions, which needed to change.
The draft regulations implement the majority of the disability provisions of the directive. I shall later state what is not included. If approved, they will bring into force those provisions in October 2004, more than two years in advance of the final date required by the directive. By going through this procedure, we are ensuring that a major swathe is securely banked in our legislative system by October 2004. It is good news in terms of employment and vocational training for disabled people.
I can also confirm that in my view the draft regulations are compatible with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The draft regulations make a number of significant and far-reaching changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which will have a marked effect on society and disabled people. They repeal Section 7 of the DDA so as to end the current exemption of small employers. That is the biggest single change in the regulations. Over 1 million small employers will be brought into coverage of the DDA. Employees and people seeking work in those firms will be protected if they have, or have had, a disability. That is Regulation 7.
Secondly, the regulations bring within the scope of the DDA excluded occupations. Groups of occupations which have not so far enjoyed the protection of the DDA come in. We are covering many occupations such as the police, barristers and Scottish advocates, partners in business partnerships and persons who are not technically employees because they hold an office, including people whom the Government appoint to public offices. Regulation 5 deals with office holders. Regulation 6 deals with partnership. Regulation 8 deals with barristers and advocates. Regulation 24 relates to non-Home Department police forces, prison officers and fire-fighters. Regulation 25 relates to national police force. Regulation 27 deals with employment on board ships,

137
aircraft or hovercraft. If any noble Lord wishes, I can give the cross-references back to the DDA legislation but I do not wish to complicate matters further.
Those are the two major changes: the extension of the DDA so that all employers are covered; and the extension to a range of occupations. The only significant exclusion now is the Armed Forces—an issue raised by your Lordships on several occasions.
The draft regulations make other significant changes. They outlaw direct discrimination, including prejudicial treatment of disabled people and most blanket bans. But employers need not employ anyone who is not competent, capable or available to perform the essential functions of the job in question after any necessary reasonable adjustment has been made. Obviously, we are not talking about the usual criticisms relating to blind bus drivers, and so forth. We are talking about people being able, competent and capable of performing the essential functions of the job.
Regulation 4 defines discrimination. Regulation 5 applies it to employers, contract workers and office holders. Later regulations apply it to other areas of employment and training. The regulations also end the current DDA approach that allows an employer to justify a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Those are Regulations 4 and 5. What is new is that they bring practical work experience placements within the scope of the DDA. This is an important constituent, for example, of the New Deal for younger and older people—that is, practical work experience. Under Regulation 13, it now comes within the scope of the DDA.
Regulation 15 extends the DDA's protection to claims by former employees about discrimination arising from former employment. The point about that is that someone may be seeking to appeal against what in popular language we might consider to be constructive dismissal. Equally, if his employment has finished, it would be absurd if his right of appeal terminated with that employment. Therefore, there is a shadow effect that issues relating to previous employment may still be available and covered. Hence, we have Regulation 15.
The regulations ensure that advertisements that indicate an intention to discriminate against disabled people are unlawful. They also ensure that the DRC will be able to bring an action against those who place the advertisements for publication. That is the effect of Regulations 15 and 16. The regulations also introduce into the DDA specific provisions to ensure that harassment against disabled people is unlawful—again, this is new. Regulation 4 defines harassment and subsequent regulations dealing with specific types of occupation make it unlawful; for example, Regulation 5 applies to employment, contract workers and office holders.
The regulations also extend Part 2 of the DDA to "qualifications bodies"—namely, those which can confer a professional or trade qualification, such as the General Medical Council and the Law Society. In earlier discussions with, I believe, DRC, the phrase
138
"qualifying bodies" was often used. We have now replaced that with "qualifications bodies" in order to make it more clear.
Given that description, I turn now to what the draft regulations do not do. The draft regulations are not a poor man's disability Bill. They are a further step towards meeting our manifesto commitment to extend rights and opportunities for disabled people. Because they are made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, they have the same status as primary legislation. They deliver the same outcomes, but they are securely bound in our law with effect from October 2004.
As I say, there are two important issues that the draft regulations do not cover. First, they do not implement the directive in so far as it applies to disability discrimination in occupational pensions schemes by trustees or managers of those schemes. It does not apply to occupational pensions. Adverse selection or even, in commercial terms, positive selection in terms of determining annuity rates would be an obvious example. We will lay separate regulations later this year on that issue after we have had further discussions with the Disability Rights Commission and the pensions industry. Both sides—the DRC and the pensions industry—accept that these are complicated measures which require a great deal of additional work. As far as I am aware, there appears to be no criticism of the Government for exempting that area of coverage—yet.
Secondly, Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills intend to bring forward separate proposals for regulations to implement any changes required by the directive in relation to Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act. These would be brought into place after the duties placed on educational institutions by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 have been fully implemented in September 2005. The second exclusion is those areas that overlap with and need to be contextualised by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Again, I think that your Lordships will understand the point of that.
In conclusion, the draft regulations introduce meaningful and worthwhile changes to the employment provisions of the DDA. Every small employer in the country will be covered. More than 1 million more employers will be included in the DDA. Seven million additional jobs and 600,000 disabled people in those jobs will be protected. This is a major advance in rights at work for disabled people.
The draft regulations are the next step towards meeting our manifesto commitment to extend rights and opportunities for disabled people. Further significant changes should flow from our draft disability Bill that we expect to publish later this year. As I said at the start, we have discussed the need to improve civil rights—above all, in the field of employment—for disabled people on many occasions. These draft regulations do precisely that. I hope that they will be warmly welcomed by the House today. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

139
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the helpful and wonderfully clear way in which she has introduced these regulations, and taken us through the detail. I welcome them enormously, although, as the noble Baroness has already said, I fear that they are not as comprehensive in scope as they need to be to implement the EU employment directive in full. I understand that the Disability Rights Commission says that the occupational pension scheme is a very complicated area. I welcome the assurance that the noble Baroness will try to sort something out in that respect. I look forward, with anticipation, to the DfES regulations.
The removal of the small employers exemption—Regulation 7—and extension of the DDA to a much wider range of employment situations by October 2004 is to be very strongly welcomed. I shall confine my remarks to two areas that have been of particular interest to me—namely, the qualifications bodies and arrangements for disabled people in work placement schemes.
I am delighted to see that the regulations extend the coverage to qualifications bodies. Disabled students may currently be denied the opportunity to undertake a particular course of study by education institutions because of hurdles erected by some professional bodies. That is quite wrong, as the noble Baroness said. It is absolutely right that these qualification bodies should be required to facilitate opportunities for disabled students and to justify objectively any competence standards they may set. The provisions are complex and would almost warrant their own code of practice as SKILL—the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, of which I am president—proposed in its response to the first draft of the regulations. I believe that I saw the noble Baroness almost nodding her head in agreement at the complication of the matter.
The wide definition of "qualifications body" seems to suggest that examining boards will be covered by the provisions when awarding a GCSE in maths, for example, which is an essential qualification for so many different professions, particularly teaching. Can the Minister confirm that this is the case? I should like to ask a further question for clarification on the extremely welcome extension of the DDA to disabled people on work placements. Can the Minister explain why new Sections 14C and 14D of the DDA specify that the work placement must be part of a vocational training scheme to be covered by the DDA? The Disability Rights Commission believes this to be too narrow an interpretation of the directive which applies to occupation and vocational training in the broadest sense.
I am concerned that the wording used in the regulations would exclude disabled people undertaking work experience placements, as part of
140
the New Deal, from the protection of the DDA. Can the Minister explain why the provisions have been cast so narrowly and clarify what types of vocational training programmes will be covered? For example, would a two-week placement as part of a life skills course for people with learning disabilities be included in the provision? The Minister will remember that this House previously expressed the view that all work placements should be covered by the DDA—indeed, we passed an amendment to that effect last year to the Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
In conclusion, in many respects these regulations cannot come soon enough, but there remain the one or two issues that the noble Baroness mentioned in relation to employment protection and equal career opportunities which I look forward to being satisfactorily addressed in the near future. In the mean time, I warmly welcome the regulations.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I have one regret to express about these regulations—that is, that it has taken so long for the Government to get around to them. It was always scandalous that millions of workers should be excluded from the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act. One million employers and some 7 million workers were excluded from such protection. The Conservative government made a great mistake when they made the provision for any firm employing fewer than 20 workers to be excluded from the provisions of the Act. The Labour Government brought that figure down to 15, missing a great chance. They acted too timidly by making it 15 instead of zero. All this time has been wasted. It has been perfectly legal to discriminate against vulnerable workers. There is no excuse for that and no reason why the Government should not have acted before.
Having said that, they have now acted, and I congratulate my noble friend because we have been at cross purposes on this issue for a very long time. I suggested changing the regulations. I am not saying that we are clashing on this, but the Government did not do what we wanted in good time. The All-Party Disability Group will be delighted that these provisions have now been brought forward by my noble friend.
I warmly congratulate the Government. The regulations will be a great relief to millions of workers and they will have an enormous beneficial effect.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome these regulations. Within the limits of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, to which I shall return in a moment, they are exceptionally well drafted.
The Minister will know of my main criticism, in which I am not alone. I was the sponsor of the single Equality Bill, which went through the House, and which received commendation from more than 220 Members of Parliament in an Early-Day Motion. It brought together the most modern, coherent and accessible legislation on disability discrimination as one Bill.

141
I shall continue to believe that the Government made an important strategic mistake in deciding to proceed using subordinate legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, instead of introducing a primary Bill that could have dealt in one go with the imperfections in the Disability Discrimination Act. Unfortunately, the Government did not take that decision. There was a poverty of ambition and perhaps a lack of basic skill in the decision-taking process.
Although the regulations are very well conceived within the tightly boned corset of European Community law, the Government will have to legislate again and again in this and other areas of discrimination law. We shall be treated tomorrow to regulations on race discrimination, and next week to religion and sexual orientation discrimination, all of which will he under different regulations, and all of which will add to the incoherence and opaqueness of the overall scheme. One needs to be almost a rocket scientist to appreciate the law, but it does not have to be that way.
I very much believe—and hope—that in two or three years a future Government will clear up the mess that Parliament is being compelled to make by passing incremental legislation by delegated legislation.
Having said all that, I do not take away from what I said at the beginning. The regulations in their own terms are most welcome. I hope that when the Government produce a draft Bill to reform the Disability Discrimination Act, they may take a leaf from the Equality Bill that was included as a result of suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and others. I am referring to the very narrow definition of disability, especially when dealing with mental disability. I was persuaded that that definition needs to be widened.
I understand why that cannot be done in these regulations, as it would affect areas that are not covered by EU law. But it is a good example of why we need to have either a Disability Discrimination Act, which deals with all of this in one place, or an Equality Act that includes disability discrimination within it. We should not have this kind of creeping mess of legislation, for which the Minister is not responsible, as I am sure that it is not her decision to proceed in a piecemeal way.
I hope that my remarks do not take away from my welcome of the regulations and the expertise involved. The drafter of the regulations must be outstanding—I believe that she was a member of my chambers. I very much hope that she will be employed in drafting a single Equality Bill sooner rather than later.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the regulations, which will be widely welcomed, including by many employers. They will extend civil rights to some 600,000 disabled people who are working in jobs that are currently excluded from the DDA and will strengthen the career and employment opportunities for all disabled people.
142
However, it is argued by the Disability Rights Commission and others that the regulations do not go far enough towards full implementation of the EU employment directive, nor do they do enough to tackle systemic discrimination. Moreover, many key changes required in the employment field, including numerous outstanding recommendations of the disability rights task force, will need to be made by primary legislation, as pointed out by the commission. Disabled people are anxious that the Government press on with those, too. There is growing unease at the delay in bringing forward the promised draft disability Bill and a desire not to lose momentum on civil rights, especially in view of moves towards a single equality body.
One of the undoubted benefits of the regulations is the introduction of the concept of direct discrimination in the Disability Discrimination Act. This means that there will be no possible justification when a disabled person with similar abilities to a non-disabled person receives less favourable treatment by an employer on grounds of disability. It will clearly outlaw prejudicial treatment imposed simply because a person is disabled, such as a blanket ban on employing people with a particular disability.
However, an equally pressing issue is discrimination against disabled job applicants and employees on the basis of medical reports that are tainted by prejudicial assumptions. Recent case law has demonstrated how assumptions made by health professionals about disabled people can be used to justify discriminatory treatment. Can the Minister assure the House that it will no longer be justifiable to refuse employment to a disabled person because of reliance on a medical report, which is based on assumptions about a disabled person, without adequate consideration of the individual's abilities or the impact of the impairment in that particular case?
Finally, one area of concern that appears not to have been addressed by the regulations is the lack of protection for those who face discrimination because they are falsely perceived to be disabled, or because of an association with a disabled person. A recent example of this involved a secretary whose child had cerebral palsy and who felt pressured into leaving her job because of her employer's attitude.
Under the employment directive the right to equal treatment is not limited to the person who is disabled. Rather, discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably than another on grounds of disability. Surely the DDA must be extended to cover discrimination by association, or on the basis of perceived disability to comply with the directive.
Can the Minister assure the House that this matter will be addressed alongside other much needed changes to the definition of disability, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, in the forthcoming disability Bill?
4 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my comments on these regulations can be summed up as an excellent refit of an obsolete ship. We all said that the Disability

143
Discrimination Act 1995 did not go far enough, but that it broke new ground. It was much more important that the Act stated that discimination was something that we should not have, rather than what the Act did.
There was the appalling provision that the Act did not cover an employer with 20 or fewer employees. The noble Baroness can certainly take some credit as being the person who eventually removed that provision, but it meant that vast sections of the workplace were not touched by the legislation. The appallingly long run-in time and so on has meant that many of the intended effects of the Bill have not worked. But it was a first step and, effectively, this very limited framework is now, for the first time, reasonably coherent.
But there are still holes. I wonder why the Armed Forces have to be excluded. The defence of reasonableness and the fact that a person has to be competent to do a job means that the Armed Forces would not have to take someone who could not fulfil a basic function. But those are battles for another day. The Bill is now as it should have been originally—a limited vessel in the field of disability. But we have still not gone far enough.
The Minister is on very good form. Another analogy that comes to mind is that she is someone who has come with a good hand and played it very well. She is now saying that a draft Bill is coming along through which we shall be able to address many of the points raised by my noble friend.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, to be clear, I said that we expect to publish a draft Bill. As the noble Lord will know—I am sure that he is teasing me—a decision as to when and if any Bill comes to your Lordships' House is not for me or your Lordships to determine.
Lord Addington: My Lords, well played and well defended. But the Government are at least saying, "We must look wider and go further. We are addressing the problem".
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, since we started off this process it has taken a long time to get here. I have always had one ambition in regard to disability rights—that is, to be able to put up my feet and say, "Well, that is that dealt with for at least the foreseeable future". That dream comes a little closer with the passing of the regulations and the tone of what the Minister said today. I hope that my crystal ball gazing will prove to be correct.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as has been shown by the short debate, we are all extremely grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these incredibly complicated regulations. They are so complicated that it took me many hours with a cold towel to achieve even a modest appreciation of what they are getting at.
I was, as always, pleased to see the copious commentary memorandum that the Minister's department invariably provides on these occasions. Those noble Lords who have not seen it will perhaps
144
not be surprised to learn, after the Minister's introduction and the debates we have had, that it runs to 66 pages of A4 paper—almost twice as long as the regulations themselves.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the regulations are a masterpiece of the draftsman's art. As the noble Baroness said, they implement a part, and only a part—the subject of some of your Lordships' moans today—of the EU directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Minister says that two more orders flowing from that directive are to come. She did not say when. It may be that she does not know, but, if she does, perhaps she will let the House know.
The regulations today are concerned solely with disabled people and are made, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972. Indeed, I do not believe that the Disability Discrimination Act permits the kind of wholesale revision encompassed by the regulations. A quick glance reveals that we have, in effect, a completely new Act. Part 1 remains the same but Part 2 is now to start with two new sections defining what is meant by "discrimination" and "harassments". Sections 4, 5 and 6 disappear and are replaced by new Sections 4 and 6. In passing, what on earth has happened to Section 5? I am sure it is buried in there somewhere and that I will come to it.
The new Section 4 extends the provisions of the Act to agencies providing contract workers, which is clearly an overdue reform. The CBI was consulted a few months ago and raised no objection to this, to the new coverage of policemen, fire fighters, partners, barristers and advocates, or to the reformation—reformulation, perhaps I should say—of Sections 13 to 15 regarding trade and professional bodies, qualifications bodies and organisations carrying out practical work experience.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, said, this matter seems to be only partially covered in the regulations—for example, when the trainee is the direct employee of the firm providing the training—but if agencies can be covered so far as concerns contract workers and part-time workers, surely educational institutes, colleges of further education and so on could also be covered.
The Minister rightly highlighted the fact that the regulations will also apply the Act to small businesses—to those, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, with fewer than 15 employees—for the first time. This derogation, I believe, was invented because of affordability so far as small businesses are concerned. It was contained in Section 7 of the original Act, which is now swept away. Can the Minister tell us how she expects this to work in practice; about the employer's duty to make practical adjustments for disabled people; and at what cost?
I know that the Federation of Small Businesses has been lobbying the Treasury for tax credits to help small employers make the necessary adjustments for disabled employees and has received a dusty answer. I confess that I am not surprised. If the Government

145
want the provision to work, as I do, being involved in a small business myself—and, indeed, as we all do— they must provide some kind of help. If tax credits are not the answer, will the Inland Revenue allow a 100 per cent write-off of the necessary expenditure in the annual accounts?
Why was Section 9, which pertains to the validity of certain agreements, repealed? It is a provision which strengthens the Act, not weakens it. The Explanatory Memorandum states that it has been replaced—but where? I said this was complicated, but I have totally failed to find it. That exemplifies my criticism of the regulations.
In my examination of what the regulations do, I have reached only the middle. I shall not weary the House by describing the other changes and additions that have been made. But that is not all: the regulations also renumber and move around those parts of the Act that remain. How are firms and lawyers—even officials—now to refer quickly to what they require? It is a nightmare of legislation by reference.
We desperately need a Keeling schedule for the whole Act, as it will he. It does not need to be statutory but I challenge the Minister to produce one. This is very important legislation. Reference has been made to the fact that the Secretary of State said earlier this year—as did the Minister today—that the department would publish a draft disability Bill later this year. We are now half-way through the year and it has become a fairly long promise. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made? Will it include the Disability Discrimination Act as amended? If a Keeling schedule is not appropriate, that most certainly would be.
We have no objections to the regulations in principle. Disabled people are people first, disabled second. We who are fortunate to be able bodied, should, as far as humanly possible, bend over backwards to allow them, according to their abilities, to enjoy the same rights and privileges that we enjoy. They are, for example, twice as likely as the able bodied to be unemployed, which is not a satisfactory arrangement. That inevitably means helping them to enjoy the dignity of work and not putting obstacles in their way. With a little thought and care, this can be overcome. Alas, we still in live a society that requires the law to enforce what needs to be done. It is too tempting for employers to discriminate against disabled people. Their very disabilities are discriminatory enough. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for presenting the regulations to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the regulations have received such a warm welcome from all sides of the House. I am very grateful. Even with the reservations expressed, which I shall address, I am delighted that everyone has recognised the decency of the Government's response in incorporating into British law two years ahead of the statutory requirement such a major extension of disability rights. It gives me particular pleasure for
146
once to have the uncritical—although I know it will continue to be demanding—support of my noble friend Lord Ashley.
I shall seek to address some of the comments. I may need to reply in writing on technical points about why some matters are in the regulations and some are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, raised first qualification bodies. She was concerned that the DDA protection would not extend to bodies associated with GCSEs and A-levels. Our view is that examining bodies such as those for accountancy, law, the Bar Council, and accredited examination bodies that test competencies such as those for gas fitters under the Corgi principles are qualification bodies within the meaning of the regulations.
However, GCSEs and A-levels are not professional or trade qualifications within the meaning of the regulations. The regulations are work-related and employment focused. Examining bodies will not be covered by the qualification bodies provision when awarding those qualifications. Those qualifications represent a general standard of achievement in secondary education and do not themselves qualify for a particular trade or profession. The test already laid down by the court of appeal in case law under similar provisions in the Race Relations Act is whether the body is,
"similar to authorities which are empowered to grant qualifications or recognition for the purpose of practising a profession, calling, trade or activity".
While GSCE or A-levels may be the means. they are not part of the qualification under the regulations.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I gave the example of GCSE maths because one would need it in order to qualify for the professional qualification. It is part of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, but I do not see how we could make a distinction between those people taking GSCE maths because it might subsequently be a qualification for a job and those for whom it would not be. It is clear that the regulations are focused on work-related and professional qualifications. I shall turn to work placements in a moment.
If the noble Baroness has any reason to believe that areas of GCSEs or A-levels systematically discriminate against disabled people, let us have a look at that; I shall draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. That may be a more practical way. The regulations are about employment criteria, which is why, within the meaning of the law as I understand it, GCSEs and A-levels would not be covered.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I will communicate with Skill and see if we can progress on the issue. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness's second point, about work placement and vocational training, was related. She felt, as did the

147
noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the description of work placements was possibly too narrowly drawn. I accept that these are difficult lines to draw and I am not saying that we have necessarily got it absolutely right—the provision may in future have to be revisited—but we are again trying to get placements that relate directly to work and work experience.
That would mean that we are not, in this context, covering placements about enlarging life skills. For example, someone volunteering to work in a charity shop would not necessarily be covered under the regulations where it was part of getting them back into the ordinary life-flow of mixing with other people and so on. It would not be work-related. We are focusing on work placements that are directly work-related by analogy with our previous discussion about professional qualifications.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point I wonder whether she will help me. We all know that the employers carrying out the training are not at fault because, due to their normal activities, they are already covered by the DDA. The gap appears to be for those people who seek out employers to create placements for training. I am advised, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that such organisations are not covered by the regulations. Is that correct?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it depends on the example the noble Lord has in mind. In some cases it would not be reasonable in terms of the push of the regulations—as opposed to the wider framework of a disability Bill. I am thinking on my feet so if I am misleading the House I apologise in advance. Say that someone had suffered from agoraphobia and had difficulties in leaving the house, but with a great deal of support and encouragement was able to do a couple of hours' placement in a charity shop, not because they were acquiring work skills, but because they were beginning to address some of the issues associated with their general health.
My understanding is that such a life-skills situation—which might be preparatory for a subsequent appropriate work-skills placement, perhaps involving learning IT skills and so on—would not be covered; nor is it intended to be covered. That would make the regulations too widely drawn. I am not saying that this is the last word on the matter, but that is our current distinction: whether something is directly related to work preparation or work placement as opposed to more general life experience activity, which would not be covered by employment focused regulations.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, wishes to come back with specific examples I shall check with our lawyers our understanding of whether they would be covered. That might be the most helpful way forward. It is difficult for me to speculate in advance on how the regulations will come into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, complimented our lawyer on the drafting of the regulations. I am sure that that is completely unconnected with the fact that the
148
person concerned served in the noble Lord's chambers. I agree that it is a model of drafting that will be of help to us all. However, I disagree with his general approach of wanting a "big bang". I understand the arguments about Keeling schedules and the like. Having been involved in disability issues for some 15 years, from my experience perception issues change over time and there needs to be an incremental response.
The noble Lord went on to say that this should he part of a big bang single equality Bill, brigaded with issues of discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and race, for example. I am not sure that I accept that intellectually. Disability is very different. All of us are one sex or the other; all of us have an age, for which we may experience discrimination in one area or the other; all of us have a race, for which we may be discriminated against. That is not true for disability. Only some people experience discrimination by virtue of their disability. The rest of us would not.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, of course I recognise that one-solution-fits-all makes no sense for different kinds of discrimination, but that does not mean that one cannot have accessible, user-friendly and intelligible legislation. Does the Minister agree that the problem of using Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 is that it is a tight corset that prevents the Government using subordinate legislation to tackle the wider problems of disability discrimination raised by noble Lords today? Would she also therefore agree that we must aim for a single disability discrimination Act? That is not a Utopian aim. It does not matter whether it is part of an equality Act or not, but in the words of the Labour Party's 1997 manifesto it should tackle,
"unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
Can we therefore take the sensible suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and do what a Labour government did with the Equal Pay Act 1970 when we amended it in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975? In future disability discrimination legislation, we should have something like a Keeling schedule, stating the whole of disability discrimination law in one place. In that way, lawyers such as myself would not unjustly enrich ourselves by having to deal with complicated problems that do not need to be complicated and are complicated only because of the way in which the Government choose to legislate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not seek to engage the noble Lord about the "corset" European Communities Act 1972. He has far more experience than I do on the matter, and I would not wish to use such words about something that is beyond my reach.
As for bringing together these regulations, the DDA and any possible subsequent Bill or rewriting in a Keeling schedule, I must take advice on the matter. I have not been advised on it and do not know about the practicalities. If it involved parliamentary counsel, as such things tend to, we could arrive at a situation

149
where parliamentary counsel's time was displaced from primary legislation to pursue the matter. Therefore, there is a resource implication.
I take the point that we need to make the law clear and accessible. but I need to take advice on the matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I realise that it would take primary legislation, that it could not be done otherwise and that Ministers have no power to do it under Section 2 of the European Communities Act. I am simply saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In a future Act, we should have one Act and not a whole series.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
On the more general point about discrimination, I find it hard to conceive of a situation in which race was a relevant consideration in terms of an employment field. I can conceive, following the arguments we have had, of the acceptance we all share that competence must be relevant, and the ability to do the job is relevant to someone who has a disability. That is why the broad-brush approach would not necessarily be appropriate.
I turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Wilkins. She raised the question about direct discrimination regulations and asked what might happen if an employer sought to discriminate on grounds of stereotype rather than the merits of the individual. We believe that that is covered by the direct discrimination rules we have already discussed. Our regulations ensure that direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments cannot be justified. It is for the tribunal courts to decide whether discrimination has occurred in a particular situation.
The changes we are making will ensure that a disabled person, faced with the situation that my noble friend described, could bring a successful DDA case. I refer to situations in which an employer refuses to employ someone simply because of prejudiced and generalised assumptions. If, for example, someone had a history of depression and it was said that they could not do their job because it meant engaging with the public, that might well he a case of prima facie direct discrimination. The employer might rely on a statement by an occupational health adviser, who would have no knowledge of the person's individual circumstances. The adviser might decide that all people with clinical depression have terrible mood swings and therefore they cannot deal with the public and should not be employed in a call centre, for example. That would count as direct discrimination and would be covered in that situation.
I do not know whether that sufficiently answers the point made by my noble friend Lady Wilkins. Obviously, such a case would have to be tested at law, but our understanding is that the proposals on direct discrimination should cover the situations put to us by the DRC and those put by my noble friend today. If we need to qualify that, I shall come back to her.
150
My noble friend also raised the question of false perception. The problem is that we are trying to deal with an objective assessment, not the employer's state of mind. The example that she gave was covered more by her situation as a carer for a disabled person than as a disabled person herself. Therefore, as things currently stand, that would not come within the framework of the legislation or the directive. If, however, someone discriminated against another person because they believed falsely that that person had a disability that rendered them incapable, that would not be covered. Such a situation would relate to the employer's state of mind, and we have to deal with the objective facts of disability.
That brings us into the area of perception, which has been discussed under previous disability Bills. We have tried to stay in the territory that the person carrying the disability has to have the disability for the discrimination to be valid. It cannot rest on the assumption that the employer has false information in his mind. The classic example is when employers assume that a person must have HIV because he is living in a gay relationship and that therefore they can discriminate against that person. The individual involved might not have HIV, but he would be able to deal with the discrimination through other means, such as sexual orientation. That is the distinction we make in such situations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not agree with that distinction. I do not agree that one can confine disability discrimination in a narrow way to whether a person is in fact disabled rather than whether there is a false assumption that he is disabled. That is why it is sensible to have a single equality Act—because, in relation to sexual or race discrimination, arguments of that kind would not pass muster. I want to make it clear that I do not agree with the Government in that respect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not quite see how a false perception of sexuality could influence and come into dispute in a situation of employment. There is an issue for disability. I gave the example of HIV of a false assumption associated with a person's lifestyle. If an employer objected to that and had that false perception, that person would not have protection under DDA because he would not he disabled. We are operating not within the field of the state of mind of the employer but on the disability that the person discriminated against actually has. It would be difficult for us to test the employer's state of mind in such a situation.
We have had these debates for many years. I took part in similar debates in 1975. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, disagrees, but I do not see a read-across with sex or race legislation, because the sex or race of a person is somewhat unambiguous—even if it were relevant to employment situations, which for the most part it is not.
Finally, I turn to the point about costs raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. My understanding is that the overall costs to employers will be of the order

151
of £6·7 million. The average business costs will be £6 per business and, in addition, there will be costs to the taxpayer of some £500,000 through the costs of employment tribunals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would help if the Minister could tell me whether those are ongoing or start-up costs in that adaptations to workplaces have to be made to employ disabled people. On the whole, that would be a one-off cost.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is a one-off cost of £4 million in terms of awareness and guidance for employers, with some additional costs for recruiting and advertising. The overall costs include that, and we expect that to be around £6·7 million. Much of the cost of adaptation and so on is already covered by the current access to work funding. It has tripled in real terms to about £47 million a year since 1997. My best advice is that we expect the ongoing costs to employers to be about £6 per unit.
Employers are not being asked to adapt premises and so on in advance of any disabled person seeking employment with them. There is no general duty, for example, to produce the ramp in a building in advance. In that case, the noble Lord would be absolutely right that there would be fairly high, up-front, one-off costs.
The costs—and many benefits, obviously—come with the arrival of the disabled person. That is why the distinction between one-off and ongoing costs is not necessarily a real one. There will be modest one-off costs for advertising, disability awareness and so on, but the building costs are part of the ongoing and adaptation costs, because they come with the arrival of the disabled person. My experience has been that very often help with those moneys is available from the access to work fund, which is why the costs seem as low as they do.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, with regard to the implication of excessive costs for employers, does my noble friend agree that all that the Act says is that employers should not discriminate against disabled people? It also says that costs must be reasonable—that only reasonable action must be taken. So the question of unreasonable costs is quite out of order, according to the Act.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Obviously, such adjustments may involve no cost at all. A classic example is adjusting the hours of work. Another is moving the filing cabinets around. In the United States the average adjustment for small businesses was minute, which is why the figures are as low as they are. As my noble friend says, this is simply to look at one side of the equation and to ignore the benefits, particularly in the workplace and subsequently in other areas not covered by the directives—disabled people being able to access goods and services and thus expand the country's economic base.
152
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me about the Keeling schedule. I shall write to him about that, because it is an important issue and we have the legal resources of the department. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from.
The noble Lord also asked what we are doing about the two areas of exemption that are not being carried forward in the regulations. One concerns pensions and the other the special education needs educational material. We expect—with health warnings attached—that we may be able to come forward with provisions concerning disabled people in occupational pensions in the autumn. That is the best advice that I have; I cannot be more specific.
I cannot tell the noble Lord about the education matter, because that is still being worked on within the Department for Education and Skills. Given the directives, we are required by Europe to have these provisions in place by 2006. That is the broad brush description of the situation. I hope that we can advance on that timetable.
I apologise for the complexity of the regulations. I accept that they are extremely difficult. I am grateful that your Lordships thought that the explanation was as helpful as we could make it. Above all, I am delighted, as I am sure all of your Lordships are, that the regulations will represent a sizeable advance in the rights at work for disabled people. The numbers—a million businesses, 600,000 disabled people and 7 million jobs—are huge. This is probably the biggest single advance for disabled people. many of whom find the best employment situations in the small family-run firms. This will rightly be a major extension of opportunities for disabled people, from which not just they but all of us will benefit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Common Agricultural Policy (EUC Report)
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Selbornerose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy: External Implications (10th Report, HL Paper 62).
The noble Earl said: The emphasis of the report is very much on "external implications", because the committee looked specifically at the implications that this rather unexpectedly massive reform of the common agricultural policy will have on trade liberalisation, the applicant countries to the European Union and developing countries—and, indeed, on our commitment to the Doha development round.
I start by declaring an interest as a farmer and by saying how grateful Sub-Committee D was to its specialist adviser, Mr Brian Gardner, who has been involved for many years with tracking the common agricultural policy and matters agricultural in Brussels. As always, we are also deeply grateful to our Clerk, Mr Tom Radice.

153
The common agricultural policy has been in existence since the early 1960s. It is recognised that its focus for much of its existence has been on achieving a fair standard of living for agricultural producers, and of course also achieving food security. Basically, in so far as the subsidies over many years were to try to obtain a fair standard of living for agricultural producers, the CAP was singularly ineffective. Subsidies have failed to stop farm incomes from declining relative to those of the rest of the population. Price support is a relatively inefficient way of bolstering farm incomes. The OECD estimates that for every 4 dollars spent on subsidies, farm incomes go up by only 1 dollar. Therefore, it is not surprising that farm incomes seem not to have benefited from the considerable costs of the common agricultural policy.
That fact was recognised by MacSharry in the early 1990s, in that the reforms of 1992 cost more: they cost 13 billion euros for direct subsidies to compensate for 6 billion euros of market intervention costs. Nevertheless, it was a helpful introduction. It was seen as a way of establishing a programme, which it was hoped would continue for some years, for scaling down support, increasing the competitiveness of European agriculture and targeting state subvention on income support for the less-favoured sectors of the rural population.
The Berlin Council of March 1999 was part of this progression; the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP came out of the Berlin Council. This introduced the rural development regulation, which was widely welcomed and which is known as the second pillar of the CAP. The Berlin Council further lowered market support.
Nevertheless, the outcome was deeply disappointing to many countries, particularly to the UK Government and others. The reformists recognised that the Commission's objectives had been railroaded, the reforms being nothing like as far-reaching as had been hoped.
One concession was that there should be a mid-term review, and that is precisely what we are now conducting. The debate comes on the eve of the critical meeting of the Council of Ministers; it meets tomorrow, I think, and I have no doubt that it will be meeting for several days afterwards, because this is indeed, unlike what was expected at the time the concession was made in Berlin, turning out to be a major reform. For that, Commissioner Fischler and other commissioners deserve congratulations on the radical nature of the original proposals of June 2002, which was the subject of our report.
By January 2003 seven draft Council regulations had been published by the Commission, which retained the thrust of the original proposals but also embraced significant changes, partly in modulation and partly in dairy reform and other aspects. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the pressure exerted on the Commission has been, as in Berlin, to reduce the effectiveness of its radical proposals. If there is any doubt about the strength of the opposition from the majority of the Council of Ministers, I would refer the
154
House to box 4 of our report, a letter to the Financial Times from a number of Ministers. I shall quote one sentence which is apposite to our report:
"Some also claim that the CAP is responsible for causing hunger in developing countries. Nothing could be further from the truth".
That is breathtaking complacency. Certainly, that bald assertion is not borne out by the evidence that we took.
As I said, the mid-term review is much more ambitious in its programme of changes. I remind the House that it introduced decoupling—the single income payment based on crop subsidy payments received over a period in the past. That is, indeed, a truly radical step and very important as it removes the incentive to produce more in order to get more grant. It gives hope that we can reconcile the common agricultural policy with something which might be compatible with the Doha development round and with other free trade movements.
Although decoupling is widely to be welcomed, I am very nervous of the concept of partial decoupling, which may well be the sort of fudge that comes out of the Council this week. We shall have to see whether that materialises. While the CAP continues to offer support—the amount of money that continues to be offered to the existing 15 member states is by no means insignificant at 40 billion euros or more—there will be higher production as a result, but, as I say, farmers are no longer incentivised to produce more.
We have to recognise that European farmers are doing astonishingly well out of the proposal. It is a long way from the sort of proposal that MacSharry might have expected to come forward at this stage of the reform. I have seen one analysis which suggests that United Kingdom farm income might benefit significantly from the total package, possibly by up to half a billion pounds a year. Economists can run those figures in all sorts of directions, and I do not wish to be held to that, but I nevertheless make the point that once you get a single payment without having to produce any more or any less, you are in a position of much greater flexibility. We have to bear in mind that European farmers are lucky to get that very generous support.
The support is to be modulated, which is European Union jargon for saying that it will be cut over a period. But, again, the more recent proposals have slightly modified those degressive cuts, and they will effectively not start for three years. It will take up to 10 years for them finally to hit.
As regards cross-compliance, one may think that it is not an unreasonable proposal that if one is going to get these massive payments there should be a degree of environmental and other compliance. However, it is fair to say that while it is extremely important to audit these payments, there is a danger that a bureaucratic nightmare may emerge. It is by no means clear whether there will be robust, simple proposals which would prevent that happening.
I believe that noble Lords would agree that, building on the Berlin initiative of the second pillar rural development budget, the measures that we are

155
discussing should be grabbed immediately as it gives an opportunity to use the CAP to benefit the rural economy and widen the base of support. As I say, it disentangles us from the difficulties we have with the WTO and others.
I refer to changes in the dairy policy, some of which are extremely unhelpful. One of the latest proposals in January this year was that the quotas should continue until 2014. Try to reconcile that with the message to European farmers to be more competitive. Quotas are a way of providing a pension for people who have given up producing. You have to buy or lease someone else's quota if you want to expand or if you are a new entrant. That is highly unhelpful and, so far as I am concerned, unexpected.
There is a reduction in EC skimmed milk prices. It is calculated in the Government's response that by 2008–09 skimmed milk prices might be consistent with world market prices, although butter prices still remain 12 per cent higher. That step must be welcomed, if not the speed with which it is being implemented. Paragraph 67 of the report states:
"Jamaica's skim milk powder imports from the EU have almost quadrupled during the past 10 years … These imports have been used largely to replace fresh milk originally supplied from local farms".
That is an example of how the European Union's subsidised exports undermine the local economies of countries with a far lower standard of living than our own. I am absolutely clear in my own mind that European farmers do not want and do not expect to have a form of support which undermines others who are far less capable of coping with this unfair competition.
I say again that Commissioner Fischler is to be congratulated on having put forward ambitious proposals, which were certainly not expected by the majority of Council members, particularly on decoupling most of the support from production.
Having said all that, it would be churlish to say that that is not good enough, but that is effectively what our report says. I recognise that the following proposal is totally unrealistic given that the majority of the Council of Ministers is so traditionalist and defensive of the support that has been provided for so long, but nevertheless it is important that we look at the remaining dairy export subsidies so far as impacts on the third world are concerned. Reform of the sugar regime will also have to be tackled.
We considered the accession countries and recognised that, had the reform been completed before they joined the Union, there would not have been any need to compensate them for support that they never had in the first place. But that is effectively what will happen. It would be far more appropriate for the rural development budget of pillar two to tackle such problems as rural social cohesion. We regret that the reform has taken so long to be determined and that some of the applicant countries are already putting in place all the worst aspects of the CAP. I fear that the
156
lobby in the Council of Ministers which supports the traditional CAP will be strengthened in part by the stance taken by the applicant countries.
But the wider issue is the need to reconcile support for European agriculture with our responsibilities to developing countries and trade liberalisation. I quote from the recent report on globalisation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which states at paragraph 76:
"We consider that developed countries' protectionism (mainly in the United States and the European Union) with regard to agricultural and textile products in particular is wholly objectionable and unjustifiable: developed countries' protectionism places an unfair burden on developing countries and is in stark contrast to the protestations of the leaders of the rich nations that they are committed to helping the world's poor".
We were particularly concerned at the level of import duty on processed food, for example, chocolate.
Let us make no mistake. European farmers are entitled to a common agricultural policy which assists them to move progressively from a heavily protected to a more competitive environment. The case for rewarding farmers' contributions to food security, countryside stewardship, food safety, the rural economy and much else is self-evident, but the question is how one has a policy which makes good sense to the taxpayer and which fulfils our obligations to the developing world and, for that matter, to the applicant countries. In recognising that the CAP reform is very much more generous than would have been expected some years ago, it is perfectly possible to take out its objectionable elements and to leave in place support which will reward European farmers justly for what they deliver.
Logically, once you have moved funds from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, you will not need to have import tariffs or to subsidise exports. The trouble is that we see a very modest movement of funds to Pillar 2, and that is really the burden of our report. Having come up with the strategy of Pillar 2 in Berlin some years ago. let us now have the courage to fund it properly. Relying on modulation—effectively cutting support that would otherwise have gone to production support, via Pillar 1, and using that for Pillar 2—is not enough. There needs to be a much more imaginative switch of funds. That will prevent agriculture being criticised by the rest of industry in Europe for causing a blockage in trade liberalisation, and preventing all the benefits in terms of employment and national wealth that might accrue from it.
We therefore suggest that payments to farmers should be capped—not a proposal which will go down well in the United Kingdom, because the farmers in the United Kingdom are larger than the average and this impacts on the larger farmers. Equally, if you are to try to distribute money widely and you are relying on modulation only, it will eventually mean that you are short of funds for Pillar 2. Were it possible to do a massive switch without relying on modulation, then perhaps capping would not be necessary either.
The present anachronistic formula of determining what country gets what for Pillar 2 is one of these problems we suffer from in this country where, lacking

157
matching funding, we do not by any means get what might be considered a due proportion of Pillar 2 funds. I think that we get 9.8 per cent of the EU modulation pot. Clearly this is a further grievance that British farmers rightly have. If they could see more money coming into Pillar 2, which they would bid for competitively, then this would be very much more satisfactory.
European farmers cannot expect their income to be shored up at the expense of third world producers. The mid-term review was a brave, ambitious programme of overdue reform, already diluted and in great danger, I suspect, of being diluted still further this week. The message coming from this debate today to our own Ministers, and to those who support the minority on the Council of Ministers, must at all costs be to ensure that we do not have what happened in Berlin, which was pressure from heads of government and others to dilute very sensible measures coming from the Commission.
I say again, these are measures which are radical, but they are overdue and they deserve our support. They cannot be diluted any further.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy: External Implications (10th Report, HL Paper 62).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
4.53 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to say that I very much welcome this report. I do believe, as we have often thought in the past, that publications by your Lordships' House are so good that they ought to he much more widely disseminated. If the powers-that-be could make it possible to have the 30 pages of the main report issued separately, it would become a very good and informative textbook on how the CAP—I should not say "works", because it does not—affects both the European economy and other economies.
I confess that I find it very hard to speak on the CAP without foaming at the mouth. It makes me angry just to think that it exists, so I shall try to be restrained if I can. The report is a very well-balanced account of all the major defects that the CAP has, and the committee is to be congratulated on the restraint it has shown in telling us what those defects are.
It is a policy which is inefficient in terms of production. It is regressive both among the farmers of Europe and also internationally, as between Europe and the third world. Whenever attempts have been made to reform it, the reforms have been blunted by all sorts of pressures from Ministers in the Council of Ministers.
My noble friend Lord Barnett, speaking in the globalisation debate last week, said that he wished that developed countries could do better regarding subsidies and so on, but he was very pessimistic. He said that democracy is a problem. I do not think that democracy is a problem. After all, farmers do not form a large proportion of the electorate. In terms of its contribution to the total economy, agriculture is not a
158
large sector in most of the 15 European economies. Poland is another matter. However, here in Europe and in America agriculture exercises a disproportionate influence on decision-making. It is very hard to understand why that is so. Why we urban consumers tolerate this I do not know. Maybe, after all the subsidy, food is so cheap for us that we cannot be bothered.
The cost of the CAP, as shown in the report—41 billion euros now, 46 billion euros in 2006, and so on—is a very large cost. Think of it. It more or less equals the total overseas development aid from OECD countries to third world countries. It is about 50 billion dollars. Given the way the exchange rate is moving, there is not much between 45 billion euros and 50 billion dollars. CAP alone costs as much as all of the OECD countries give to the third world.
I am very grateful to the committee for two things: for publishing a glossary of technical terms and also for re-publishing in Box 4 that splendid letter from agriculture Ministers across Europe. It only costs 1 per cent of GDP and they think that is not very much. It is quite a lot.
The logic of the CAP is very clear from the letter. It starts by saying that in the 1960s Europe was not self-sufficient in food. It could have been imported. The whole logic is so opposed to trade—which is a very efficient way of satisfying consumption—that the CAP was constructed as a massive obstacle to liberal trade. It continues to be a massive obstacle to liberal trade, not only in preventing more efficient entrants from exporting to the European Union but also in its dumping effects, again very nicely detailed by the report. In its dumping effects it positively harms the economies of the third world by ruining their chances of entering a liberal, or at least a substantially freer, trade regime.
In a sense, it represents quite a large damaging force in international affairs. I have been quoted as saying that the CAP is a crime against humanity, and I do not mind repeating that. It is the least that one can say about it.
There is a very interesting problem with the reform which is now emerging, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said very succinctly. The Fischler reforms, welcome as they were, have been blunted. Even the blunted reforms are worth having, but they have been greatly blunted. If the Fischler reforms had been put through, we would not have had a complete solution to the bad effects of the CAP, but at least it would have been a beginning.
Decoupling is absolutely essential. It is at the heart of these reforms. It is ironic that, if decoupling happened, UK agriculture would go back to the nice situation we had before we joined the EEC, as it was then, whereby farmers are supported through an income support scheme and not through a scheme tied to production.
I am not sure whether this cross-compliance and Pillar 2 are not seen outside as excuses which the EU has thrown up in order not to reform the CAP. I hope that it is sincere in saying that it will give money for

159
environmental improvement, rural development and so on. However, I think that measures on those were thought up to give Mr Pascal Lamy a better case to present at the WTO round in Doha. I am not at all hopeful that good environmental effects will follow, because the measures do not seem as though they will be implemented.
Those are barriers to reform, as the committee says very well in paragraph 74. People trying to export agricultural products to Europe have to meet certain production standards, which are non-tariff barriers. There are non-tariff barriers to entry of products, and barriers, whatever we call them, to reform of the CAP. Those two types of barriers make it very difficult to know which way we will go.
The UK Government have tried very hard to reform the CAP. I hope that our debate and the report itself will strengthen the hand of the Minister. We will have to unite with all the other reforming countries and try once again very hard. As the report states, we should have reform of the CAP before enlargement. We should certainly have not given the newly-entering countries the hope that they would get compensation of anything like the extent of that of the existing CAP. The horse has now bolted, as countries such as Poland very much depend on getting substantial support payments. That will distort their agriculture so much that, when it comes to real reform later, they will say, "We cannot afford reform because that will ruin our agriculture".
We are in a vicious circle of bad situations. I wish my noble friend, if he is going to Brussels tomorrow, all strength to his elbows and every other part of his body to see that the CAP is reformed. I very much welcome the report.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the words "reform of the common agricultural policy" tend to elicit from the average British commentator, whether pro-European or Euro-sceptic, a mixture of despair, anger and weary cynicism in about equal measure. Let us hope that those not very useful emotions will be absent from this debate on a report that seems to be calm, rational, compelling in its conclusions, and exceptionally timely as the European Union prepares to enlarge substantially and to engage in the critical phase of the Doha development round of world trade negotiations. The sub-committee and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, are to be congratulated on their work, as, for the most part, are the Government for their response.
The heart of the report and of the Commission's mid-term review proposals, as others have said, is the breaking of the link between the level of subsidy and the level of agricultural production. It is, after all, that link that has led to the distortion of world agricultural markets, the failure to allow market forces to have any impact on the supply side of the equation, and the undercutting of third world farmers in their own and their prospective export markets by European Union
160
producers. It is that link that even now results in the European farm industry, alone among Europe's industries, being protected from the impact of the rising value of the euro against other currencies.
If I may be forgiven for digressing for a moment, I recall that it was a former Leader of the House, Lord Soames who, when he got to the Commission in Brussels in 1973 and was put in charge of the Tokyo round of trade negotiations—I worked for him at the time—first pointed out the urgent need to decouple the subsidisation of farmers from the level of production, thus avoiding the encouragement of surpluses that had to be sold expensively overseas and many of the other trade-distorting effects of the common agricultural policy. He was quite simply laughed to scorn. How could he, a newcomer, be so naive as to suppose that European farmers and their political backers in the Council of Ministers would ever countenance such a revolutionary idea?
Well, it is an idea whose time has come—better late than never. No doubt attempts will be made in the negotiations that lie ahead, within both the European Union and the World Trade Organisation, to water down the proposals. I hope that the Government will commit themselves to resisting that with all the means at their disposal.
It is surely correct, as the report points out, that the decoupling of production and subsidy is also crucial if the new member states are not to become hooked on the present system, which will then become even more difficult to reform. We must be careful to avoid mixing up the budgetary and trade implications of the Commission's proposals. As others have pointed out, the proposals will not save the European Union's budget much money—perhaps not any at all, at least in the short and medium term. Does that discredit them? I do not believe so.
We must be careful of squeezing the budgetary pips so hard that support for the proposals in the new member states in particular erodes, and we must be aware of budgetary arguments related to the proportion of the EU budget that goes on agriculture. Those arguments have always been pretty spurious given how few major spending policies in Europe are financed out of the European Union budget. After all, we are talking about a proportion of European revenue capped at 1.25 per cent of gross domestic product, and that at a time when each member state is nationally spending a lot more than that on health, education and even, although reluctantly, their armed forces. We will not get common agricultural policy reform on the cheap, but we need it.
If I have a doubt about the Government's approach to the Commission's proposals, it lies in their answer to paragraph 78 of the committee's report, which is on the desirability of capping the amount of income subsidy to individual holdings. I think that I can detect in the Government's negative reaction a flaw that has so often undermined Britain's support for CAP reform in the past; namely, a determination to fight against any distinction between small and large farmers. In my view, that makes neither economic nor tactical sense.

161
After all, we do not refuse to make a distinction in many aspects of our fiscal and state-support systems between small and large economic operators. Why not in this case, too?
The tactical argument is even more compelling. If we devote our efforts and energy to removing what we see as discrimination against large producers, we end up weakening our support for the Commission's reform efforts overall. Alas, that has happened all too often in the past. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that we will not allow it to happen on this occasion.
If I have a doubt about the committee's approach, it lies in the somewhat cursory way in which it handled the issue of sugar, in particular in so far as it affects developing countries. Of course the report is right to underline the need to reform the European Union's internal sugar regime and to reduce the excessive production from beet sugar that results in exports damaging exporters of cane sugar in developing countries.
Another aspect is not touched on in the report much, and is merely hinted at in the testimony offered by the representative of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Secretariat in Brussels, who gave evidence to the committee. That is the very significant contribution that the European Union makes through its purchases of ACP sugar at prices linked to the EU price, and not to the world market price, to the economies of a whole range of developing countries, many of them members of the Commonwealth.
Great care is needed in handling the issue. Not long ago, we saw how abrupt change to free market rules could damage the economy of developing-country banana producers who had relied on privileged access to the European Union market. We should not repeat that experience. Perhaps the Minister will say how the Government propose to reconcile our support for reform of the European Union's internal sugar regime with our commitment to developing-country sugar producers in the ACP, which was a cornerstone of our own terms of accession to the European Union.
The topicality of the debate relates to the decisions to he taken later this week by the EU Council of Ministers on the negotiating mandate in the run-up to the World Trade Organisation's Cancun meeting in the autumn. It is of the greatest importance that that mandate gives the European Union negotiators more flexibility than does the present one. The present one is more of a straitjacket than a mandate. It would be good to hear from the Minister what he thinks the prospects are for a reasonable outcome later this week. Surely one thing needs to be avoided: a botched and inadequate compromise which leaves the European Union unable to provide the World Trade Organisation with the leadership that the European Union's position as the largest world trading power requires of it. Deadlock in the European Union would be regrettable, but surely less so than getting locked in an unnegotiable position. A period of tension between European Union member states is not something we
162
should work for or welcome, but is surely a price we should be prepared to pay in order to get a decent mandate.
Why does this matter so much? Quite simply because if we cannot sharply improve the development content of the Doha round, if we cannot thereby convince developing countries that trade liberalisation is in their interest and not just ours, then there will not be a successful Doha round and we will all be the poorer for it.
In previous rounds we have marginalised developing countries, we have offered concessions on agriculture and textiles that have then not materialised. We have spoken loudly of our commitment to their well-being and not put our money where our mouth was. But that will not work again, nor should it. If we are to offer the developing countries the open markets that they desperately need if they are to make their way up the development ladder, which in the long term will he of far greater value to them than any amount of aid, and if we are to answer the more defensible of the criticisms of those who are disenchanted with the consequences of globalisation, the European Union is going to have to make a major effort and put its global responsibilities before the narrowly defined self-interest of its farming communities.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, but a farmer who welcomes this report. I join with others in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on getting together his committee, taking the views of the various witnesses and putting them together so well and so constructively in the report that we have before us. This follows the Commission's proposals, and the views on them that have been expressed by those witnesses. The proposals were set out fully in Box 2 of the report, on which, as we well know, Ministers are due to deliver, starting their proceedings tomorrow. It is therefore timely that we give an opinion on the report. It is a mid-term review report, and some of the views expressed seem to be outdated because of the updating of some of the proposals that the Ministers are currently considering.
The proposals have therefore moved quite a long way since last year. In that sense, my noble friend's committee may well have to meet again to review its findings after Ministers have debated and deliberated. If they follow the pattern of history in an endeavour to reach a compromise and offer each country something, we face all kinds of difficulties. The evidence is based on a mid-term review which now becomes a CAP reform. Some of the proposals have changed: one concerning farmers in this country is that the notion of a cap on payments of 300,000 euros has fallen by the wayside. The future is by no means clear. Many current proposals are being considered for withdrawal or have been withdrawn. Whatever the outcome, ultimately, as I see it there are three guiding principles for which we should aim. The first, which everyone would welcome, is a significant

163
simplification of the existing support arrangements and the removal of a large proportion of the regulatory bureaucracy which they produce in an attempt to police the current complex systems of support. Policing is seen to be more flexible in some countries than in others. How often do we hear it said that we obey while others have not heard of the rules? That is not strictly true, but nevertheless that is a feeling that many people have. This should be done to minimise the redistribution of funds between those who currently receive support and those who may be beneficiaries in the future.
At the same time, reforms should be carried out with the key objectives of allowing the farmer or the grower of products to focus clearly on the needs of the marketplace and respond clearly to the signals of demand coming from consumers and customers. That point is set out clearly in the report.
I believe there are encouraging signs. Farmers' markets are developing, farm shops are being created and anyone who visited, for instance, the Royal Cornwall Show last week would have seen in the food hall a fine example of a taste of the West: good quality food and in great demand. Therefore the example is already set, small though it is.
In so doing, the primary producer will benefit from the removal of all the inefficiencies in the chain that have been built up and built into the machine by successive adaptations and changes in the common agricultural policy which have added significant additional costs or price penalties. Many of those costs and increases, and the input that goes into the total funding—which has understandably been severely criticised today—do not reach the farmer. How is that we hear that some £2.40 per head of every cow in Europe is an on-cost? The farmer reacts when he is receiving 15p a litre from his milk and the cost in the shop is 75p. You cannot say that that is "coming from Europe"; it is properly market-oriented.
I am pleased that the report makes it clear that the revised CAP should be less complicated, less bureaucratic and less centralised. The principle of decoupling, of removing direct support payments from production, and concentrating policy on more environmentally friendly farming is welcome. Ministers will have a tough time in persuading their European colleagues to support the full Commission proposals. I would be very concerned if we accept partial decoupling, as my noble friend Lord Selborne said. It is all or nothing and that is the way we have to go. If we had a flat rate decoupling option of between, say, 70 and 90 per cent across all sections, with the remaining funds allocated to a national envelope, that could then be used at the discretion of each member state or region to target specific sectors.
I could spend, as others could, the few minutes that I have in this debate on the proposals for further decoupling, for cross-compliance, for the Pillar 2 policies and for modulation, on all of which I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Selborne has stated in his report. The problem to which I always return is to make them simple and workable.
164
The CAP is accused of encouraging over-production, as it has. Yet agri-environment measures are working. Many are taking advantage of the countryside stewardship schemes and marketing groups are increasing. Since the last full reform in 1992, the changeover to more sustainable farming has been steady. Therefore substantial surpluses are a thing of the past. There is an ever-increasing level of imports, mostly from countries where labour is cheap.
Now, as we move towards a more tariff-free and less subsidised trading world in food, incorporating many developing countries, we cannot ignore the proposals and the rules that will apply under WTO. Yet, as we see it, most of our trade is with the European Union, bringing greater risks for competition, as we have seen in the past two or three years as the European Union expands.
When the Minister replies he may consider some of the points of concern about that where exports have fallen from 58 per cent to 53 per cent since 1999, mainly due to the monetary disadvantage of the pound and the euro. The output loss shows a staggering effect of over £800 million a year since 1999 through that issue alone.
The controversial area of debate relates to land that has changed hands since the beginning of the reference period and which has been perceived as totally unfair. I hope that Ministers in their deliberations can agree a solution whereby the calculation of payment entitlements can be adjusted in cases where permanent transfer of land has taken place in order for future payments to reflect the size of holding at a time when a new scheme comes into force. I hope that is an issue that can be dealt with here because the landlord/tenant system that applies in many other European countries is totally different from ours. Therefore, member states need some discretion on how to tackle those consequential issues.
The report endeavours to cover a very wide range of complex issues and rightly highlights the importance of enlargement of the EU and the significance of WTO and the Doha round. If we are to help or to see help given to developing countries so that they can help themselves in the form of production, the areas of concern are import access and export subsidies. Replacing a tariff regime in the grains sector with tariff quotas will make WTO negotiations more, not less, difficult and will not necessarily help more developing countries to help themselves and to improve their position or their standard of living.
Generally my views support the report. I thank the committee and, in particular, its chairman for presenting it to us.
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the members of the sub-committee for what is an excellent report. It is a matter of hideous complexity. I approach it with the utmost diffidence. This is an area where angels, and no doubt bishops even more so, should fear to tread.

165
There are some very important moral and environmental considerations to which I shall refer briefly and which are brought out very clearly indeed in the evidence given by the assistant secretary general of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States on pages 23 to 27 of the minutes of evidence. That contains some very worrying material indeed and a great deal of uncertainty is also expressed on the part of those states.
Basically, I agree strongly with the approach of the committee. Decoupling is essential; modulation needs to be at higher levels than is presently proposed; and degressivity is right. All such changes must be carried through if the European Union is to have a credible negotiating position with the WTO. I would like to see written clearly on the bottle, "Do not dilute".
What do we want to see? As far as I am concerned, we do not want to see unbridled free trade; certainly not the dumping of EU or US products on fragile agricultural economies in the developing world with catastrophic results for local producers. Reference has already been made to some examples. It is truly shocking that Ministers could write the letter in Box 4 on page 14. It shows quite remarkable dishonesty and complacency about the dire effects of EU subsidised food dumped on developing countries, especially wheat, dairy products, sugar and, from the United States in particular, rice with devastating effects on the rice production of Ghana and Haiti. As referred to in the NFU evidence, that is US hypocrisy, although, as the NFU points out, that is partly because of the separation of legislature and executive in the United States. If that is the reason given in the United States, what is the reason for the European Union dumping?
I have to admit that I have a sneaking sympathy, here and there, with some of the points made later in the letter in Box 4 about sufficient numbers of contented producers with confidence in the future maintaining the diversity of our landscape. I would not argue entirely with what Ministers are saying, but in particular with what they say about the effects of European Union policies on the poorer countries.
The moral maze of the trade justice debate is utterly bewildering. Some of the NGOs urge more opportunities for poor countries to gain access to our markets with their primary products. Some of that trade is highly desirable; some of it is essential if such countries are to earn the wherewithal to buy from the developed world the technology that they need to raise standards of living for themselves and to achieve the standards of quality, consistency and reliability that are needed if their export businesses are to be successful. But I believe that there are still strict limits to what we should encourage in terms of trade.
Both the United States and the United Kingdom Governments have been guilty of some extraordinary and, I believe, unacceptable attitudes. I quote from John Block, former US agriculture secretary, as long ago as 1986. If this is an attitude that has informed United States' policy since then, can we be surprised? He says that the,
166
"idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on US agricultural products which are available, in most cases, at much lesser cost".
Much more recently, our own Clare Short said:
"old ideas that focus on national self-sufficiency in food, rather than national capacity to purchase the food that is needed, are deeply outdated".
I think both those statements are deeply regrettable.
Some trade is positively undesirable if it reduces self-sufficiency or what has come to be called food sovereignty: the right of every nation to produce as much of its own food as it wants, needs and reasonably can produce, given climatic constraints. Parts of Kenya are suitable for intensive dairy farming, but for Kenya to export its dairy products to the United Kingdom and to Europe would be as nonsensical as it would be for us to dump our surplus dairy products on the Kenyans.
I find the attitude of some NGOs a little surprising. They are campaigning hard to persuade the EU and the WTO to make it easier for the developed world to import much more food from relatively undeveloped countries, seeing that as a matter of trade justice, which it is on any reasonable analysis. But that begs the question whether such increased trade is desirable. Is it good to introduce industrial and intensive agricultural methods in developing countries? Is it good to add food miles, all of which are environmentally damaging? There are already serious problems of overproduction of coffee, for example, low returns and a consequent treadmill effect of ever-increasing production and ever-diminishing returns. I do not believe that we want to see that process replicated in the case of other primary products.
There are real difficulties over monoculture crops such as bananas. It is vital for the European Union to continue to defend, to some limited degree, protection in specific cases, probably for limited periods. But the overriding principle should be of food sovereignty, which is in turn an important step towards food security. I would want to reverse absolutely what was said by John Block and Clare Short. The reform of the CAP, which originated in a strong desire to protect small-scale local production within Europe, should continue to have as a guiding principle the ideal of food self-sufficiency, the undesirability of needless food miles and the real benefits for developing countries of the sensible, flexible growth of traditional local food production, not the imposition on such countries of agribusiness methods. For all their benefits in increasing production levels, those methods have had the unhappy consequences of environmental degradation and the breakdown of rural communities.
I have one final thought—more about the long term, but, I suspect, not as long term as many seem to think. Increasing world population and the progressive impact of climate change will pose very serious problems for world food production. The area of cultivable land will change. What are appropriate crops today will not be so in the same places in 50 years' time. Some countries will become better able to be self-sufficient in food; others will become much less

167
able to achieve that. On any reckoning, we shall need to increase world food production well beyond present levels, but without causing unacceptable environmental damage.
Solving the problem of achieving successful and equitable food distribution will become a matter of such complexity as to make the reform of the CAP look like the proverbial vicarage tea party. But I believe that the United Kingdom Government, in all our present negotiations on CAP reform and the Doha development round, should take account of that longer-term context.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, this debate relates to the external implications of the mid-term review of our agricultural policy; it is not a general debate about reform of that policy. I shall therefore concentrate my remarks on the 10th report of the Select Committee so clearly presented by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and its recommendations on how the mid-term review should be best used to improve the effect of the policy outside the Union. Some of the recommendations are clearly helpful. I am glad to see the Government's response and hope that they will follow it up in the imminent negotiations.
To put the recommendations in context, however, I wish to stress some features of the agricultural policy as it is today and not as it was yesterday. I sometimes think that commentators do not believe those who say that there have been important changes in the policy, but if they do not believe it they are wrong. The original common agricultural policy, created long before the United Kingdom joined the Union, was a system of market management for a number of major products. It maintained the level of prices by intervention, public purchase or similar mechanisms in the market, and the system of import levies and export refunds. It was a brilliant conception, but prices were set too high, and agriculture Ministers were not then willing to bring them down. The result was that agriculture thrived, consumers paid above the odds and stocks piled up because farmers were just too good at producing at those prices, and the costs and difficulties of disposal were great. In those distant days, I remember asking agricultural officials of the Commission whether they had ever seen a cheque paid to a farmer. The answer was "No", because there were little or no direct aids to farmers. Everything hinged on holding the market prices at or about the agreed level.
The reforms, to which there have been quite a number of references today, starting with the MacSharry reforms of 1992–93, reduced the impact of intervention in the market. That was done either by reducing support prices—the Select Committee's report refers in paragraph 12 to a net 34 per cent reduction in cereal intervention prices—or by making the intervention mechanisms less rigid and therefore less effective. But the member states could accept the cuts in the support for agriculture only by introducing some compensatory payments direct to farmers. That is why the Select Committee, in the report that we are
168
debating today, has the dilemma of dealing with the potential effect on third countries both of the now reduced market mechanism and the direct payments to farmers. As I understand it, we have created a double problem.
That is the background against which the Commission has proposed the next set of changes in the mid-term review. I share the view expressed in the Select Committee's report at paragraph 16 that the review proposes,
"a much more ambitious programme of changes than was originally envisaged in the original undertaking to conduct a mid-term review".
That is good.
From the point of view of the external impact, the key elements for me of the mid-term review package are, first, a decoupling; that is to say, the replacement of direct compensatory payments with a single farm payment independent from production. That seems absolutely crucial. The second key element is linking the payments to environmental, safety and other conditions; the third is some increase in resources for rural development, as there are not enough; and the fourth is further revisions to market policy for some products. There are other proposals, which have been referred to, for cutting payments to large farms and degressive modulation. They are certainly important limitations for the United Kingdom and are opposed by the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. I shall not deal with those because we are looking mainly at the external aspects.
The proposal for decoupling is clearly positive for trade liberalisation. It will be helpful in the negotiations on the Doha round, which is extremely important for the Union since, as the world's biggest trading power, we have important objectives in the Doha round in other sectors. We need to maximise our firepower to reduce barriers in other countries to our trade and commerce in all sectors. Beyond that, I think that Defra is right to make the following general point in its memorandum at paragraph 16:
"Although essentially a domestic measure, the decoupling of direct payments (and, within that, the proposals on modulation) would have a significant external impact by making production more sensitive to market demand and theoretically"
the word is rather carefully chosen—
"eliminating the need for surplus disposal measures and market price protection".
Broadly speaking, I believe that the change will set our agricultural policy on a more sustainable track. The Select Committee adds that it is essential that decoupling is agreed and applied before the eastward enlargement of the Union next year. It thus recognises the potential attractiveness of the present policy to some new member states and the potential stimulation of production that might arise there. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Polish people on their extremely high level of acceptance of the proposal to enter the European Union.
The Select Committee goes beyond the mid-term review proposals in recommending the abolition of market intervention and export subsidisation. That is clearly radical. We have had it before our eyes many

169
times and we have not succeeded. It would mean shifting the balance of our agricultural policy entirely, not gradually as we have been doing, from the market to a system of grants per farm, supported by some environmental and rural development measures. It is not, in my view, negotiable, but it may serve to continue pressure for the changes that will certainly be made as a result of the review and in later years.
It is worth noting that for some products—notably cereals—where the support prices have been cut most sharply, the relationship with world prices is, taking one with another, very much closer. For example, exports of wheat and barley from the Union were competitive enough in the second half of 2000 to be made without any refunds at all. It is also reflected in the way the agricultural budget is now spent. The latest report on the agricultural situation in the European Union shows that only around 18 per cent of the agricultural budget was spent on export refunds and storage of products, whereas 71.52 per cent was spent on aids to producers.
The Select Committee report also looks at the relationship between the mid-term review and trade with less developed countries. A number of noble Lords have referred to that important point. The question goes a little beyond the proposals in the midterm review because least-developed countries have totally free access to the Union's markets except for three products, two of which, sugar and bananas, were excluded for the present in order to protect the position of other less developed countries which have preferential access.
The 70 or more African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, from whom the European Union imports around 7 billion euros of agricultural products each year, have special access at favourable and higher than world prices for some of their products, notably sugar. If the Union's own sugar regime was dismantled—there is much to be said for that we would have to see how to maintain some advantage for those countries. They would be in serious difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also referred to that important point. The principal beneficiaries of a more open sugar regime would not be those countries. The West Indies, Mauritius and so on would be the losers from opening up the market completely. The countries that would mostly gain would be Brazil, Thailand, India and Australia .
The Select Committee refers also to the milk and milk products policy. The Union is one of the world's biggest and most efficient milk producers. The milk quotas, which are highly undesirable economically, were introduced to restrain production at price levels decided by Ministers. They will have to go earlier than is now proposed. However, the Commission is right in the review to propose price cuts going much beyond those agreed in Agenda 2000. Any significant change in the milk and milk products regime would benefit Australia, New Zealand and Argentina, but I am not sure that that would have any significant effect for less developed countries. As to the possible damaging effect of the current export regime on less developed countries' agriculture, it is regrettable that the recent
170
French proposal to pay no export refunds on all agricultural exports to Africa has apparently run into the brushwood. That would have a real value in judging the consequences of such a course and is setting an example for other action. I hope that that can be revived.
In conclusion, there are valuable recommendations in the Select Committee's report and the Commission's proposal on the mid-term review should be broadly supported. Changes and reductions in agricultural support are needed, but I like to keep in mind—I have had such a long time in the public service that I feel that I should be balanced—first, that the European Union is the largest importer of agricultural products; secondly, that the Union imports about 27 billion euros—a big figure—each year of agricultural products from the ACP countries, South Africa, the ASEAN countries, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, South American countries in Mercosur and those in the Mediterranean basin; and, thirdly, that while the cost of agricultural policy is too high, it is still less than 1.2 per cent of public expenditure in the Union. I am not talking about GDP but public expenditure. The remaining 98.8 per cent is spent on more—or less—useful areas.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I joined the sub-committee that produced the report in December, about half way through its deliberations. That still gave me time to experience the very able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne. He was effective and incisive and there was also the great advantage that when he told us at the start of the morning that the interrogation of the witnesses was to end at noon, it did. That is something that all members of sub-committees will appreciate.
I do not wish to repeat the comments that have already been made by other noble Lords about the contents of the report, although I agree particularly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on the very damaging effect of CAP subsidies on the agriculture and exports of less developed countries. I have an elder son working for Oxfam and the right reverend Bishop will understand that that is a subject upon which I receive considerable lobbying whenever my son is at home.
I learned quickly after joining the committee about the accuracy of Box 1 in our report, where we say under the heading "The language of the CAP":
"It is commonly agreed—even among those with professional interests in 'playing the game'—that the illogicality of the CAP is matched only by the impenetrability of its jargon."
How true. One of the prevailing and constant messages that has come through in this afternoon's speeches is that whatever happens in relation to the reform of the CAP and the switching of money from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, about which I shall say more, it is essential that that should be in language that the average farmer understands. Small farmers are already overwhelmed with forms from DEFRA—so often the language is too complicated for them.

171
As other noble Lords have said, the great development ahead of us is the joining of the 10 European countries to the European Union—and the effect of that on the demand for subsidy of one sort or another, including whole farm payments from the CAP budget to the incomers to the Union. I was gloomily struck by an article in the Daily Telegraph three days ago. It was headed:
"No EU silk purse for the Polish pig farmers".
That was before the vote in Poland which I am glad to say was massively in favour of joining the EU. However, the article quotes a farmer who has a 100 acre breeding farm in Poland, saying:
"Mr Janecki said that only one thing is certain after Poland joins the European Union on May 1 next year: he will be paid pounds 10 an acre in subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy, while German farmers nearby will receive four times as much.".
That is just the sort of inequality and problem that the CAP has to live with and deal with over the years ahead with the new entrants into the EU.
The section of the Select Committee report that I shall talk about for a few minutes is on page 23, paragraphs 82 to 93:
"The effect of proposals on sustainability of European agriculture".
I declare an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, wrongly described in the register of interests for the report as "Sussex Downs Conservative Board". It is as a result of that chairmanship and the fact that I live on the South Downs that my own direct experience of British agriculture is concentrated on two different parts of the United Kingdom—the South Downs and, 650 miles away, the little Hebredean island of Tiree. Funnily enough, sometimes the problems of agriculture in those areas are much the same. They both have working farmers who rely substantially on sheep production for their incomes. In both cases the smaller farmer, who has perhaps a holding of 150 to 200 acres, or a croft of that size in Tiree, has seen his income fall in real terms over the past five years, particularly with the massive fall in sheep prices. That presents a problem with the reform of the CAP. I very much approve of the contents of the report, and I agree with the note of optimism in it that has been echoed this afternoon. However, at the same time, one has to think about how the move from cereal production and headage payments for sheep and cattle will work out for the small farmer who does not have very much more to offer or to do other than to graze sheep or cattle on his land.
I very much hope that that area will be carefully thought about and further developed because I find that, so far, in relation to both those areas, if one tells someone that reform of the CAP will help them, most people simply look cross-eyed. It has been talked about so often and people do not know whether reform will happen, and, if it does, they do not know whether it will benefit them. It is rather like talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Everyone thinks that something should happen and that the CAP should be
172
reformed. There is an awful lot of talk, but what actually happens in the event that is explicable to those who are in need of support?
As I look at the conclusions on sustainability in our report, I hope that, as it states, the cross-compliance measures of the move from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 will be sufficiently effective to ensure that the small farmer who is told to stop intensifying his produce does receive substantial alternative possibilities of income onto his farm. If that does not happen, the movement of money from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 could be ineffective in its result.
In that context, although the Curry report is referred to in this volume, I do not believe that DEFRA or the Countryside Agency have yet been dynamic enough in putting over to farmers in this country how they can use Pillar 2 money—money for agricultural environmental improvement—in an effective way. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to country stewardship schemes, and I am also aware of the environmentally sensitive area schemes in the South Downs. However, the number of farmers who actually benefit from those is very small. We need wider, imaginative schemes to help the farmer who will now be told that he is not going to get more money for having more sheep or cattle, which is his normal reaction. He must be helped to find other agriculturally and environmentally suitable ways of producing more income. This is an area that needs a great deal of thought and help from DEFRA in making the ideas that come forward from the European Commission work practically.
We all welcome what Commissioner Fischler has suggested. We hope that his proposals will not be modified too much in the negotiations that start tomorrow in Luxembourg. It is noticeable that the letter in Box 4 to which others have referred is signed by seven agriculture Ministers, so there will be a lot of argument and debate in Luxembourg. I hope that the Fischler proposals will be accepted to a large measure. I noticed that one noble Lord in the debate this afternoon—it may have been the noble Lord. Lord Desai—used the words, "France is moving". Let us hope that that is the case. If France is moving, we will see really effective reform of the CAP that will help small farmers in this country.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I need not declare that I am a retired farmer as I do not get income from farming any more. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the chairman, for the wonderful way in which he led the team in producing the report.
The time of publication of the report is good for the Minister. I am pleased with the Government's response to it. It is vital that the common agricultural policy be reformed before the new members join the market. The common agricultural policy was set up at the beginning of the Common Market in the 1960s by people who had personally experienced the horrors of a genuine lack of food—even starvation—in Europe during the Second World War. They were determined

173
that that would not happen again, and they envisaged virtual self-sufficiency in temperate climate food supplies. They aimed at encouraging higher and more efficient production through production subsidies and direct market support, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said. I knew that, if he spoke before me, he would say that.
The problem arose when surpluses began to appear and mountains built up. Because of the large agricultural vote in most countries, there was no political will to deal with the problem. Surpluses were dumped at low prices and import barriers raised, which stopped developing countries exporting their products to the Common Market. The CAP had become like a supertanker, and, although there was some minor tweaking of the rudder, it moved forward on its disastrous course.
In paragraph 100 of the report, we state that time is not on the side of the reformers. How true that is. There must be more radical changes before the new members join. With the WTO, Doha and the development round, we must end up with sustainable agriculture and—even more importantly—environmental protection. I am particularly concerned about further environmental degradation in this country if less money goes into agriculture and if the change from the first pillar to the second is not large enough. In the 10 new member countries, existing unique habitats may be lost because of efforts to intensify and raise production.
I shall not go through all the proposals again. We want to end up with sustainable agriculture and environmental protection leading to more prosperous food production, a better countryside and more fairness to developing countries. Do the proposals go far enough? I do not think they do.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I congratulate the committee and its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on an excellent report. I regret that I had to take my turn to come off the committee before it embarked on the inquiry.
As other noble Lords have said, the report is jargon-free, and it contains some good explanations. It was particularly encouraging that so many noble Lords who spoke this afternoon are not on the committee now. That shows how the committees of your Lordships' House can produce reports that widen interest in a subject to noble Lords who generally take an interest in other subjects. This is a truly cross-cutting report.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, described how well the report examined the delicate balances that must be struck between the various interest groups and showed that interests that are seldom heard must be taken into account. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford underlined the fact that, when Ministers from the various nations discuss the matter tomorrow, they must resist the siren calls of national interest. Such calls are not in the interest of the WTO round or of developing countries. I understand that it will be difficult for national Ministers to resist them.
174
The mid-term review discussed in the report is considered from four angles: what does it do to help developing countries; what does it do to help enlargement; what does it do to help the WTO round; and how does it affect our producers and our environment at home?
I welcome the conclusion in paragraph 81 that the EU and developed countries need to help developing countries. It will be no use approaching trade more freely from the point of view of tariffs and subsidies if developing countries receive no help or guidance from us on health, safety, labelling and animal welfare regulations, which they find difficult now. They will not be able reasonably to access our markets. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford explained clearly why issues of local production, local markets and national food production are important. Nevertheless, great attention should be paid to paragraph 81.
Paragraph 115 refers to the level of subsidy receipts to individual holdings. I agree with the conclusion.
On enlargement, paragraph 47 refers to the transferring of funds from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2. Pillar 2 must be funded properly. Those countries may be in the situation we were in 30 or 40 years ago. We expect a great deal from our producers: that they continue to produce food and comply with all the environmental requirements. Paragraph 48 refers to rare habitats and species. The Government's response to that paragraph is so weak that I feel I must quote it. They said:
"We envisage that effective implementation of all relevant EU legislation in accession States, and not only that which relates to cross-compliance, would ensure that habitats and species are adequately protected".
I do not believe that that will he the case. We must learn from what happened with our intensification. Intensification there undoubtedly will be in enlargement countries. We must ensure that those countries which still have rare habitats and exceptional species are protected. The Government should pay more attention to that paragraph.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, underlined the conclusion at paragraph 91. I shall not repeat it. These Benches believe strongly that the environmental issues underlined in that paragraph are important.
The WTO round failed to agree by March 2003 the agenda for the agricultural round in Mexico. The developing world might be right to call the attitude of the European Union, the United States and Japan to free trade something of an axis of evasion. We have talked a great deal about reform. Very little has happened. In the United States matters took a step backward with the introduction of the agriculture Act.
With its proposed reforms of the CAP the European Union is moving away from this evasion to a more positive attitude. That should be encouraged. It is essential that a decent agreement can be reached this week by the Council of Ministers. Given the importance that everyone attaches to such success, I was disheartened to read the briefing from the Country

175
Land and Business Association. I wonder whether all its members would sign up to this statement. It said that,
"this is not amongst the strongest or most useful [report] from the Committee".
It believes that undue importance to those issues as drivers of policy change is not helpful. Of course, the CLA is representing an interested body, but we must all work together to ensure that we can propose reforms for the long term that will benefit everyone.
Finally, I refer to the issue of decoupling and the single payment entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, pleaded for clarity and making it understandable. It is difficult to understand what will occur under the proposals. Some examples would clarify the situation. I am unsure what the Government propose under the single payment entitlement. Will farmers in this country who are entitled to that payment receive it for as long as they choose to stay on their landholdings, even though they may not be producing anything? I understand that that is part of the reform. But they will be effectively retiring on the job. That worries me in particular because of the implications for future new entrants.
I understand that there will be a 1 per cent national reserve to deal with the problem. But the new policy must send a clear signal that new entrants can expect CAP reforms to hold something for them. Perhaps the Minister could provide in your Lordships' Library a couple of case studies on the proposed single payment entitlement about what will happen now to a farmer in his 40s or 60s, or, alternatively, one who is just coming into farming.
It is an excellent report. I congratulate the committee on grasping a difficult nettle, cutting across the different issues and producing such an understandable report.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selborne on introducing the Select Committee report. I found it challenging. The committee had to balance the needs of the less developed countries, the farmers in the UK, those in the EU and those who will join the EU. That is quite a melting pot. I congratulate the committee on producing the report. I remind the House of my family's farming interest. We are participators in a stewardship scheme.
When introducing the debate today, my noble friend said that it was a very timely event. Indeed, it is. The Council of Ministers meets tomorrow to consider these major reforms. It wishes to see a progressive move from food production towards environmental matters. How this can be achieved without continually disadvantaging less developed countries is the issue which has taxed noble Lords today. We are very aware of the needs of those countries and the requirement to overcome the unfair playing field which currently exists.
176
My noble friend suggested that perhaps there was not enough money to achieve the required changes. The report suggests, in the part on modulation, that British farmers are likely to be disadvantaged because, on the whole, UK farmers are bigger farmers than others. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out in his very worthwhile contribution, it is 1.2 per cent only of total public expenditure. I think that that is not publicly known. Everyone thinks that CAP is the majority of expenditure and not a tiny proportion. We should be aware of that.
In paragraph 19, the committee has listed the eight important issues where the House of Commons conclusions and recommendations coincide with those of the House of Lords sufficiently to,
"indicate a general meeting of minds on the main issues before this inquiry",
I should like to emphasise three of those eight important issues. First, the recognition that the primary role of farmers should be to produce food that consumers want to buy. Diversification is all very well, but it must not be allowed to eclipse the need to produce for ourselves—indeed, in national countries, for themselves—the greater part of our own food requirement, to recognise health and safety standards and to ensure that fair prices are paid both to the farmer and by the consumer. Many noble Lords have referred to the failure to introduce firm proposals to end milk quotas, so I shall not go into that issue, but I, too, consider the delay regrettable.
Turning to Part 3 of the report—Analysis and Opinion—I am grateful for the opportunity to comment in some detail on some of the points raised. Generally, the report rightly states that European food is safe and of a high quality—in paragraph 32. That is important. It cannot be said of all food and, once again, there have been reports of adulterated imported chicken in processed food coming into this country. I firmly believe, as I am sure do other noble Lords, that food importers and processors should be bound by the same standards that apply to our farmers. Consumers should not be put at risk from processed food which contains adulterated product, nor should they be put in the position of buying goods produced in ways which they would abhor on our own farms. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to this; he said that policing is patchy. I would go further; in some countries I think that it is non-existent.
Paragraph 42 contains possibly the most important statement in the whole report. It states:
"It is essential that the Commission's recommendations on decoupling are agreed and applied in advance of the eastward enlargement from 2004".
We are already in the sixth month of 2003. Ten new member countries due to join in 2004 believe that an unreformed CAP would give their farmers higher incomes. The candidate countries applying to join after 2004 believe that an unreformed CAP would act as a spur to increased production from their farmers. I believe that a CAP still unreformed in 2004 will result in great danger to our own agricultural future and a downward pressure on agricultural earnings.

177
Farm incomes have been unsustainable in this country for the past three or four years. It is true that they have improved slightly during the past year, but they are still a long way from being sustainable. Recovery in many sectors has been made possible in large part because of the huge numbers that have left the industry. How do the Government propose to persuade the remaining EU countries to get on with these reforms which they currently face?
The committee proposes that modulation be strengthened by increasing the percentage taken from subsidies, by making transfer to structural funds at a faster rate than currently planned and by shifting some of the transferred funds in the EU15 to the new members to build up their structural resources more quickly. The committee has also dealt with the dairy and sugar regimes in paragraphs 49 to 51, 59, 79 and 112. These are huge and very important issues for the developing countries—in particular, the sugar regime, to which other noble Lords have referred.
The committee was clearly disappointed by the Commission's lack of resolve in these areas—which I support. It wants to see an end to the delivery and production quotas, stepped cuts in support prices and a consequential stop to market support and export subsidisation. Paragraphs 60 and 75 deal with the effect of the proposed reforms on the less developed countries—for example, the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states. I have highlighted in bold that the committee,
"deplores the lack of concern among Member States for their plight".
That has been reflected in the whole Chamber today.
The committee concludes that to help them the EU subsidies must be not only decoupled from production, but reduced eventually to the individual producer. In his introduction, my noble friend told us that the committee was looking in particular at the effects on less developed countries, and it is right to do that.
The suggestion that the level of subsidy receipts allowed,in toto, to individual holdings be capped follows as night follows day. Indeed, we have heard that some organisations—in particular, the CLA—are concerned about that. But it is an issue that we must tackle. I know that currently the Commission has moved away from the proposed capping system—I think the Minister will confirm that later. But if the capping system is not to be involved, how will the desired goal be achieved?
Will the Government ensure that money raised from modulation stays within the UK and comes into a national envelope or will it be returned to an EU pool over which this country has no control? If the money raised has to return to an EU pool, will we be certain that an accounting system will be kept annually and audited regularly so that we shall know where the money goes? It is hugely important that we do.
In paragraph 81, the committee recommends that more emphasis should be given to the development projects which will assist less developed countries to meet the EU health and safety quality and labeling
178
requirements. We need to take that on board because it is no use if food is produced which it is then decided is not of the right quality and is therefore banned. This particular comment made in the report is very important.
I am sure that we would all agree that the recommendation in paragraph 92—namely, that a revised CAP should be less complicated, less bureaucratic, less centralized—is to be welcomed and it has been touched on by most noble Lords today. It should offer farmers more choice in running their businesses. I welcome the committee's observation that environmental measures should be designed to encourage and reward good land management.
However, the report has left some uncertainties. The CLA, NUF and others have raised with me their concerns on the decoupled payments proposed. It is accepted that the proposed single farm payment should be paid on the historic period of 2000 to 2002. But many do not accept that this payment should be paid when the structure of the farm has changed meanwhile, nor that the payments should be tradable without land. These uncertainties are already having an effect on our land market. People are unwilling to enter into long-term tenancy agreements or land purchase because they do not know what they are renting or buying.
I wonder if the Minister would comment on this issue: such proposals to allow payments to "walk off"—the expression that I would use—the land are a threat to our environment as they undermine land-owning confidence and discourage the ability of new entrants, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and they could bring CAP into future disrepute.
Does the Minister think there is a major problem in decoupling for livestock and the unsupported sector of the farming industry, in that there are no clear reference points as there is with IACS registered land? Has he considered that valuers could establish units of livestock, or whatever, for any given farm in the same way that is done when arbitrators discuss rents?
The unsupported crop growers have written to me about their concerns on the reforms with CAP. Under the new proposals, farmers will all receive a once-a-year payment, regardless of crops or cropping rotations. Farmers who grow only highly subsidised crops of cereals and oil seeds will receive the highest payment, and those who grow unsupported crops as part of their arable rotation will receive less. Those who grow only vegetables, potatoes or fruit will receive nothing at all.
I wonder whether those issues have been taken up with EU Ministers and what their views were. Perhaps the Minister can touch on that in his response.
In his speech of 10 July 2002, Franz Fischler stated that he wanted to guarantee farmers a fair income and

179
free them from the red tape imposed by CAP. I am sure that all of us would say, "Hear, hear" to that. But at the end of his speech, he said:
"Farmers no longer have to present themselves as a charity case. Instead, as commercially minded businessmen working for a healthier environment and the countryside, they can request their due from the European Taxpayer with their heads held high".
Those are inspiring words, but a fair income must encompass a profit. Without the prospect of profitable farming businesses, the aspirations of good environmental issues, beautiful countryside and social cohesion cannot be achieved.
We are looking for a fair deal for UK farmers and for the EU and the new countries joining it, and very much a fair deal for those less developed countries who are reliant on us. We are looking for certainty. We have a plan. We have a purpose. We have a direction. But over the years the plan keeps being changed, as other noble Lords have said.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford rightly touched on the impact that climate change might have on our long-term food production and the rising difficulties that that will give some countries in producing food for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of his concern, which I share, about it becoming a botched compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said that the proposals, if carried through, would mean major changes for our farming communities both within and without the EU.
My noble friend and his committee have produced a good report. It is controversial in parts, but I am thankful for that, too. It emphasises the many challenges that we face with these mid-term proposals. I thank them most sincerely for the quality of work and the time that they gave. I look forward to the Minister's response.
6.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his committee for producing a very good report. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described it as "calm and rational". It is also incisive and one with which, by and large, the Government agree.
The timing of the debate is both hugely appropriate and extremely difficult. It is appropriate for the House to debate it on the eve of the discussions, but difficult for the Minister to reply—certainly to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was tempting me to do, which was guess the outcome of what will be extremely difficult negotiations in Luxembourg over the next few days. How many days is not yet clear, but my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett will be leading those negotiations. I shall be here responding to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on the countryside and subsequently on the Water Bill, with which the two noble Baronesses and I are involved. I shall be slightly on the substitutes' bench, I suspect, as the negotiations will go on for some time.
180
There are different opinions in the various EU member states on Franz Fischler's proposals. His proposals are bold and clear. They have already had some set-backs, and there will undoubtedly be some negotiation and some compromise before we reach the end. The sense of direction of the radical change that Commissioner Fischler is proposing will survive. It will certainly have the strong support of the UK Government and several other member states. Everyone is moving a little as a result of those bold proposals. I think that my noble friend Lord Desai said that the French had moved. If so, it is the first shift in French policy on agriculture since Napoleon left Moscow, and is to be welcomed.
In his opening remarks the noble Earl referred to the danger of partial decoupling. Everyone who has spoken and the UK Government recognise that partial decoupling could be the worst of all worlds. It could leave us with two new systems rather than one; over-bureaucracy rather than simplification; distortion rather than clarity; and not a sufficient shift away from domestic support to do us any good at the WTO negotiations in Cancun in September.
Nevertheless there is an undercurrent of partial decoupling being discussed among the other member states. Franz Fischler is taking a strong line, and the UK Government will take a strong line, but there will be some discussion as the French, German and Danish Governments and others are talking about partial decoupling.
If partial decoupling exists in any form in the final agreement—and we hope it will be minimal—it must be clear. It must not over-complicate the outcome, but must achieve the objective set by Commissioner Fischler in terms of Europe's contributions to the WTO round and in shifting the burden of support for agriculture away from production-related subsidies towards support for land management that delivers an effective and environmentally sensitive landscape, while freeing farmers to follow the markets rather than subsidies. That is the whole point of our approach.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, underlined the fact that farmers would benefit. I strongly appreciate the support that, with some difficulties to itself, the National Farmers Union has given to the position taken by the British Government—and with some reservations the Country Landowners Association as well. We have strong support from progressive farmers in this country, and Franz Fischler also appreciates that. Farmers will benefit by becoming more commercially oriented, as will society if we get a more environmentally oriented agricultural system as a result.
The noble Earl and others referred to the limited degree of new money that is going into the second pillar. It is true that it is not such a large-scale modulation as was originally proposed, but nevertheless it is some additional money and again gives a clear sense of direction. Others expressed concern that the dairy regime was not a very radical proposal. I am afraid that I have to sympathise with that. The quota system, which was intended to restrict

181
production, has turned into a system that people have to meet and a trade-all asset that distorts the way in which farmers respond to what is the real market. We should have liked to see a quicker end to the present dairy regime, but there will he subsequent negotiations.
Having said all that, where we are now, at the beginning of the negotiations, and with the clarity of Commissioner Fischler, we have the opportunity for radical reform. The burden of the Select Committee's report is on the international repercussions. It is on the development ground and the ability of Europe to make gestures to help developing countries that will begin to reduce the export refunds and resistance to access to the markets, which the traditional CAP has presented to developing countries. Much more is needed, and in the negotiations, if we accept more or less the Fischler package, we shall go into the Doha negotiations in Cancun in a relatively strong position, but not as strong as perhaps it should he. We need to recognise within Europe that we need to do more, as the right reverend Prelate said, to help the developing countries to help themselves. I do not go as far as the right reverend Prelate in casting quite as much doubt on free trade as he did. There is quite a long way to go from the current CAP to unbridled free trade. Somewhere down that road we would have a much freer trading system, subject to some terms. Some of the terms will protect agricultural production both in developing countries and in Europe and protect the consumer in terms of safety and environmental impact.
But it is important that increased trade is seen as part of the solution for the developing countries. It is not right simply to say that they should be self-sufficient, any more than we should maintain one of the original tenets of the European Union's common agricultural policy—that, as a prime objective of agricultural policy, we should seek self-sufficiency. That would not be good for Europe nor for the developing countries. Trade would be good for both, albeit not trade on completely free terms but trade which recognises what the European Union, in its position statement for the WTO negotiations, refers to as non-trade considerations, including safety, the environment, quality and animal welfare.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the United States is in the frame as well as the European Union. While I hesitate to use the term "hypocrisy" in regard to our American allies, there is an element of double-talking in relation to their approach to agriculture and the development round. Certainly the net results of the agricultural and trade policies of America give less access for the agricultural products of developing countries than does the European Union. Therefore the United States has a contribution to make as well.
It is important to get this issue clear before enlargement. Certainly it was necessary for us to ensure that the decision was taken in a timescale before we enlarge the European Union. That has meant some deals with the accession countries which, to some extent, they resent. I disagree with a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, the report and several
182
others who have implied that it is inevitable that the new member states will be against reform and will want to maintain the agricultural policy as it is.
The accession countries want a level playing field—the Polish pig farmer referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, makes the point crudely and clearly—and they have not got a level playing field in relation to direct payments. But they have benefits in other respects, including the price of labour and the price of land, so there are swings and roundabouts. However, although they argue for a level playing field, they do not argue that we should maintain the CAP system as it is.
I have made many visits to eastern Europe—to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia—in the past few months. None of the governments of those countries support the CAP system as it is. Most of them are radical reformers. It is very interesting that almost all of the accession countries have decided to pay the part of the direct payments we have agreed should be received by them in a decoupled way, not in a way relating to production. That is a very positive and clear signal that they want to decouple the system; that they do not want in their systems the over-production and price distortion that most of western Europe went through.
As to some of the anxieties expressed about the environmental impact in eastern Europe, the accession countries do not want to go through the same negative impacts of intensification which occurred within western Europe. Clearly there will be some restructuring of central European agricultural—there will be some mergers where the size of farms is not sustainable—but that can be done by adopting production methods which do not repeat most of the problems that occurred within western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s.
That is largely because the regulations to which they have now signed up—and most of the accession countries have transposed those regulations faithfully—are very different from the laws which applied in western Europe during the period of intensification of its agriculture, both in regard to the landscape and biosecurity and the positive attraction of the agri-environment dimensions of the agricultural policy. None of that was there when we went through the often quite devastating effects of intensification on our landscape and wildlife.
I am relatively optimistic that the new nations will not drag us backwards but will be part of the way forward. I am also relatively optimistic that they will not repeat the mistakes of western agriculture but will join with us in creating a more environmentally sensitive agricultural system in the future.
This reform is not the be-all and end-all. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, rightly reminded us, this was originally simply a mid-term review. It has grown somewhat—I am very pleased that it has—but there will be further stages. As the committee pointed out, some areas have not been fully addressed.

183
The sugar regime has not been touched, as it was not touched in the earlier stages of CAP reform over the past 20 years, a process with which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is very familiar. He was right to remind us that much change has taken place, but not much in the sugar regime. Part of the reason for that is that changing the sugar regime would have some complex effects internationally as well as domestically within Europe with its large-scale beet farming.
If we were to straightforwardly liberalise the sugar regime it would have enormous implications for the cane producers who have traditionally supplied the UK market. The ACP countries which have benefited from that regime are obviously anxious that we do not immediately embrace a sugar regime which effectively would change from being one which gave them preferential access to one which transferred the benefit of the European market, at a lower price, away from the poorest to the less poor, such as Brazil, and, in some cases, to rich countries such as Australia.
There are other regimes like the sugar regime which need to be addressed, but it is not straightforward how we should address them. There are others which have not been addressed which, I would argue, should end as rapidly as possible—the most obvious being the tobacco regime. From all points of view—in terms of trade distortion and producing and subsidising a product which then imposes costs on our National Health Service and health services throughout Europe—there is no justification for the tobacco regime. But, because of the timescale of these proposals, tobacco is not covered at the moment. However, it has been registered as an area for further reform.
The process of reform and the degree to which it succeeds will be crucial when we go to Cancun and the WTO negotiations in September. It is very important that the European Union arrives at those negotiations with a clear and positive agenda for reducing both domestic and export support and tariffs. The proposals do not currently go far enough. The outcome of the negotiations needs to be sufficient for us to have met the demands on the reduction of domestic support required by the WTO.
That does not mean it will all happen overnight in the WTO negotiations. There will be phased progress, as there has been in previous WTO rounds. But in previous WTO rounds the EU was always on the back foot, partly, if not largely, because it could not bring anything on agriculture to the table. In this round of WTO negotiations, which is the development round, agriculture is absolutely central. We must therefore go to Cancun with a positive policy on agricultural trade.
Sometimes it has been politic for us not to focus on that reason for CAP reform. It does not always go down well with European farmers who see it as being more in the interests of other sectors of the economy that we should develop a more liberalised trading system than in their interests. But it is nevertheless important for all of us. It is important for the developing countries and for Europe. It is estimated
184
that the benefits from a better system of trade will run into several hundred billion euros and it is important for the farmers themselves that they are seen as part of an international trading system and a domestic economic system and not as an arcane, obsolete anomaly.
The central problem with the CAP is how it plays with the citizens of the rest of Europe and the world. Currently, most taxpayers, however they may feel about rural and farming ways of life, resent the fact that a significant amount of the European taxpayer's money goes to farmers to produce products which are not those they as consumers want in the market. They vary in the intensity of their view, but we must move to a system in Europe where the CAP is justifiable to the rest of the citizenry of Europe. At present it is not.
Even more importantly, crucially, Europe has to have an agricultural policy that is justifiable to the rest of the world. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed to the paragraph of the views of my ministerial colleagues in other countries, to whom my colleagues will have to be nice in the next few days. But it is wrong to say that the CAP does not cause hunger in the developing world; it does. The fact that we subsidise exports to those countries replacing their own agricultural products—the Jamaican example is germane—causes poverty in rural areas in developing countries and an increase in the cost of food to people in urban areas in developing countries.
We cannot go much further into the century and hold up our heads in discussions with the rest of the world if we continue to operate a policy whose prime impact on two-thirds of the world is to cause poverty, and starvation in extreme cases. The British Government recognise that; as does the European Commission. Farmers' leaders here recognise that fact. All governments in Europe recognise it to some degree. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to the Africa initiative by the French Government, which indicates a sensitivity there as well as here. It did not go far enough in our judgment, but it was a recognition that the development impact of agricultural policy must be recognised by all EU countries.
We need to build on that recognition. The discussions starting tomorrow, this report and the Government's response published today, give an indication of the position the UK will be taking. But for Europe and the world as a whole we need a positive outcome: for our farming communities in Europe; for consumers and society in Europe; but most of all for the future relations between Europe and the rest of the world. My thanks again to the noble Earl and his committee, and to all noble Lords who have participated in this very good and, by and large, consensual debate.
6.42 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for that helpful and thoughtful response. The debate has been characterised by a broad view about the role of the

185
common agricultural policy and our international responsibilities—the debate illuminated just what those are.
I return to an issue raised by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. It relates to the specific problems of the ACP countries, which currently benefit from special access. They leapfrog across the import barriers that apply to other countries. If we demolish those import tariffs in order to help countries such as Brazil, they will lose their preferential status, which is a problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others drew attention.
When we come to the sugar regime, which will follow, that issue will have to be addressed. We hope by the end of the week to have the precedent of decoupled payments. There is no reason why that principle should not be applied tothe producers in the
186
ACP countries. We have to find a way of giving support to the farmers without perpetuating something very convenient for the European farmers, who benefit from the high prices internally and say that they are doing it for the benefit of the least developed countries.
I am delighted to share the Minister's optimistic note about the applicant countries, which he believes are taking a sensible view. They will not be adding to the dead weight of those who signed the letter, which we reproduced in Box 4. I am happy to agree with him that there are excellent indications that the support will be used sensibly. All it remains for me to do is to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and to wish the Secretary of State and her team every success over the coming few days.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Local Government Bill
  (Third Day)
  Tuesday, 10th June 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
  Clause 27 [Budget calculations: report on inadequacy of controlled reserve]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 74:
  Page 12, line 4, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 79.
  The clause lays down in statute a requirement on a local authority to have regard to reports from its chief financial officer when making decisions on its level of reserves. We had long discussions about the level of reserves in our previous sitting. Of course a local authority should have regard to the views of its chief financial officer on such matters. That is one reason why we employ a chief financial officer. We in local government would not employ someone in that role whose advice we did not seek and respect. However, to lay that down in statute is rather strange. I cannot see how the provisions could possibly be effective or warranted in principle.
  In a spirit of open-mindedness, however, we tabled the amendments, which seek to work with the Bill and clarify how the provisions will operate in practice. For example, I do not understand how Clause 27(2) will work. What does it mean for a chief financial officer to report on the likelihood of reserve being inadequate for a previous financial year? We discussed that previously. The level of reserves for a previous Financial year may have no bearing at all on the level of reserves that an authority intends to set for the forthcoming financial year. If we are to have that provision, why is it not directed directly at the levels of reserves that an authority intends to set for the forthcoming year? I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I support my noble friend's amendment. We had many discussions at our previous sitting about the purpose of minimum reserves; now we have the inadequacy of controlled reserves.
  I pick up the point that my noble friend made about subsection (2), which states,
  "If in relation to the previous financial year it appears to the chief finance officer that a controlled reserve is or is likely to be inadequate".
  GC 48
  We all have to look back from time to time but the proposal is to look back at a reserve that was set for a previous year; it was either adequate or not adequate. If that refers to whether its adequacy should be reflected in the forthcoming year, the Bill should say so. The amount of reserves should be set for the forthcoming year and they must be set on the basis of the budget that is being considered. It appears inexplicable to us that that will be done in relation to the previous year. I am sure that the Minister will give us a good explanation in this regard.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 would transform Clause 27 into a new free-standing duty on the chief financial officer to report to an authority if the officer believed that the reserves were inadequate. I entirely accept that that is a logical consequence of the opposition that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have expressed to Clause 26. As it stands, without Clause 26, Clause 27 is redundant. However, if Clause 26 remains in the Bill, Clause 27 has an important role to play in its unamended form. Perhaps I should spell out what that is.
  Regulations made under Clause 26 would require any authority to budget for at least a minimum level of reserves. But reserves are there to be used in the appropriate circumstances. Nothing in Clause 26 stops the use of the reserves, even if that brings them below the minimum level. But the fact that the actual level has fallen below the budgeted level means that some other element in the budget must have been overspent. It is right in our submission that the authority should be informed of the reasons why that has happened, so that lessons can be learned for future years.
  We all learn from events in the past; they inform what we do in the future. I remember from my time in local government ensuring that we had a proper and legal budget. We had to understand what had happened in budget movements in the previous year in planning future years' budget strategy. It seemed to me to be an important piece of budgetary intelligence that we viewed what had happened, where the overspend occurred and what areas needed action in that regard. It seems plain to us that when setting next year's budget, all authorities should in any event review progress in relation to the budget to ensure sound foundations for the coming year. Clause 27 requires a report at that time if it is foreseen that the reserves at the end of the current year will fall short of the minimum.
  If Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 were accepted, Clause 27 would become a duty on the chief financial officer to report if in relation to the forthcoming year it appeared to the officer that the reserves were or were likely to be inadequate. It seems that that is intended to apply to the reserves that are to be allowed for in the forthcoming year's budget. Clearly, that duplicates part of the duty placed on the chief financial officer by Clause 25 of the Bill. It is therefore unnecessary.

  GC 49
  With that clarification of why we regard the provision as important, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I still would like more clarity from the Minister. As the arrangements currently stand, what happens at budget time is that the financial officer reports to the council if he thinks that the proposed level of reserves for the coming year is inadequate. In the previous year, if reserves are used, reports are also given to the cabinet—they used to be given to a policy or finance committee. Whether reserves are used becomes obvious as the year goes on. They cannot be used secretly and they must be spent during the year. When one gets to budget time, what happened to reserves in the previous year is always obvious.
  I understand what the Minister said and that there should perhaps be a report saying what had happened, but everyone who is closely involved will know what happened during the year. Surely the more appropriate information is the level of reserves for the coming year because the rest of it is history. As things stand now, that is what happens. The extra arrangements appear to be rather redundant. That was my point. The subsection appears to impose new duties unnecessarily on what happens now.
  The situation involving Hackney or Walsall, if we want to discuss failing councils, would not involve the provisions. Everyone knew what has happening—the problem involved the incompetence of the members who were taking decisions. It did not involve the fact that the figures were not transparent or that people did not know. There was not much secrecy attached to them. The decision-making procedures in those councils were inadequate and no one could agree. We were supposed to be giving local government freedoms with the legislation, but in this regard we will give more restrictions. I take the Minister's point, but this involves much unnecessary work for local government.
  Baroness Hamwee: I take the Minister's point about needing to have regard to the past in order to deal with the present and future. As he said, when he led a local authority, he was able to do that without having risk provisions on the statute book. Will he explain to Members of the Committee what has changed? Perhaps current councillors do not have the quality and skills of the noble Lord. I am sure that that is the case. Will he also explain what is achieved by a clause that depends so much on the chief finance officer? A chief finance officer who is worth his salt or who does the very minimum will do such work and report to members anyway. An orange flag on every local authority's calendar saying, "Keep thinking about what the reserves are", is perfectly appropriate but that need not be imposed by central government.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: Will my noble friend clarify the situation with regard to Clause 28? If an authority was carrying out the duties imposed under Clause 28,
  GC 50
  inevitably the information that appears to be required under Clause 27 would be provided as part of the ordinary budget-monitoring process.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Let us consider a real-world example. In my authority we used to have a real problem with the home-to-school transport budget. Each year, it seemed to balloon out of control. When I was leader, it grew from about £500,000 to £1.2 million. That had a massive impact on the LEA element of the education budget and meant that there were likely to be resource shortfalls in other parts of the authority's spending. I should have found it bizarre if we had not had a report from the finance team, including the chief finance officer, on the impact of that on our whole budget.
  In this regard, we are saying that we want to ensure that retrospective reporting on those matters—providing us with the lessons—is provided across authorities. That is what the clause will achieve. Of course we see that the best comes from the best. We want to ensure that such reporting is there for everyone, so that there is transparency and a view is expressed that we can understand, so that we can plan better for the future. In ensuring that we have adequate reserves for future years for councils, we must understand what happened in previous years. After all, the auditors' annual management letter does not examine simply what is there in front of them; they look at the audit history and audit trails in the authority so that members can use the best information that is provided to plan for future budgets. That is what we are trying to achieve; it is not complicated.
  The noble Lord, Lord Smith, asked about Clause 28. In that regard, we are trying to ensure that authorities follow good practice, monitor their budgets and take action if necessary when problems are identified. Why are we making budget-monitoring a statutory duty? The reason is plain. The financial difficulties that have affected some authorities recently appear to have been exacerbated by delays in detecting and picking up budgetary problems. A failure to report and understand those reports led to many of those problems. Our hope is that that will be confined to very few authorities. We must ensure that good monitoring processes are in place in all local authorities. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. We must have such good practice so that members are given the tools with which to do the job so that they can make effective budgetary decisions for future years.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: The Minister misunderstood my question. I was saying that presumably any authority that is carrying out duties under Clause 28, on monitoring budgets, would pick up any changes in levels of reserves. Clause 27 is therefore in a sense redundant. I return to the Minister's old days. If one looks at where expenditure has gone, one has presumably paid for the expenditure in some way. If one has not cut other budgets, presumably it has come out of reserves. That information is made available to

  GC 51
  members as part of any sensible, proper budget-monitoring process. The question was whether Clause 27 duplicates requirements that any good authority would follow in relation to duties under Clause 28.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not a matter of repeating those matters; I think they work in compensation for each other. They work together to ensure that members have that information.
  Lord Hanningfield: We will come on to Clause 28 again in a moment. At present, the CPA looks at part of the audit system, there is the auditors' management letter and rigorous processes are in place. This part of the Bill, including the level of reserve for this clause and Clause 28, is restrictive; it looks as if the Government wish to nanny local government unnecessarily instead of giving it the freedoms that the Bill is supposed to provide.
  I repeat what I have said and I will carry on repeating it. Whatever party is in power, we, as a Parliament, do not want to restrict local government too narrowly. Other countries do not—indeed, my continuing campaign in life is for us to treat local government as it is treated in other countries. I am sorry to have to say all that again, but I am sure we will come back to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Budget monitoring: general]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Hanningfield: I shall use some of the arguments we have used on previous clauses in speaking against Clause 28 standing part of the Bill.
  Clause 28 requires authorities to monitor their budget position and take action where they think the budgetary situation is deteriorating. I will repeat what has just been said—if that happens, what does the Secretary of State think people do all day in local authorities? All of us have very competent financial teams which report to the members. I assure him that a lot of these staff monitor the budgets. Does the Minister really believe that some local authorities do not monitor their budget position during the year?
  I repeat what I said a while ago. I have had some involvement, through the LGA, in some authorities that have not done so well, such as Hackney. The situation has been transparent; members have known about it, but they have not taken the decisions. Officers provided the information in Hackney, but the members did not take the right decisions to rectify the position. Therefore, these provisions do something that is not necessary. If we could legislate to make competent members, that would be a different matter.
  GC 52
  In its comments on this issue, the Select Committee said that the provisions would have no real impact. I hope that this clause does not stand part of the Bill.
  Baroness Hanham: I think these provisions are about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. I found it very hard when we discussed it last time to understand why Part 2 has been included. After all, local authorities are already controlled by financial legislation, financial regulations and their members. I appreciate that some buck the trend, but normally it is well understood that they have to work within financial regulations and that the chief finance officer has a very significant and important role to play.
  I am struggling with the whole of Part 2 to understand why this particular bit has been picked out. Why do we not have entirely new financial regulations going across the whole gamut of local authority responsibilities if the Government are so concerned about it? Why pick out these particular aspects which, under normal circumstances, as my noble friend said, we would expect local authorities to deal with properly?
  Chief finance officers' reports have been wilfully ignored in some instances, and I guess Hackney fell into that situation. But that, surely, does not require three major clauses in a new local government Bill. The provisions have to be picked out of the Bill rather than kept together with all the other financial controls and areas that are monitored.
  It is also fair to say that the Audit Commission or the district auditor comment specifically on the reserve. My recollection is that those management letters always had a comment on reserves—whether they were perceived to be adequate, too many, too few, whether they were opaque and whether they should be there in the first place. It is not as if local authorities are not advised about reserves—they are. It is a very specific part of the monitoring process.
  I simply fail to see what justifies the inclusion of these clauses, given all the other aspects of financial control which it is so important that local authorities maintain and consider. I support my noble friend in not wanting Clause 28 to stand part of the Bill. It might be helpful if the Minister gave us some indication as to why the focus has fallen just here. I am sure there are many other parts of local government finance legislation and regulations that could be included in the Bill, if required or necessary. However, it would he equally sensible to leave it all out and leave everything under one piece of legislation or control.
  Baroness Hamwee: I think we are agreed that a competent or even moderately good chief finance officer and even moderately diligent members will have regard to these matters. Perhaps I could frame my support for the points being made by asking two questions. First, what in the provision will, in real life. ensure that a chief finance officer does the job if he is not otherwise inclined to? Secondly, what is the sanction for not complying with the clause?
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, started by saying that he would repeat some of the remarks he made on the previous amendments. In part of my answer, I shall repeat part of what my noble friend said in responding to the amendments, as he quoted some parts of the Explanatory Notes on Clause 28.
  I realise this is upsetting to Opposition Members, but, in all sincerity, I guarantee that these clauses would have been included in a Bill introduced by a Conservative government. I suspect that the same arguments I am about to make would have been made by Conservative Ministers. The point is that they would be in such a Bill because they are wholly justified; they are not there to waste time; and it is not because we do not trust local government.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to chief finance officers and, I think, half-diligent members. Some members of local authorities are less than diligent, and this clause places a duty on members rather than officers.
  All well managed authorities monitor their budgets during the year, and if problems are identified they take action. We have to have this longstop—that is all it is—because financial difficulties that have affected some authorities recently have been exacerbated by delays in picking up budgetary problems or by failures to report them to members once officers knew about them. I repeat that this is, in effect, a duty on members. Our hope is that this will be confined to a few authorities, but to be honest, these problems should not be happening anywhere.
  The monitoring process is one of the most fundamental aspects of effective financial management. A duty to monitor the housing revenue account budget during the year has been a statutory requirement since 1990. This clause will impose a similar duty for the general fund budget. Our aim in this clause has been to ensure that the process is carried out, but—and this is the important point—to leave the details and decisions to be taken to the authorities. It is not being prescribed by central government or Parliament. The clause requires that reviews are made from time to time—the frequency is for the authority to decide in the light of its own circumstances and the professional advice of its officers. If a deterioration is identified, it is for the authority to decide what action to take, if any. If the deterioration is minor or has been allowed for in setting the reserves, the authority may decide to use its reserves. In other circumstances, it might decide that remedial action is necessary. Either way, it is for the authority to decide. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the reviews are done and that they are then considered by the councillors in that authority.
  The clause works by requiring an authority to review the calculation of the budget requirement that it made when deciding its call on council tax. If the review produces a higher budget requirement than when the council tax was set, this constitutes a deterioration, and the duty to consider action to deal with the situation is triggered.
  GC 54
  The rather technical-looking subsection (2) simply ensures that any changes in income and expenditure identified in a review are not absorbed by transfers to or from the reserves. Freezing the assumptions on reserve transfers means that predicted changes in income and expenditure carry through to the overall net figure. I think this is wholly reasonable in the circumstances. It is not designed to cause onerous problems for local authorities. It is confined to only a few, but, frankly, these problems should not be happening in any authority. It does not place a burden on the authorities; it certainly puts a duty on members. If there are any half-diligent, or less than fully diligent councillors, this clause will point out to them what their responsibilities were when they were elected to office in the first place.
  Baroness Hamwee: I do not think there is any difference at all between any of us about the desirability of this. However, can the Minister answer my question about the sanction for failing to comply with the duty? I ask that because I am trying to envisage how this would operate in practice.
  Lord Rooker: As I have said, the clause puts a duty on members, so we are talking about an authority. As far as a sanction for non-compliance is concerned, the district auditor will determine whether the laws are being obeyed. This would be a legal requirement, but the detail of its implementation is for the authority. Ultimately, if there is a wilful refusal to operate the law and an authority says, "We will not carry out a review from time to time", the district auditor can take action and, if need be, go to the courts to seek enforcement. Indeed, the matter could be dealt with by judicial review if there is a problem.
  I am sure the noble Baroness is not on the side of giving sustenance to councillors who wilfully refuse to review their general budget from time to time. They choose the time and they choose the action as well. They choose how and when the budget is reviewed and they choose the course of action to take. They will obviously seek professional advice if there is a deterioration. I cannot conceive of sanctions being required against the sort of councillors elected these days, but ultimately, the district auditor is always there as a longstop on behalf of the public.
  Baroness Hamwee: Of course I do not wish to support the incompetent or the wilful refusal. However, I do not want to see any more words in the statute than are absolutely necessary. After all, there are quite a lot, year on year. Does it come down to this—that the clause gives the district auditor a trigger to do something, but nothing that the district auditor would not do without the clause? It will deal with the wilful refusers, and all that is added in technical terms is that a judicial review might require an authority to take action. Anything else would be triggered, in any event, by the mechanisms of which we have all seen examples over the years.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: It would be, but, to return to what I said at the start, we have had very few examples, but there could have been a failure on the part of officers to report to members about a deterioration in the budget. Because the authority has a duty to review from time to time, it catches that situation. Where for various reasons it may have been defensible at the time, the officers did not report to the councillors that there had been a deterioration in the budget, that then brought on a crisis, one exacerbated by further problems. So because normal and reasonable councillors serving on normal and reasonable councils—the vast, overwhelming majority—would operate the clause and review from time to time, in effect that impels officers to report to the members, and the duty is then on those members to take action.
  Lord Hanningfield: There is one matter we have touched on, but I do not think that the Minister has referred to it at all because so often he refers to "the council". At present, under the new legislation that has introduced cabinets, the council has only one particular purpose, which is to set a budget. Only once during the year does the council itself become involved in the detail of financial management. That is the case for every council for over 85,000 residents, which embraces most councils in the country. Those 85,000-plus people have cabinets with a member responsible for finance, working closely with the financial officer. As I have said, I know how many councils operate. Most councils would produce a financial report of some kind every month, presented either by the financial officer or by the responsible cabinet member.
  The council itself would not be involved to any degree because it has no powers in these matters other than to set a budget each year. I wonder whether, even in discussing this proposal, that is recognised because over the year the council has no powers itself to change the budget. Therefore, even in the way that the Minister has presented this, that fact has not been recognised; namely, how modern local government has been operating over the past two years. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is totally out of date on how councils operate today because this system was not in place in the past.
  Having been involved in the way we operate over the past two years, I have noticed a tremendous change. I hope that the Minister is fully aware that local government is very different since the introduction of the cabinet. Indeed, I have just come from a cabinet meeting in Essex held this morning.
  Lord Rooker: If I did not know the noble Lord better, I would say that he is starting to filibuster. We are well aware of the changes. When local government structures are changed, surely the powers of the council are delegated either to committees, to officers or to the cabinet. There are scrutiny committees and questions at council meetings. So there are plenty of opportunities. It is absolutely true to say that at one point the full council may meet to endorse the budget to set the council tax, but monitoring carries on throughout the year, whatever the structure.
  GC 56
  Not all councils have opted for this system. Some have elected mayors with executive authority. So all those structures still take account of the fact that if there is a deterioration in the budget but the financial reporting system is in place—the clause refers to the "authority"—the authority is in fact the area to which scrutiny has been delegated, such as the finance committee, the scrutiny committee, the cabinet member or the executive mayor, as well as reporting back to the council.
  The clause as drafted takes account of the changes as well as the flexibility in local government structures that we have today, but which certainly was not there either in my noble friend's day or indeed in my day, because I was never there.
  Lord Hanningfield: We have addressed this whole series of clauses because we feel strongly about them. I hope that the Minister will think again before we reach the Report stage about how we might achieve some of the objectives desired by the Government without passing all these clauses covering levels of reserve as well as more complicated matters. With that, I withdraw the Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Budget monitoring: Greater London Authority]:
  Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 79A:
  Page 13, line 21, after "situation" insert "and the Mayor of London shall report the deterioration to the Chair of the London Assembly"
  The noble Baroness said: I have already declared my interests to the Committee, including my role as chair of the London Assembly. This is a probing amendment which seeks to understand whether, under Clause 29(3), there is a difference of approach as between the four functional bodies—that is, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Development Agency—on the one hand and the Greater London Authority, which we have become accustomed to referring to as the "core GLA", on the other. I assume that, in referring to a body, Clause 29(3) includes the core GLA, because otherwise nothing would be left to be the subject of subsection (3)(a).
  In the case of a deterioration of a functional body. Clause 29(3)(b) requires that to be reported to the Mayor and, unusually, to the Chair of the Assembly. I am not sure whether any similar provision is included elsewhere in legislation covering the Chair himself or herself.
  The Chair would not know automatically about a deterioration in the position as regards the core GLA. As it happens, through a budget committee, the Assembly monitors the spending of the GLA, although inevitably that is by nature somewhat retrospective. But it is the Mayor's budget and it is his operation of it, as are the budgets of the functional bodies.

  GC 57
  I have moved the amendment largely to determine whether there is a difference in approach and, as a sub-text, to suggest that if one seeks transparency and reporting in the public domain, then a provision such as reporting to the Chair of the Assembly would be helpful to ensure that it actually takes place and the Mayor does put matters into the public domain. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I confess that I had some difficulty understanding the amendment, given how the clause has been drafted. Then again, I do not fully understand the workings of the Greater London Authority or, indeed, the internal politics of the authority. I suspect that the amendment might have more to do with that than with the drafting of the legislation, for reasons that I shall explain.
  Clause 29 places a duty on the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies to monitor their budgets and to consider what action to take if a deterioration is identified. Amendment No. 79A introduces a new duty into Clause 29 requiring the Mayor of London to report to the Chair of the London Assembly if the deterioration is identified in the budget of one of the Greater London bodies.
  The amendment is completely unnecessary. If one of the functional bodies identifies a deterioration, the clause already places a duty on the body to report to the Mayor and to the Chair of the Assembly. If it were a deterioration in the Greater London Authority's own budget, current practice would ensure that it was made known to the Assembly, and the Assembly has sufficient powers to obtain information if there were any resistance.
  Clause 29 was drafted in its present form taking into account a joint response received on the draft Bill agreed by both the Mayor and the Assembly, of which I understand the noble Baroness is a member. The reporting duty proposed in Amendment No. 79A was not requested in that response. I hope, therefore, in the light of this clarification, that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am not much clearer about this point, but I am not sure that we would be able to pursue this matter productively this afternoon. The Minister has said that the Assembly has "sufficient powers". Certainly it has powers to call the Mayor and officers before it to answer questions—of that there is no doubt—but if the Assembly does not know that an issue has been identified then it will not be prompted to call for those questions to be answered.
  This is not a matter of internal politics. It is always difficult to convince others that sometimes one simply wants the Authority, as a new piece of government, to work well and to be seen to be proper and transparent. I want to make it clear that this is not a Liberal Democrat attack on the current Mayor. There are other things over which we could attack the Mayor, but this is not a part of that, nor indeed is it an attack on the professionalism of the current officers.
  GC 58
  I am still a little lost, but perhaps the precise powers that would achieve what I am seeking is something that we could discuss outside the Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Power to pay grant]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Baroness said: We move on from the Greater London Authority, although I can hardly forbear to comment that the Mayor has just sacked his Deputy Mayor, so goodness knows what he gets up to as regards the Chair of the Assembly.
  Baroness Hamwee: I beg your pardon?
  Baroness Hanham: I am not telling noble Lords what is going on because I am not seeking any political purpose here.
  Baroness Hamwee: The temptation is too great. Three years ago the Mayor of London offered the post of Deputy Mayor to a member of each of the political parties in turn. One party had the offer withdrawn almost immediately and I am sure that the noble Baroness will work out which one that was. Another party, my party, refused the offer before the Mayor could withdraw it. So I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that he does not get up to anything with me.
  Baroness Hanham: Today's news is that he has sacked his Deputy Mayor. I mentioned it only because I thought that the noble Baroness would like to know.
  I shall move on to Amendment No. 80. The purpose of this amendment is to put questions about the grant and grant powers under Chapter 1 of the expenditure grant. It seeks to probe exactly what are the circumstances under which these powers would be used.
  The Explanatory Notes suggest that the expenditure grant is a power that is very wide-ranging, one that would enable any Minister to make a grant to any local authority of either capital or revenue. The notes also suggest that it is a power which, in the future, would largely eliminate the use of specific grants. I am aware that specific grants have been widely criticised by local authorities as their use has increased over the years. Today they make up a significant percentage of a local authority's total grant.
  Currently such grants amount to around 15 per cent of the total local government finance settlement. However, in general they have been given to all local authorities for specific purposes and only in the most limited circumstances have they been made available to only a small number of authorities.
  It is true that local authorities have long resented specific grants, believing that hypothecation is a contradiction in terms to a block grant. Therefore I

  GC 59
  cannot understand why, when this matter was discussed in another place, the Minister said that these powers would be welcomed by local government.
  I could just about have understood if the power had been limited to enabling the Minister to pay out grant to, for example, an area hit by a natural disaster—replacing, say, the troubled and complicated Bellwin formula. But the Explanatory Notes make it very clear that that is not the case. Grants under public service agreements are, apparently, in the frame. as are those to a particular class of authority. We are presumably back to our "excellent" and "good" categories under the comprehensive performance assessment—or, more worryingly, would the grants be made to support the poor and the weak?
  However, current legislation enables Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to make such limited grants in any event. So what is to be included under the clause? Why is it needed? Why is it so widely framed? Any opposition party must be highly suspicious of any legislation that may allow Ministers to do anything they want, when they want. Does the Minister want me to give way?
  Lord Rooker: When you have finished your sentence.
  Baroness Hanham: I have another paragraph.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness referred to existing powers. If she could tell me to which section of which Act she is referring, I can check whether that is the one to which I shall refer or some other provision. That is important in discussing the issue raised by the amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: Any Minister already has power to provide specific grants under normal legislation. That is my point: there are already powers in legislation for specific grants, however they are identified.
  I was about to make one of the party political points on which the Minister is so keen, and on which I seldom get a chance to shoot back. To repeat: any opposition party must be highly suspicious of any legislation that may allow Ministers to do anything they want, when they want, and which leaves open the possibility of grants being given to favoured councils for undefined purposes. Of course, it is not just ODPM Ministers who will be able to dish out those grants, but any Minister—a matter to be dealt with under further amendments.
  Further enlightening words in the Explanatory Notes point out that Treasury approval will be needed for any grant under that heading. In what areas under whose responsibility are applications expected to be made to that august and all-encompassing department? It would help our understanding of the situation if the Minister would explain in detail what is expected under the clause—what it is anticipated to cover—and why those grants currently made as specific grants in the local government finance
  GC 60
  settlement cannot just be paid as part of the block grant, which is precisely what local government would like, rather than ring-fenced, as they are at present.
  My surmise is that the Local Government Association thought that it was welcoming a limited power to pay grants to local authorities for a small number of tightly defined purposes requiring urgent investment, not a sweeping power encompassing about 15 per cent of its total finance. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: I have tabled a later probing amendment. I was going to ask then, but perhaps it is appropriate to ask now, whether the Minister can confirm that Sections 88A and 88B of the Local Government Act 1988—
  Lord Rooker: No, I am sorry; I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but she can help me. All these amendments were originally grouped as one block. They have all been degrouped. I did not degroup them. I intend to answer each amendment in order. I shall not make a repeated compendium speech, because I could end up making the same speech on each amendment. I am more than happy to answer the questions, but, with respect, it is not on for the noble Baroness to regroup the amendments while she is on her feet.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am not regrouping; I am asking a question pertinent to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Can the Minister confirm that Sections 88A and 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will not be repealed? I ask that because that is pertinent to the question of the Baroness about the clause's purpose. As I understand it, those sections, which contain the grant-making provisions, introduced in 1992, will remain on the statute book. That was the sole purpose of my asking the question; I am not trying to speak to my later amendment.
  Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may speak first to the lead amendment, Amendment No. 80—except that there is no group because Amendment No. 80 now stands on its own. I fully understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked her questions, because under the clause as drafted, subsection (1) could give rise to her thinking that we are up to naughty deeds. We are not.
  The new grant-making power in Clause 31 is intended to allow Ministers or the National Assembly to pay grants without imposing undue restrictions on authorities on how they achieve desired outcomes, and so help to ensure that we keep ring-fencing to the absolute minimum necessary. In other words, it is part of the package of trying to reduce ring-fencing. I shall explain why.
  Amendment No. 80 would remove Clause 31(1), which gives a Minister of the Crown power to pay a grant to a local authority towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it. The amendment would therefore negate the intention of the whole of Clause 31 and its dependent Clauses 32 to 35. We would have

  GC 61
  to continue using the cumbersome special grant power under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to make unfenced grants.
  That in itself encourages the use by some departments of their power to make ring-fenced grants and tends to lead to grant regimes that impose restrictive conditions on local authorities' expenditure decisions. The new power in Clause 31 will make it much easier to give grants that are not ring-fenced. Amendment No. 80 would therefore make it difficult to reduce ring-fencing and to free local authorities from restrictive conditions on grants. The clause provides an important element of the Government's desire to free councils to manage their own business, in line with our principles of public sector reform. We want councils to be responsible for their decisions.
  In other words, freeing up the position as set out in Clause 31(1) avoids us having to fall back on Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to make unfenced grants. However, because that procedure is cumbersome, and because the centralist tendency is always there, some government departments tend to use their powers to stick in ring-fenced grants, with all their rules laid down about what local authorities can and cannot do.
  The purpose of the Bill is to give freedom and flexibility to local authorities, so we do not want departments to fall back on their powers to introduce ring-fenced grants under the carpet or through the back door, simply because they do not want to use the Local Government Finance Act 1988—which, without Clause 31(1), would be the only other route. So the provision is not a means for Ministers to spend on a whim—obviously, Treasury approval will be required and Ministers cannot spend on a whim in any event, as the noble Baroness well knows. It is designed to pass the grant money over with the minimum possible conditions—indeed, on some occasions, with no conditions—but for a general purpose. It will be up to the local authority what to do with the money.
  Given that we have a host of amendments with which I propose to deal in turn as they are moved, I shall briefly set out the general purpose of Clause 31 before we start to discuss the amendments. That may be useful.
  Clause 31 provides a new wide-ranging power for Ministers to make expenditure grants to local authorities. It will create greater flexibility in delivering capital or revenue support to authorities and allow government departments to pay grants without imposing undue restrictions on authorities—as I mentioned.
  At present, the only general grant-making power is the "special grant" power under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which was, I remind the Committee, the poll tax Act. That was substituted by Section 104 of and Paragraph 18 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Exercise of that power requires not only Treasury consent but the laying of a report before Parliament for debate in Standing Committee. Once
  GC 62
  approved, a report cannot be amended and any changes required later can be achieved only by laying a new report before Parliament.
  The procedure tends to lead to grant regimes that impose restrictive conditions on local authorities' expenditure decisions. It encourages the use by some departments of their own powers to make ring-fenced grants. We want to avoid that. The new power will make it much easier to give grants that are not ring-fenced.
  However, we do not propose to repeal the special grant power, which will remain available for any cases in which it is appropriate to seek Parliament's approval for the award of a grant. We shall also continue to pay revenue support grant under existing powers, thereby preserving Parliament's right to oversee the awards.
  As Clauses 31(3) and (4) make clear, conditions may be attached to the grant, which could include expenditure conditions, but there is no need to attach any conditions at all—subject to the circumstances. The structure of the provision is designed to ensure that conditions are attached only as a result of clear policy decisions, rather than arising through default, as is typically the case when departments use their own powers to make ring-fenced grants.
  Clause 31(5) requires that, in England, the Treasury's consent will be needed to the exercise of the power. That will be an important safeguard against the imposition of spending conditions unless they are genuinely necessary and beneficial. That will stop Ministers taking that route to ring-fencing. In the short time for which I have been in the ODPM, I have felt a bit of frustration about grants paid.
  A good example is the planning delivery grant, which we announced in December. It is not ring-fenced over the three years. It will be paid on the basis of better performance of the planning regimes, but, when the money goes to the authority, the authority can do what it wants with it—planning or anything else. The test of paying the money is an improvement in planning performance, but the money is not ring-fenced. So when the money arrives at the local authority treasurer, the local authority can do what it wants with it. We have tried to step back: to encourage improved performance in that function and to pay the money; but not be prescriptive about how it is spent.
  Of course, the presumption is that the authority will already have spent more money to improve its performance to achieve the extra planning delivery grant, but when it receives the grant, it is not ring-fenced. So that is one example of a different kind of flexible regime under which money is paid to local authorities.
  I hope that that helps to set the scene for the clause. I shall be happy to respond in detail to the amendments as they have now been grouped.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply, which was clear but left me almost as confused by its clarity as I was when we started. I now do not understand the need for the power. One problem

  GC 63
  about specific grants has been precisely what the Minister identified: local authorities have been highly restricted in their use of them. I well remember the mental health grant, for example, under which one was confined as to what could be done. Ultimately, it was absorbed into the local government finance settlement, after it had run its course.
  If specific grants are not really part of the Government's thinking, I do not understand why the power is required at all. Ministers could include whatever they want as part and parcel of the local government finance settlement and the money that local authorities receive. If grant is to be allowed to be used for any purpose at all, I do not understand why the power is necessary. If it is only to control Ministers, it may just have some benefit, but I suspect that they are not its prime target.
  I understand that there are times when there are urgent, emergency reasons—natural disasters or something else catastrophic—that would normally fall under the Bellwin formula. But, as far as I understand it, the Bellwin formula will still apply. So that is not what this is about. It is about additional money that is being given to some local authorities to be used for any purpose, irrespective of why it is provided and by which Minister. I still find that extremely strange. The fact that this matter will not even come before Parliament before the grants are agreed makes the whole thing even more disturbing.
  Unless I have completely misunderstood—not wilfully—the Minister's remarks, it seems to me that this grant-making power is not necessary, because of the wide way in which the Government are now looking at money to be given to local authorities, in what would truly be a block grant. It would be welcome were the Minister to tell me that we are returning to a true block grant, enabling local authorities to use it for whatever purpose, in whatever way and in whatever proportion they believe to be right. If that were correct, we should perhaps be getting somewhere. But in that case this power would be unnecessary. I remain very sceptical, and quite confused, about the benefits of this power, particularly when it is so wide-ranging.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I want to be able to guarantee—but I can never guarantee anything—that by the time we discuss Amendment No. 95, the final amendment on Clause 31, everything will be clear. As we give a reasonable explanation in response to each of the Opposition amendments, the picture will form as to how Clause 31 operates. It is difficult. Were the amendments grouped together I could read out all the notes, but they have been split up and we should do better to deal with them separately.
  Perhaps I may give an example, which I hope will be helpful, of the use of' other powers. Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000 is used to make various health grants to local authorities. But grants made under the power must, according to the legislation, be spent on health and social services. Those grants are
  GC 64
  therefore inherently ring-fenced. The new power under Clause 31 will avoid this. It will in effect replace mainstream funding.
  We are trying to move back from ring-fencing. We are not giving local authorities money to do anything that they want. The functions of local authorities are prescribed by Parliament anyway—some are statutory, some are non-statutory. But we want to reduce the amount of ring-fencing. It ties local authorities. They can have several streams of ring-fenced money, some of which are fully used, some of which are under-used. There is no possibility of vying between the two. Ring-fencing curtails and restricts the freedoms and flexibility of local government, and that is what the Bill is designed to open up and avoid. It is part of the process of trusting local government.
  Lord Hanningfield: Would this be the beginning of the end of ring-fencing? I refer, for example, to the Bill dealing with bed-blocking. If local authorities are able to be fined for bed-blocking, will the Secretary of State for Health give local authorities some money in the first instance specifically to help with the problem? Would that kind of ring-fencing cease under this clause? Is it intended that money should go to local authorities and that they might then use it for different purposes?
  Lord Rooker: First, I cannot talk about what is happening at present: the powers will come into operation only when the Bill is enacted. On the other hand, the example that I have given—the planning delivery grant—requires parliamentary approval. It is a good example of where we wanted to see improvements in the performance of local authorities. The question of bed-blocking is slightly different: on the one hand, NHS beds are being blocked, but on the other hand there are the social services, so one is vying between the two. I shall take advice, but it may well be the case that in such circumstances the Secretary of State could pay the grant to the local authorities with a view to solving the bed-blocking problem, and do it under this power. But the local authority would have to perform. There would have to be a measure of the outcome; namely, whether it had solved the bed-blocking problem. However, the number of beds or pillows that are ordered, the number of bureaucrats who are put on the job, which ambulances and which particular buildings are used are all restrictions in terms of the ring-fenced grant. Incidentally, none of the grant can be used outside the direct limits that we have given. That could come under the terms of the Bill and make the system far easier to use and, at the end of day, much more effective.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am breathless to see whether, by the time we reach Amendment No. 95, we shall have solved the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 14, line 25, leave out "A Minister of the Crown" and insert "The Secretary of State"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 87. The Minister indicates that he was expecting me to do so and that it will not cause confusion in terms of his briefing.
  The purpose of the amendment is to probe why such a wide-ranging power should be given to any number of Ministers of the Crown. We have discussed to some extent the fact that grants will come from various departments, and that may be the explanation. But we also want to ascertain which departments are to be included and why such grants should be subject to the Treasury and not also to the Secretary of State who has responsibility for the particular area.
  In reply to the previous amendment, the Minister gave some examples but was not specific about the departments that are likely to be involved. The amendment gives him another chance to be so, and a further chance to explain clearly and specifically before we reach Amendment No. 95 what the intention is. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: There is a simple, short explanation. Amendment No. 81 would mean that only a department that had a Secretary of State could use the new grant-making power in Clause 31. This would mean that any department that did not have a Secretary of State but had a Minister would not be able to use the power. The Lord Chancellor's Department would fall into this category.
  Prior to the change in May last year, when MAFF became DEFRA, MAFF did not have a Secretary of State; it was a Whitehall department with a Minister but no Secretary of State. Therefore, in those circumstances the power could not have been used. DEFRA does have a Secretary of State.
  Amendment No. 87 would restrict the determination of the amount and the manner of payment of a grant under Section 31(1) to a Secretary of State. Again, it would mean that this power was unusable by, for example, at the present time, the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is the reason, and that is the answer to the amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 14. line 26, leave out "incurred or"
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the provision allowing for grant to be made to a local authority for expenditure incurred by it in the past. This power would presently allow a government to make payment retrospectively—potentially to bail out an authority which had incurred expenditure for which it might or might not have had government authorisation or had
  GC 66
  got itself into trouble. This is potentially a kind of National Enterprise Board for the 21st century, except that it would be bailing out failed councils rather than failed companies.
  Such exceptional central powers should not be retrospective. Retrospective power is a dangerous thing. It is not normally favoured in our law and it puts pressure on Ministers to intervene where otherwise they might not. We have now established that the Minister intervening would not necessarily be the Secretary of State.
  The wide-ranging powers in this clause, if they are to be used at all, should be used only on the basis of the most scrupulous and objective conditions. Ideally, they should be subject to proper forward planning as any other use of taxpayers' money. So, I put my questions again: how exactly is it planned to use the retrospective power, or how does the Minister see it being used, and how retrospective can it be? Could a grant be made under the clause for some pet project—I have noted the example of Brighton Council; I cannot think why. On the face of it, it could be. There has to be some cut-off, limit or control.
  I will move from the example of Brighton to that of Haringey council. It cannot be right that a Minister can say: "Haringey has got itself into a mess by overspending on a particular project. Let's give it a grant to get it out of trouble", without proper scrutiny of the situation. This provision potentially leaves a Minister or the Government open to charges of partiality or bias. Furthermore, it is not a proper use of taxpayers' money. The powers in this clause, if they are used at all, should be forward-looking, open and planned. I beg to move.
  Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may add to my noble friend's point. I accept what the Minister has said; namely, that this provision will do away with the problem of ring-fencing and enable money to be given to local authorities in a wider way. But that does not apply to expenditure that has already been incurred. Therefore, this seems to be a different point from the one that the Minister has explained as regards why the Government want this power.
  Lord Rooker: That is the reason that I shall give the answer that I am going to give.
  I do not want to be ungallant, but it is a long time since I heard anyone mention the National Enterprise Board, so the noble Baroness is showing her age!
  Baroness Hanham: I do it all the time!
  Lord Rooker Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 82 would mean that the new grant-making power in Clause 31 could be used only to make grants to a local authority towards expenditure,
  "to be incurred by it",
  not towards expenditure "already incurred". This would therefore preclude reimbursement grants, where a local authority incurs some cost and the Government subsequently pay to the authority some or all of the expenditure incurred. An example would

  GC 67
  be where the Government want to compensate authorities, say, for the extra costs of looking after asylum seekers, where, because of their peripatetic nature, it is not possible accurately to predict future expenditure need. Amendment No. 82 would mean that we should need to continue to pay reimbursement grants through Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 or some other specific power, where available, which tends to cause delays in the payment of the grant to the affected authority and limits the flexibility with which the grant might be used.
  That is the simple explanation. I repeat that the grants will not be paid without Treasury approval, and, as we shall see in relation to Clause 32, authorities are required to provide information to Ministers before such grants are made. So this is not a matter of doling out money on pet projects. I am not going to be wound up by this constant sniping of a crude political fashion. Labour Ministers do not fund "pet projects". I hope that Tory Ministers did not do so. That would be outwith the conduct of public life in this country. We did not do it previously, and we are not going to do it now.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I am rather enjoying these amendments. They provide me with the first opportunity in a long time to have a dig at the Minister and for him to have a dig at me!
  The more the Minister talks and the more the explanations come, the less I understand why Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act is not being amended under this legislation. What is happening now is that there will be almost contradictory legislative powers running in parallel.
  The Minister's comments on grants in relation to asylum seekers relate to what I had understood the subsection to be; namely, a permissive power for the Minister to help in a specific situation. No one could have initially foreseen what would happen in relation to asylum seekers. Local authorities were faced with a very serious situation and great financial outlay. In such a situation the provision would he perfectly proper and I would not have sought such an amendment. This is not just about that. We are talking about specific grants in totality. Therefore, it is such a wide power that it should fall under Section 88B of the Local Government Act 1988; and within the ordinary finance settlement. There would be exceptions, such as asylum seekers or natural disasters—I almost put those in the same category and in the same breath. I would then understand the power. But we are beyond that. The reimbursement powers, as described by the Minister, in this very wide power to get rid of specific grants, seem too wide for the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 83:
  Page 14, line 26, at end insert "provided that the grant is available to all other local authorities of the same category on the same terms and those terms have been publicly certified as equitable by the accounting officer of the Department and that all
  GC 68
  documents and correspondence relating to decisions on such grant are made available annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General"
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any grants are made on objectively published criteria; that they are certified by the department's permanent secretary; and that they are subject to the fullest possible scrutiny. That would become an onerous burden in the light of the wide-ranging powers that the Minister described. However, where there is scope for selective grants to individual authorities, it must be right to ensure that there is no question of the powers being used selectively.
  The amendment would prevent the Government writing special rules for an individual authority. I hear what the Minister says about governments not abusing these powers. But under them there will be times when an individual authority can be given money. So the amendment would prevent the Government writing the special rules which the Explanatory Notes that say they may want to do. They might want to give some special grants.
  We return to how to ensure that there is fair play on the special grants and that the sweeping power would be double-locked, so that it could be seen to be fair. I do not see why the Government should object to that, which would safeguard Ministers against any accusation of unfairness. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 83 aims to ensure that grants made under the new power in Clause 31 are available on the same terms to all authorities of the same category. The department's accounting officer has publicly certified those terms. However, the amendment would limit the use of the powers in Clause 31. It would be odd indeed were the Government, having determined the eligibility conditions for a grant, then not to use those conditions in distributing the grant. If there is a set of conditions for a grant to be distributed to authorities, we would be daft not to use them.
  There may be circumstances in which a grant would appropriately be made to one particular authority. I understand—I do not know the background to this; I am just asking about it—that Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1998, about which the noble Baroness obvioulsy knows a great deal more than I do, so if I am not careful I shall get my legs chopped off. has been used in that way in the past.
  Parliament agreed that an additional grant should be provided to the London Borough of Hackney to aid the authority's revenues. That was an exceptional case, which met the Government's criteria for giving additional financial support as set out in the local government White Paper. Without the £25 million Hackney could not have agreed a balanced budget for 2002–03 and would have been unable to start building future financial stability. Although it would be appropriate for a grant to be made in such extreme circumstances through the existing special grant power in Section 88B of the 1988 Act, there may be less extreme cases in which it would be appropriate to use Clause 31 to make a grant to one authority only. The amendment would preclude that.

  GC 69
  So I must say that I stand here naked in knowing nothing about Hackney—the past, the present or what is expected in the future, or how the money was paid. I presume that it was ring-fenced, in the sense that the authority had obviously got itself into a mess and the money was to get itself out of it. I presume that it was not given without strings. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the process used was one that Parliament approved as a one-off payment. That is the example that I cite, although I do not have the background. But that was a wholly exceptional case.
  We want to retain the flexibility of the clause, in case there is a need to use it, instead of using the Section 88B powers, in which of course Parliament would be involved. That is the point. The point is not to circumvent Parliament, but there could be occasions when one authority, because of whatever special circumstances have arisen, would receive a one-off grant in circumstances that would be known to everyone. The grants would not be paid in secret. Information, as I have said, would have to be provided to Ministers before the grants were paid.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I think what he said was that in the event of something being quite specific and quite unusual, the process involve what I have actually asked him to provide: it would ensure that there was proper support and agreement for it. We shall not go further into Hackney. It involved a specific situation—none of its services were working well. I think that anyone would agree that that was quite a different case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 14, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: We reach the point about whether Parliament is or is not included in the new grant regime. The purpose of the amendments is to test the reasons why the Secretary of State want such wide-ranging discretionary powers, and, if he does, to subject the use of those powers to control by affirmative resolution of Parliament.
  It cannot be right that selective, discretionary powers of that kind should be exercised by Ministers alone. If included in primary legislation, grants to specific authorities but not others would be hybrid, requiring the very highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Such potentially discriminatory powers should not be exercisable at the Secretary of State's pleasure. All rules surrounding them should be open to parliamentary control and that control should be achieved by affirmative resolution.
  We return to where we started when we suggested that there are two forms of grants. There are specific grants, which any department may give and which would be included as a specific grant in the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and there are grants which may be given on a discretionary basis for a particular reason. If the grant is given as part of the
  GC 70
  Local Government Finance Act, it will be under Section 88B. That would be understandable because it would probably be well described within that block grant power. Where the powers are discretionary and open to selectivity, it would be proper for them to be implemented by affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): I must tell the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed to, I should be unable to call Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 by reason of pre-emption.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise in advance that I shall take some time to work through the amendments, but I will try to give the noble Baroness a full response.
  The new grant-making power in Clause 31 is intended to allow Ministers or the National Assembly to pay grants without imposing undue restrictions, in line with our freedoms and flexibilities approach, to authorities as they achieve desired outcomes, and so help to ensure that we keep ring-fencing to a minimum. For that reason, the LGA is very supportive.
  The amendments would defeat one of the main aims of the provision, which is to offer an alternative, so that departments are able to make non-ring-fenced grants available to local government. Amendments Nos. 86, 89 and 91 would require a procedure that is even more cumbersome than the present special grant procedure, which requires the grant to be approved only by the House of Commons. That would be needed for every grant, including small or uncontroversial grants, or those being repeated from previous years.
  Amendment No. 86 would mean that the amount and manner of payment of a grant made under Clause 31 would have to be considered and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it would defeat one of the main aims of the new power, which is to make it easier to make grants without conditions.
  Amendment No. 89 would mean that any conditions on a grant made under Clause 31 would need to be set out in an order and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have sympathy with the evident aim of the amendment, which is to make it more difficult to place controls on a grant which would make it ring-fenced. But the Government have put in place separate machinery—a gateway process—to ensure that there will be no new ring-fenced grants that do not meet a set of criteria set out in the local government White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. Where a conditional grant is made, that will be as a result of clear policy decisions.
  Amendment No. 91 would mean that both Houses of Parliament would need to approve the terms of any grants made using the powers in Clause 31. Amendments Nos. 91, 89 and 86 will make it more likely that departments will continue to use their own specific grant-making provisions, which may include more restrictions than are necessary.
  In a previous discussion on Clause 31 in another place, some Members were concerned that that power will mean that Parliament would no longer be able to consider grants to local authorities. In England,

  GC 71
  parliamentary approval will still be needed in the ambit of each department's request for resources. Parliamentary approval will still be sought for the local government finance settlement each year, which provides the majority of funding to local government. In addition, the special grant power will remain available for any cases where it is appropriate to seek Parliament's approval for the award of a grant.
  In England, where the new power is used to make grants, the 'Treasury's consent will be needed, which is an important safeguard against the imposition of spending conditions unless they are genuinely necessary and beneficial.
  Amendment No. 88 relates to Clause 31(3). It states that a grant made,
  "under this section may be paid on such conditions as the Minister…may determine".
  The amendment, which deletes the word "such", would seem to make no change to the meaning of the clause but simply make it ungrammatical.
  Amendment No. 84 would remove Clause 31(2), which gives a Minister of the Crown the power to determine the amount of a grant made under Clause 31(1) and the manner of its payment. The amendment would make the power unusable because a Minister could make a grant but could not determine its amount or how it is paid. The amendment would therefore negate the purpose of Clause 31. We would have to continue using the cumbersome special grant power under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to make non-ring-fenced grants. As with the other amendments, that would encourage the use by some departments of their own powers to make such grants. That tends to lead to grant regimes which impose restrictive conditions on local authorities' expenditure plans and decisions. So Amendment No. 84 would make it more difficult to reduce ring-fencing and would counter our efforts to free up local authorities from the overly restrictive conditions that exist with some grants.
  I apologise for taking the Committee's time, but it was necessary to go through the impact of the amendments in some detail. I hope that, on reflection,
  the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for also replying to Amendment No. 85, which I have not moved. But he has done so, which saves me having to go through the words. I think that he is just trying to hurry me up, rather than anything else.
  The Minister's reply just makes larger the question of why specific grants are being left in Section 88B of the Local Government Act 1988. If the power will mean that one does not require the restrictions on the grant for the specific reasons for which it has been given, then why on earth not just remove Section 88B and get rid of the power to make specific grants, which is what the complaint is all about? Local government is not happy with specific grants and never has been. To have those powers removed so that Ministers can
  GC 72
  only give money under the powers under the clause will make far more sense. I think that having the two provisions will just cause enormous confusion.
  I am now even less clear on why we should have this provision, in addition to Section 88B, if we are trying to reduce the power of restriction and provide more flexibility. Either specific grants under Section 88B will become totally irrelevant and that power will never be used, or this power will be used, or there will be a hotchpotch of the two.
  I think that the amendments have achieved some enlightenment, as they were intended to do. However, I do not know why the Local Government Association is not leaping up and down about the issue. Specific grants will still exist, and this provision will probably be used in limited circumstances. I do not think that the situation which the Minister described is the one that he intends to achieve. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  [Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 87A:
  Page 14, line 29, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment proposes leaving out subsections (3) and (4) which allow conditions to be applied to the making of grants. I think that both Ministers have said that the new provision will allow grants to be made without undue restrictions—which is wholly consistent with what was said in the Commons. We applaud the reduction of restrictions and the reduction of ring-fencing. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Han ham, I am still puzzled about which of the Bill's provisions will ensure that. We know that Section 88B of the 1988 Act is not to be repealed. I would feel much more comfortable about the proposals if it were repealed. We have heard about other Secretaries of State having the right to make grant. As I understand it, no other similar provision is to be repealed.
  Under Clause 31(3), the grant,
  "may be paid on such conditions as the Minister…may determine".
  I wonder whether the Minister can explain how that differs from Section 88B(7) of the 1988 Act, which says that a special grant "may" specify conditions that the Secretary of State intends to impose. Does the "may" in the 1988 Act mean "must"? Do both "mays" mean "may", or do both mean "must"? I hope that that is a clear question.
  By way of a small but not unimportant illustration I should like to cite an example which came to my attention today, regarding the cost incurred by fire authorities in implementing the Bain recommendations as part of the settlement that we hope will soon be achieved in the fire dispute. Implementing the recommendations will cost quite a lot; I understand that the cost to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will be not far short of £500,000 in the current year. It is hoped, of course, that a grant will be made to enable the fire authority to meet that cost. The Minister need not look worried; I am not

  GC 73
  going to ask him to respond to any of the details. My point is that the fire authority and other brigades will need to take their own decisions on how best to spend the sums required to move into the new regime anticipated by Bain of prevention and of making appliances available to meet new criteria. If you like, it is about local autonomy.
  Although that is perhaps not a good example, it is a concern which illustrates why we want as little restriction as possible. As we have heard, we do not want undue restrictions. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 87A is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 inclusive by reasons of pre-emption.
  Baroness Hanham: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made a good point. If the grant is going to be paid on conditions, where goes this business of getting rid of the ring-fencing and the specific grants? The whole purpose of specific grants is to say for what they shall be used. As the noble Baroness said, subsection (3) would re-establish those conditions. I am therefore not sure that we are freeing up anything.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that we all understand the impact of the amendment. The clauses as drafted allow Ministers to put conditions on a grant. The amendment would in particular remove provision as to the use of the grant and the circumstances in which it must be repaid. The amendment would ensure that only unfenced grants with no conditions could be made under the new power. I find it difficult to believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wants to achieve that end or thinks that it would be a sensible instrument of policy. However, perhaps she thinks that we should establish such a regime of extreme liberality in local government finance.
  The effect would be that ring-fenced grants approved on policy grounds would continue to be made under departments' own specific grant-making powers, which may be more restrictive than necessary, or under the less flexible general Section 88B power in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I think that that is the point of our proposals. That particular provision is less flexible. I think that that was one of the noble Baroness's concerns.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a couple of specific questions which I shall try to deal with in turn. Both Section 88B and the new power can make grants with no conditions—unfenced—or with conditions, ring-fenced. We have separate machinery in place to ensure that departments do not make conditions when those are not justified. That machinery is called the gateway process. My understanding is that the Local Government Association is very much in favour of Clause 31, which it regards as an important statement and method of working. Specific grants need not be ring-fenced. They can have conditions in relation to which
  GC 74
  authorities receive them but still no conditions as to how they are spent. Reward grants, for example, fall into that category. Other examples are the planning grant, which has already mentioned, and the LPSA performance reward grant.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, picked us up on the use of the word "may". The usage of "may" in Section 88B(7) is the same as that in Clause 31(3) and means "may" and not "must"—conditions "may" be imposed. So there is a similarity. I know that there is always a fog over matters of local government finance, but I hope that that has cleared up at least some of it.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am afraid that it has not. At least we have learned that "may" means "may". I assume that the gateway process could apply to grants made under either provision. It does not surprise me that the LGA is in favour of anything involving grant money going to local authorities. It is not so much that I am not persuaded of the value of a grant-making power; it is that I do not understand the basis on which the achievements are claimed.
  I am persuaded that omitting the reporting provisions in Section 88B is a good thing. As I said before, however, I would be more convinced if Section 88B were to go entirely. I am not suggesting that Ministers should not have any rights at all to impose conditions, if only because I recognise reality. It is not even necessary to say that they may impose conditions because that is implicit. If conditions were not agreed to by a local authority the money would not go to them; so QED.
  My perplexity is not fully addressed. I shall go away and find some hot towels after the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 92:
  Page 14, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) Any grant paid under this section shall be reported to Parliament as a special grant report pursuant to section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) (special grants) within not more than five months of such grant being made."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment is in response to what I am beginning to regard as the arbitrary nature of the grant regime proposed by Clause 31. It is about scrutiny and safeguards. Clause 31(1), which we have debated at length, is quite clear. The Explanatory Notes state that,
  "Treasury consent will be needed in all cases to the making of the grants".
  We can see nothing in the clause to that effect. So from where will the money come?
  As we have discussed repeatedly, Clause 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides that the Secretary of State should state to which authority a grant has been paid,
  "the purpose for which it is to be paid, and…the amount of the grant".
  It continues that, in addition to the consent of the Treasury,
  "a special grant report shall be laid before the House of Commons",
  and that such a report must receive affirmative resolution before the grant proceeds. That is what we are asking for in this amendment. We are also asking that it should pertain to Clause 31. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: The new grant-making power in Clause 31 is, as I have said previously. intended to allow Ministers or the National Assembly to pay grants without imposing undue restrictions on authorities in the way that they achieve desired outcomes and so help to ensure that we keep ring fencing to a minimum. That is why the LGA supports the new power.
  Amendment No. 92 would require the grant to be reported as a special grant report under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 within five months. It would mean using the cumbersome Section 88B power in every case. I have previously explained that process. That would involve using it for very small or uncontroversial grants, or those being repeated from previous years. With the amendment, a grant made under the new power could be struck down after it had been paid by some later decision by Parliament not to approve the special grant. That would mean uncertainty and delay for local government.
  In a previous discussion of Clause 31 in another place, some were concerned that that power will mean that Parliament would no longer be able to consider grants to local authorities. That is simply not the case. In England, parliamentary approval will still be needed to the ambit of each department's request for resources. Parliamentary approval will still be sought for the local government finance settlement each year, which provides the majority of funding to local government. In addition, the special grant power will remain available for any cases where it is appropriate to seek Parliament's approval to the award of a grant. In England, where the new power is used to make grants, the Treasury's consent will be needed—that is an important safeguard against the imposition of spending conditions unless they are genuinely necessary and beneficial.
  I am really tempted to go to my notes on the next group of amendments, but I shall resist that. That would fall in line with the purpose of the amendment. I have a perfectly satisfactory answer but I had better stick to the approach that I began with—I did so in a somewhat heated moment. I said that I should stick to each amendment as listed, and I shall not deviate from that, tempted though I am.
  Baroness Hanham: I will withdraw the amendment and move on to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. That would help the Minister and me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 93:
  Page 14, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) For each financial year the Secretary of State shall publish a table setting out—

  (a) the grants made to each local authority under this section;

  (b) the size and purpose of the grant; and

  (c) the political control of the authority at the time the grant was made."

  The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Minister will remember at a later stage how helpful I am being before he sends a nasty political barb in my direction.
  Amendment No. 93 is simple. It is about open government; that is, setting out information for the public on what the grants are all about. Throughout our debate on the clause he has agreed to the need for that. Amendment No. 93 asks for a list of the grants being made under Clause 31; under what head they would be made and whether they were unusual or significant; and what their purpose was. That is a routine task. As the Minister said, the Local Government Act comes before Parliament but the amendments would require that those grants that have been given under the power to be listed. I am sure that the Minister will not object to that.
  Amendment No. 94 complements and reinforces Amendment No. 93; it takes up the same point. At least the general rules of the general settlement should apply to everyone equally if the grant is equal—if it is a specific grant across the board. If it has been given not across the board but to a particular authority, the explanation under the list would be different. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 93 would require the Secretary of State to publish on an annual basis a table giving details on all grants paid under the new power in Clause 31. We do not believe that there is any need for such a requirement in legislation for reasons that I will explain. We already make information available, as noble Lords would expect us to want to do. For local authorities overall, one of the key tables provided at the time at which Parliament considers the annual local government finance revenue settlement sets out all known relevant special and specific revenue grants to be paid to councils each year. Each grant is listed separately together with the size of the grant. We will add those grants made under Clause 31 to that list. We also provided a list of grants as part of our announcement on freedoms and flexibilities. For individual authorities, we will look to consider setting out the allocations for individual authorities at the time that grants are made.
  For example, a circular by the Department of Health that was issued at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement set out the allocations to councils for those grants that were announced at that time. The purpose of the grant will be made available at the time at which the grants are announced. We also draw together information on grants in a variety of forms in response to Parliamentary Questions of both Houses. Those reflect Members' interests at the time.

  GC 77
  We do not publish the political control of the authority at the time at which the grant was made and do not believe that it would be appropriate or practical to do so for reasons that I will explain. Grants are given on the basis of need and not on the basis of political control, which, in any case, changes over time. Information on the political control of authorities is publicly available but grants are not until we make them and publish them. Prescribing some particular set of information to be published each year would add no benefit.
  Amendment No. 94 would make it unlawful for the Secretary of State even to consider the political control of an authority in reaching decisions on the use of the power. It would require certification to Parliament by Ministers and officials that the political control of a local authority had not been taken into account, and so on. This is an unnecessary amendment because Treasury approval is already required to the use of the power. The Treasury will be exercising control over the grants made under Clause 31 and will need to be satisfied that there is proper justification for the amount of the grant, the manner of its payment and any conditions imposed on its payment. The payment of grant under that power will depend entirely on the eligibility criteria for the grant and not on the political control of the authority, which may, in any event, be subject to change.
  Local authorities could, if so advised, seek judicial review of any distribution of grant moneys under Clause 31 if it appeared that the basis of distribution was tied to the political control of the local authorities concerned. The change proposed by the amendment is not found in the legislation governing the revenue support grant, which provides the majority of local government funding—several billion pounds a year—to local authorities. It is also not present in the grant-making power under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. We believe for those reasons and for practical reasons that that would be inappropriate. It would introduce an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement of a certificate to Parliament.
  On the thrust of Amendment No. 93, we will add the grants under Clause 31 to the list that is already published so that everyone can see them at the appropriate time.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that; he provided the reassurance that I was seeking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Ancillary powers]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: I oppose the Question whether Clause 32 stand part of the Bill. I do so in order to probe the reasons for the wide-ranging power. Such a
  GC 78
  clause might be acceptable if the purpose of Clause 31 was limited but, as we have discussed in relation to preceding amendments, it is clearly not. It contains a wide-ranging power. The Minister will be familiar with the details. The Explanatory Notes, if nothing else, make it clear that the clause does not contain a limited power. This is an open door to endless paperwork and additional information. If the power related to specific powers in general, the various departments—as we now know it to be—should have virtually all the information that they need from general returns. That sounds as though a generalised fishing expedition would result from any use of the power, whether on a wide or narrow basis, probably resulting in unnecessary bureaucracy.
  I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it would not be like that really, and that the requirement for information would be restricted only to a particular aspect, and so on. However, that is not what the clause says.
  I look forward to the Minister's explanation of the clause's purpose, how it is proposed to limit any information being sought, including the requirements—
  I do not mind one Minister not listening to me, but two not listening is almost more than I can stand! Are there four ears or two ears on the Front Bench?
  I repeat: I look forward to the Minister's explanation about the purpose of the clause. It is jolly lucky that he has some written notes; otherwise, he would not know what I had been saying. I also look forward to his explanation of how it is proposed to limit any information being sought, including the requirement on local government officials which potentially will increase the bureaucratic paper mountain.
  Lord Rooker: I am sorry about that. I have some stuff that I am not going to read out; that is what I was discussing just now.
  Baroness Hanham: Really?
  Lord Rooker: Yes. In a way, I am absolutely astonished that Clause 32 is in the Bill. I am amazed by the idea that it was necessary to include it in the Bill. I should have thought that there was loads of legislation involving what Ministers could ask local authorities, such as, "What are you doing on this, that or the other?". That happens all the time. We write letters asking for information. We are always told by officials, "Do not put burdens on local authorities. We must not ask them for too much information", and so on.
  The power is specific to Clause 31. Someone obviously thought that it was necessary to include it in the Bill; one needs information to operate the clause. Applications for a grant can be on a one-off basis from the authority or Ministers may have an idea about a new scheme that requires a grant; one needs information or some eligibility criteria on which to pay the grant but not necessarily to ring-fence it. I should have thought that there were loads of ways in which

  GC 79
  Ministers could get information from local authorities in order to set that up. Parliamentary counsel must think otherwise; if not, it would not have included the clause in the Bill.
  That is all I have to say, really. I feel totally and utterly inadequate that I cannot give chapter and verse about why Clause 31 could not have been added to all the other thousands of pages of legislation in which Ministers ask local government for information. That would enable us to say, "Under Section 31", as it may turn out to be, "Ministers can ask for that information". However, that clearly was not thought to be appropriate. Inadequate though I feel the answer is—in fact, if I were in opposition, I should not accept it—it is the best that I can do, I am afraid.
  Baroness Hamwee: Whatever parliamentary counsel may be, does the Minister agree that it is not a very good psychologist? Is not the short point that if a Minister wanted information to assist in a decision to make a grant under Clause 31 and the local authority did not give it, that authority would not get the dosh?
  Lord Rooker: No. The Minister may have paid the grant and then thought one day, "I wonder whether I got the outcome that I required from the grant?". There is an outcome to be measured. I have said that there is no problem with this; ring-fencing is not the same as measuring the outcome. Ring-fencing is highly prescriptive but the grants are paid for a purpose. Ministers should be able to check on the purpose. I return to planning. In due course—it may be in the next Session—the House will receive the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Another place is debating it today—it should be done with by now—and I hope that the carry-over Motion will be agreed to.
  This is a classic example. We want to be able to measure the outcomes in improvement in planning performance without being prescriptive about how the money is spent, so the authority needs to be able to do that.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: I agree that measuring outcomes is hugely important, although, given that Clause 31 is about paying the grant rather than reviewing it, I wonder whether Clause 32(1) achieves that. I am not sure whether I should not shut up, however, because I might be on the way to suggesting to Parliamentary Counsel that further duties are imposed on local authorities.
  Baroness Hanham: My understanding of the procedures of this Committee is that if everyone agrees to an amendment, it can be accepted. Is the Minister agreeing with me, after all that conversation, that Clause 32 is not a useful part of the Bill and we could therefore remove it, or will I be forced to bring it back on Report for the Minister to agree once again that it is not very valuable? I hope that the Minister might agree with me that it should not be part of the Bill and therefore this amendment might succeed.
  Lord Rooker: No. My caveat was that if I was not the Minister I could not see why the clause was in the
  GC 80
  Bill. I have to trust Parliamentary Counsel, given the amount of legislation. I know the way they work: they would not put in a Bill something that duplicates a measure in another Bill. A golden rule of Parliamentary Counsel is not to legislate twice for the same thing, because one thing is for sure—one aspect will be challenged and it will lead to confusion. So it must be the case that in no other legislation is there a power that would fit this one. Therefore, I have to demand that the clause stand part of the Bill, even though I feel inadequate in the way I have explained it. I genuinely mean that—I should have paid more attention to this and got further and better particulars from my learned friends behind me.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Application to Greater London Authority]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: This Motion is intended to probe the special provisions under Clause 33 for grants made to the Greater London Authority. Clause 31(1) gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to pay a grant to a local authority. The local authority may subsequently transfer this grant to any functional body which requires funding for expenditure incurred. Clause 33 seems to confuse the matter. Under subsection (2), the Secretary of State may set conditions in any grant to the Greater London Authority which requires the Mayor to transfer funds to a particular local authority. Or, under subsection (5), the Mayor may receive a grant which he can decide either to transfer to a functional body or not, a s he thinks fit.
  Is the Greater London Authority devolved or not? Under Clause 31, the Secretary of State may already pay grants directly to functional bodies. So there are two options: first, that the grant has passed through the Mayor, with or without conditions about its final use, depending on whether or not Clause 33(2) has been applied. The second is that the Secretary of State has cut out the middle man—the Mayor—and pays a grant directly to a functional body under the control of the Greater London Authority, which we all know is not a local authority.
  Can the Minister explain why there are two options and on what basis the Secretary of State is to choose which one he uses? The drafting seems to be rather confusing and obscure.
  Baroness Hamwee: I shall not repeat the questions the noble Baroness has asked which occurred to me as well. In subsection (5), I would particularly ask about another use of the word "may". One would have expected it to be "shall" or "must" in this context rather than "may". This does not quite seem to fit with the thrust of this part of the Bill. I am one of those who supports the autonomy of the Mayor. I am certainly not arguing against grants to the GLA or for the functional bodies, but I should like to understand the workings of this clause better.
  Lord Rooker: In effect, Clause 33 slightly adapts the grant-making power in Clause 31 for the purpose of

  GC 81
  the GLA. This is to take account of the special relationship of the Greater London Authority with its four functional bodies, namely, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Development Agency.
  The grant power will operate in basically the same way as for other authorities, but any grants intended for the functional bodies will have to be paid via the Mayor of London. As Clause 33(4) makes clear, if a grant is earmarked by a Minister for one of the four bodies, the Mayor will have to pass it on to the named body immediately. Clause 33(5) allows Ministers also to pay grants to the Mayor which are not earmarked for any of the four bodies. In that case, the Mayor would have the option of using the grant himself—not personally, of course—or distributing it in a way he
  thought fit between the bodies.
  This modification to the grant power for the GLA reflects the current arrangement for the issue of credit approvals to the GLA, which again has to be done via the Mayor. The arrangement acknowledges the central role of the Mayor in the GLA structure. It does not disadvantage the bodies at all and it is not possible for the Mayor to divert resources in a way contrary to Ministers' intentions. So this is a twin approach which reflects the current practice. I hope that the Committee will find it acceptable.
  Baroness Hanham: I have always thought that the Mayor of London was a figurehead. I am concerned that he might shuffle the money through to his lesser bodies. However, the Minister has made the position clear and I withdraw the Motion that the clause should stand part.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Wales]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: This clause refers to the position of Wales and how the grant-making provision under Clause 31 will be applied. Presumably this is a fully devolved matter. It is made clear in Clause 31(5) that no Treasury consent is needed for grants made in Wales. The question here, therefore, is one of scrutiny.
  Taxpayers' money is levied by central government in Westminster, but we retain no control over how this money is spent and disbursed under the grant system provided for here. The matter will be one for the discretion of the Welsh Assembly. I am not challenging the devolution process—not really—I merely ask what provisions are in place in the Welsh Assembly to ensure that the eventual dispersal of funding in the form of grants made under Clause 31 is subject to a satisfactory level of public scrutiny and transparency.
  For Ministers to make a grant in England, Treasury consent is needed. Why is there no similar provision for Wales? The Welsh Assembly cannot levy its own
  GC 82
  taxes; is it right for it to have absolute discretion in the use of United Kingdom taxes for grants in Wales, without any central government control?
  Can the Minister say whether this marks a significant change in terms of grants and funding for the Welsh Assembly? On what basis have the changes been made? Will regular reports be made available of the progress of this system?
  Lord Rooker: I shall give a short answer to the Motion because a longer response will be made later. I can confirm that the Welsh Assembly intends to put in place controls to ensure that the power is exercised prudently and properly. What I do not know is when or whether we will know even what are to be the draft controls before, say, the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  However, it is axiomatic that, following the devolution settlement and the probity with which the Welsh Assembly is operating, the grants would not be made in Wales until controls have been put in place by the Assembly. I can put it on the record that those controls will be put in place which I suspect, although I do not know, will perform the same function as that performed by the Treasury for England.
  Baroness Hanham: I think the Minister said that no grant would be paid under the terms of Clause 31 to the Welsh Assembly under Clause 34 until the United Kingdom Parliament or Ministers were satisfied that the controls were in place. Is that correct?
  Lord Rooker: No, that is going much too far. I am simply saying that we have repeatedly said that, in England, the Treasury's consent is needed for award of the grants and that, in Wales, Treasury consent will not be required before the Assembly exercises its power to make grants. That is consistent with the devolution settlement. However, the Assembly intends to put in place controls to ensure that the powers are exercised prudently and properly. I am therefore assuming—it has to be the case—that before the Assembly exercises its powers to make grants it will have put in place the controls which I outlined to ensure that the functions are exercised prudently and properly. I did not say that grants would not be made payable after Royal Assent.
  The Assembly will exercise the powers in Wales as that is consistent with the devolution settlement. However, it will not exercise the powers before it has put in place those controls. As I have said on the record, the Assembly intends to put in place controls to ensure that the powers are exercised properly. I therefore assume that no grants will be paid until those controls are put in place.
  Baroness Hanham: Will the Minister also confirm that the grants in Wales will be listed as they are in the United Kingdom under the local government finance settlement, as we have discussed in previous debates?
  Lord Rooker: I assume that that is the case. The Welsh Assembly will be the grant-paying body. This clause is not about UK Ministers paying grants to Welsh authorities or the Welsh Assembly. I should

  GC 83
  perhaps say that there is open government in Wales. Indeed, people in Wales sometimes claim that government is a bit more open there than it is in England. That is what devolution is about.
  There should be no doubt about whether the Welsh Assembly will publish who has received grants, although it might not be done exactly as it is in England. I can say that no secret grants will be paid in Wales under the proposals. However, listing might not be done exactly as it is in England—by adding to the list, as I said, when the rate support grant and all the other grants are dealt with. There will be no secret grants, and a list of grants showing the amounts and the receiving councils will be made available.
  Baroness Hanham: I hear what the Minister says. I assume that his assumptions are correct.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
  Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 16, line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) a town and parish council"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 96 is a very simple amendment. It adds town and parish councils to the list of local authorities for the purposes of Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Bill. It is a probing amendment. The next clause talks about best-value grants for parishes. However, there is a question as to why town and parish councils cannot be part of the grant-paying regime. I suspect that part of the answer is that this is not something that the Government do very often. However, if they are going to try to introduce legislation that allows for many different possibilities, which clearly is the purpose of much of the Bill, it seems logical to include town and parish councils in the list. I beg to move.
  Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment. Later amendments deal with parish councils. I thought that an objective shared by the Government and the rest of us was to do what we can to build up and support our town and parish councils. I therefore very much support the amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: Well, there is a logical explanation, in that the power in Clause 31 is intended to be a much more streamlined and flexible alternative to Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Parish and town councils are not among the bodies that can be paid under that Act; they do not receive grants under Section 88B. Clause 31 is designed to be, not a replacement for that power, because it will remain on the statute book, but a much more streamlined alternative. The Government have recognised that there is a need to provide the power to grant for parish and town councils for the purpose of
  GC 84
  best value duties under the beacon council scheme. Clauses 36 and 37, to which we shall shortly turn, deal with that.
  Baroness Maddock: I heard what the Minister said; in part I pre-empted his reply; but, if I may say so. that was not a terribly logical answer. However, given what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
  "( ) No power under this section is to be exercisable in relation to a regional assembly in England."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is intended to probe where regional assemblies may stand in the new expenditure grant system, as laid out in Clauses 31 to 35. I know that the Minister will tell me that there are no regional assemblies yet, but they are in process. As we know from the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, which was recently passed by the House, and from what the Minister said in Committee last week, it is likely that a referendum to establish a regional assembly in one of the regions will be called before too long—always assuming that, somewhere along the line, the soundings exercise can be made to square with what is proposed.
  That means that, before too long, we may have a fully fledged assembly functioning with a certain amount of devolved and independent power. Under Clauses 31 to 35, conditions are set out to adapt the expenditure grant provisions to the unique circumstances of the Greater London Authority and the Welsh Assembly—as we have discussed.
  How would regional assemblies fit into that scheme? Is it envisaged that they could receive grant from central Government, as can the Greater London Authority? Would conditions be imposed for the use of such grants, as for the Greater London Authority, under Clause 33(2), or would they have autonomy, as does the Welsh Assembly, in the disposal of any grants made? What would be the allocation of funding to regional assemblies?
  Throughout discussion of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, there was considerable confusion about that. The Minister told us then—I can hear him saying it now:
  "There will be no new powers, no new money and no new tiers".—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. 552.]
  My noble friend Lady Blatch, among others, pointed out that if the powers of a regional assembly were to be merely scrutinising and advising on regional strategy, it would have no need of the precepting powers that are to be made available to it. As we learnt during discussion of that Act, regional assemblies will not be categorised as local authorities, as the Greater London Authority is not. Nor will they take powers from local authorities, according to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
  The situation is complex and unclear and we would welcome clarity about how grant funding and expenditure provision under this chapter would fit in with the Government's plans for regional assemblies, if they are even set up. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Well, the short answer to the last question of the noble Baroness is that they do not. With all due respect, as neither regional chambers nor elected regional assemblies are defined as local authorities under Clause 35 or listed there, the amendment is unnecessary and irrelevant. I shall not debate regional assemblies under the Bill because they are not part of it.
  Baroness Hanham: I have not tempted the Minister. I am sad about that, because I thought that we might get some more information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Best value grant: parishes]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 97A:
  Page 16, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) charter trustees subject to any of those duties."
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, as are all our amendments today.
  A form of local government which is not apparently covered by either Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 is charter trustees—of whom there are very few, but who are very proud of their status. My amendment seeks to include them in the Bill. The answer may be that none of them has the duties referred to which would attract the grant. I should be grateful for an explanation as to why they are not included. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness has answered her own question. The amendment would add charter trustees to the Bill, and the purpose of Clause 36 is to enable grants to be paid. The amendment is not workable simply because charter trustees are not among the authorities subject to any of the best value duties set up under the Local Government Act 1999. So from our perspective it is entirely illogical—it makes no sense at all—to have a power to pay them.
  My understanding is that charter trustees in general are bodies that have continuing responsibility for abolished local authorities. If that is the case, I cannot see much point in their having a best value regime. We should be giving counties such as Berkshire best value duties when Berkshire is there merely for ceremonial purposes.
  Baroness Hamwee: That response is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 97B:
  Page 16, line 24, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 100A is grouped with this amendment.
  I tabled these amendments in order to be consistent with my amendment to Clause 31. If the Minister simply wants to say that the answer is the same in this case, I shall be quite content. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is not relevant. It would place central government in an odd position. We should be powerless to withhold the payment of grant to any best value parish in certain circumstances, particularly if an authority failed to carry out the best value duties for which the grant is payable. That makes the proposition in the amendment not a very sensible one. It would not be a sensible use of public money. I cannot see that the amendment is at all valuable. I should have thought that it was not worth pressing.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure whether there is sufficient answer to the question that I asked. I am not sure whether a proposal can be both irrelevant and not sensible at the same time. It is certainly relevant. In answer to my question whether the reason is the same as under Clause 31, the answer is probably "yes". I shall take it as that, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee moved Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 97C:
  Page 16, line 33, leave out ", during or after" and insert "or during"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 100B is grouped with this one.
  This is a probing amendment. I seek to change the provision which allows a determination about a grant to be made during or after the end of a financial year to one allowing it to be made only during that financial year. I do so in order to seek an assurance that this is not to allow for the retrospective application of conditions, or rather, retrospective only when the grant itself is retrospective.
  Earlier this afternoon we discussed briefly the monitoring of outcomes. I have said that I understand that entirely, but it would be unfortunate if the Secretary were to decide, after having paid over moneys, that conditions ought to have been attached. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment seeks to remove the power for the initial determination that sets up the amounts payable, and any subsequent determination, to be made after the financial year to which the payment relates.
  Amendment No. 100B relates to Clause 37 which provides for the grant to be paid to Welsh community councils taking part in the Wales programme of improvement, forming, I understand, part of the Welsh variant of best value. Both amendments would remove from the respective clauses the power for initial determinations and any subsequent determinations to be made after the financial year to which the payment relates.

  GC 87
  It is hoped that the grants would be administered efficiently and promptly. However, circumstances could arise where the amounts payable could not be finalised until the year to which they relate has ended. This may arise, for example, if technical difficulties are encountered when establishing whether a particular parish or community council has a budgeted income that exceeds the required threshold. The amendments would make it impossible for any changes to be made to the amounts payable once the financial year to which they relate has ended, thus making it possible that some parishes or community councils would end up receiving less grant than otherwise they would be entitled to receive.
  I see where the noble Baroness is coming from, but the clause provides an element of security to ensure that, because of technical difficulties that might arise during the budgeting process, the situation can be put right when the amounts payable are finalised for the year in which they are payable.
  Baroness Hamwee: Can the Minister respond to the specific concern that, a grant having been made, this provision would make it possible for the Secretary of State subsequently to impose conditions? I hope that he will be able to respond by saying that that is not the case. I do not think it is, but I want to be clear about it. Having raised the matter, I should ensure that the answer is put on the record.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can say on the record that that is not the intention behind what we are seeking to achieve in the clause.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure whether that answers the technical question as to whether the possibility remains. Is that something that could be considered after our Committee proceedings today, so that we can be quite clear about it?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to try further to clarify the point because I can see the suspicions which engendered the amendment. Let me put it like this: it is certainly not our intention that the clause should operate in that way. Yes, we shall think further on the issues which have been raised.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response. If we can see this finally done and dusted after our discussions, then I am happy to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 16, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Lord said: We welcome the Government's intention under Clause 36 to reward good performance in parish councils. We support awarding grants to enable councils to meet requirements of best value status, once it has been attained. We might even be prepared to support a power to grant-aid parish councils. I would certainly be interested in the Minister's views on that.
  Our aim in the amendment is simply to remove the Secretary of State's power to revoke or vary a grant to a best value parish council within a single financial year. This will be accompanied by amendments which aim to ensure that any grant paid to a best value parish council or best value community council is transparent and debated before Parliament.
  In Essex County Council, we feel it is vital that we support the work of parish councils to deliver quality services to our local communities. Parish councils are highly valued by the people in our county and their work is fundamental in many of the service areas most visible to the public.
  This amendment would ensure that parish councils can plan for a full financial year without the threat of an unexpected change in funding from the Government. That is essential if resources are to be managed effectively to deliver quality services.
  I accept there may well be a need to modify grants and, in some instances, to withdraw them. Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, there is no safeguard for ensuring that grants are not promised and then withdrawn at short notice or without transparency.
  The Government are trying to support parish councils as a fundamental tier of local democracy, and attempting to fulfil their promise to allow local authorities of all kinds increased freedom to manage their resources more effectively. A reliable income stream is therefore fundamental to achieving this aim, particularly for small authorities like parish and community councils.
  Baroness Hanham: I find it quite surprising that a grant may be revoked. I can understand that it might subsequently be varied, but why should it subsequently be revoked? Either it was justified when it was first given or it was not. If it was not justified, it should not have been given, and, if it was, I cannot see what would enable or prompt the Minister to revoke it subsequently. We should be grateful for an explanation.
  The Explanatory Notes are our bible, as I have said in the past. They state in relation to Clause 36:
  "By virtue of the Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order (SI 2000/339)—
  with which we are all intimately familiar—
  "currently only 41 parish or town councils satisfy this criterion"
  for a best value grant. So, presumably, we want to ensure that parish councils achieve high standards and receive best value grants. It would be a pity if, having achieved all that and having reached best value status, the grant was revoked. It is a question of why and under what circumstances.
  Lord Rooker: We have some sympathy with Amendment No. 98. It is not the kind of thing we plan to do—we have one straightforward determination, one financial year, with everybody knowing where they stand; the money would be paid and spent, and that would be that. It is not our intention to use the power to determine or revoke best value grants in any arbitrary way, believe you me. But we think it is right

  GC 89
  to be able to compensate a council which had lost a significant amount of best value grant through no fault of its own but because of an administrative error. I am concerned about that, because councils can make mistakes filling in forms applying for grants and lose out purely because of administrative errors.
  There may be circumstances in which some parish or town councils become eligible for best value grant quite late in the day after an initial determination of grant has been made. This power would allow us to make a replacement determination.
  We would revoke a grant only for purely technical reasons. How it could happen I do not know, but a grant might be made to a council that was not eligible. I do not know whether that happens very often but those are the kind of circumstances envisaged. If a grant was made to a council that was not eligible, it would need to be revoked—before the money was spent, I hope. But it would not be our intention to use this power in an arbitrary way. It would be a crisis for a grant to be paid and then revoked.
  The size of parish and town councils varies enormously. Some are tiny, while others are bigger than some small district councils, covering many thousands of people. It is simply not possible to compartmentalise them all as the same kind of body. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation. I do not know whether there is any example of such grants to parish or town councils being revoked under the existing processes. However, I repeat what I said earlier, because it is relevant. Town and parish councils do not come under Section 88 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. They are not covered, so I do not know of any circumstances in which grants have been paid and then revoked or varied under the existing processes.
  Lord Hanningfield: I note the noble Lord's comments about grants being varied. One could accept that point. However, if a grant has been paid to a council that does not qualify, that would be the Government's fault. Parish, town and community councils could be frightened off by this kind of measure. Knowing that a grant could be revoked, the worthies could decide not to apply for it. I hope that the Minister might reconsider the part about revoking a grant, although I understand and accept the need to vary it. The Minister said that circumstances would have to be quite exceptional and I hope that he will reconsider the element of revoking a grant.
  Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may raise a further point. What happens if the revocation comes as a best value council suddenly becomes a non-best value council and the position changes in a financial year? This depends on Audit Commission reviews and how they operate. Is it possible that that might be one reason for it? If that were the case, would it be left to the end of a financial year before such a revocation took place? I think the
  GC 90
  Minister is struggling with this, and we are struggling too. A few concrete answers from the Minister's officials might get him off the hook.
  Lord Rooker: If the noble Baroness thinks that I have been struggling so far, wait until she hears what I have to say now. If money had been paid to an authority on the basis that it was good or excellent and it changed during the course of the financial or the following year, we could not take the money back because it had been paid for a purpose. But listen to this other reason for revocation: we might get the parish council's name wrong. This is the best bit—it has happened occasionally, even with full local authorities, so we need to revoke and replace money under the right name. It beggars belief, but it has happened. I do not have an example, but apparently it has happened occasionally—very occasionally, I assume—with full local authorities. The name was wrong in an order and the money had to be replaced. That is another example.
  Baroness Hamwee: That does beggar belief. If there is a mistake in the name and it should be Much Binding in the Marsh instead of Much something else—my imagination fails me—and there is no council with the wrong name, that is just a matter of rectification. Everyone, in all walks of life, makes the odd mistake. If the wrong name is that of another council and money has been paid, it is simply too tough to say, "Give it back, we did not mean you, we meant your neighbour". I am sure that the Minister's advisers cannot quite mean that. I hope not.
  Lord Rooker: I have said all that I intend to say.
  Lord Hanningfield: We wondered why we got so little grant in Essex this year. We must have been confused with Birmingham.
  We hear the Minister's arguments. I think that we shall return to these issues as we proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 16, line 35, at end insert—
  "() Any determination made under this section shall be reported to Parliament as a special grant report pursuant to section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) within not more than five months of the date of such determination."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment aims to ensure the transparency of any grant paid to a best value parish council under Clause 36 by ensuring that it is scrutinised by Parliament.
  We again welcome the Government's intention to reward good performance by parish councils, which are a fundamental tier of local democracy. We support awarding grants to enable councils to meet the requirement of best value status once it has been attained.
  Our concern is to ensure that the distribution of grants is equitable and balanced, and parliamentary scrutiny will be helpful in ensuring that this is the case.
  The amendment would ensure that grants paid under Clause 36 are reported to Parliament in the appropriate manner. This will maintain their transparency and the credibility of such transactions. I believe it will provide a better incentive for those councils striving to improve to see the grant system operating fairly and openly.
  Lord Rooker: I regret that I cannot help the noble Lord. As I hinted when dealing with the previous amendment, we could not operate this because town and parish councils are not relevant bodies under Section 88 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It simply does not apply to English parish councils, so it would not be possible to use that mechanism.
  There are about 400 district councils in England, 30-odd county councils, 30 London boroughs and 30-odd metropolitan district councils.
  Lord Hanningfield: There are 300 district councils.
  Lord Rooker: Okay. There are 8,000 parish councils, all varying enormously in size. We are in a different league altogether here. It would not be relevant. They are not covered by the 1988 Act, so the mechanism in the Act could not be used. However, the absence of a special report does not mean that Parliament would no longer be able to consider the grants under Clause 36. Parliamentary approval will still be needed within the ambit of the relevant department's request for resources, and Treasury consent will also be needed.
  The grants made under Clause 36 are likely to be quite small or to be repeated. The need to continue to rely on the grant-making powers under Section 88 would be very cumbersome, as I have explained. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: May I take up a point just made by the Minister? I pursue this possibly out of my own ignorance here. If a grant must be approved by the Treasury, is any stage of such a decision made available to Members of Parliament? I appreciate that the Minister made the point that there are over 8,000 parish councils and so many decisions must be made, but equally a list should be made available somewhere to Members of Parliament which indicates what are those grants and for what they have been given. I ask that if for no other reason than it would be quite interesting to scrutinise the allocations and see what the money is being spent on, in particular given the different sizes of parish councils. Some are small and some large. We should like to know the purposes to which those grants are being put.
  It may be that the Minister will leap to his feet and tell me that a list of these grants is always available on the Internet, the Intranet or in another form. Alternatively, it may be that they are not put into the public arena at all, in which case I think that that would be rather retrograde. We may wish to return to
  GC 92
  that with a different amendment seeking to establish how information about those grants is made available to the public.
  I hope that the Minister feels free to answer my questions.
  Lord Rooker: Speaking off the top of my head, there is no way in which we would agree to money being paid in secret. A list must be available somewhere, but the information on how those 8,000 parish councils are divided up administratively for payments and contact is not before me. Whether they are grouped as parish councils under their respective councils, I do not know. A list should be available. I shall find out the answer to this and certainly report back to the noble Baroness in due course.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply and I was pleased to listen to his last point. Obviously this is a good policy and we support it. Indeed, we are keen to see the initiative enjoy wider publicity. If some way could be found of making the process more public, that would add to its value. I am sure that either the Minister or we shall return to this point at a later stage with an amendment that would seek to ensure more publicity for this process. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Best value grant: communities]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 18, line 18, at end insert—
  "( ) Any payments made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must not be financed by monies recouped from debt free councils via capital receipts."
  The noble Lord said: At this point we move on to the position in Wales. This amendment aims to ensure the transparency of any grant paid to a best value community council under the terms of Clause 37 by the National Assembly for Wales by ensuring that it is scrutinised by Parliament. This is a similar issue to that raised by the previous amendment.
  Again, we welcome the Government's good intention to reward good performance in all kinds of councils in England and in Wales. We support awarding grants to enable councils to meet the requirements of best value status once it has been attained.
  However, as we discussed under Amendment No. 99 in relation to parish councils in England, we would prefer all best value grants to be scrutinised by Parliament. If that cannot be done, let us introduce some form of process by which the award of grants is made more transparent. However, we also want to see how the Welsh Assembly may deal with the issue.
  This amendment will ensure that grants paid under Clause 37 by the National Assembly for Wales are reported to Parliament in the appropriate manner. This will maintain the transparency and the credibility of such transactions and, as we discussed during the

  GC 93
  previous amendment, it will provide a clear incentive for those councils striving to improve their performance. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I shall be interested in the Minister's reply, in which I hope he will explain whether this too is a devolved matter. Nothing in the Bill enables the scrutiny we seek. However, again it is important that these details are published in some form. People in Wales have a right to be able to see what grants are being paid to which local authorities. I presume that in the case of Wales, Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will pertain. If it does not—the Minister is shaking his head, suggesting that since Wales is not a local authority, it is not subject to the local government regime—will he let me know how Welsh community grants are reported?
  As with the English parish councils, such information will help us towards greater transparency.
  Lord Rooker: We are entering dangerous territory because of the devolution settlement. First I want to put it on the record—I am repeating what I said earlier, but it is relevant to this amendment—that Section 88B of the Local Government Finance 1988 does not apply to Welsh community councils. They are outside that legislation and therefore it would not be possible to make such determinations. There are around 750 community councils in Wales. In any event, as I said previously, the absence of a special grant report provided under Section 88B does not mean that Parliament is no longer involved because approval is needed under the ambit of the share of resources for the National Assembly for Wales. Furthermore, appropriate safeguards will be put in place in Wales to cover the payment of the grant.
  However, it would be quite inappropriate for grants made by the National Assembly for Wales to be reported in a special grant report to Parliament. That would be inconsistent with the devolution settlement. This is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. It will put procedures in place and safeguards will be set up in relation to the payment of the grant. So we must leave this to the Welsh Assembly.
  Lord Hanningfield: As we discussed during the previous amendment, I wonder whether it would be possible to make the process more transparent. Since Wales is included under the terms of the Bill, surely a form of guidance could be added. As with the previous clause, we would like the same transparency for Wales that we sought for the English parish councils. Even though this is a devolved matter, here a new national policy is being implemented. Surely it would be wise, for the reasons we have already set out, for the same to apply in Wales.
  Lord Rooker: I shall take advice on this, but I think it would be inconsistent with the devolution settlement if we were to seek to instruct the Welsh Assembly. It must be accepted that this is a grey area. We are still in the early stages of devolution; it has been in place for only a few years. Many times it will appear that the
  GC 94
  boundaries look as though they are moving on the devolution settlement, but Wales is not the same as Scotland and the powers are totally different. However, in this case and at the community level, to be frank, it has nothing to do with us. We should not seek to give advice to the Welsh Assembly.
  This legislation is necessary to make available the statutory procedure for this public money to be paid. Furthermore, the Welsh Assembly will not keep these matters secret from the citizens of Wales.
  Lord Hanningfield: The Minister has said that he would look again at the powers of devolution to Wales. Perhaps he will let us know how they stand in relation to these areas.
  Lord Rooker: I have not said anything of the kind.
  Lord Hanningfield: The Minister said that he would look at this again.
  Lord Rooker: No, I have not said that and I do not intend to do so.
  Lord Hanningfield: I am sure that we shall return to this matter because it is relevant to my next amendment. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 100A and 100E not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 17, line 26, leave out paragraph (c)
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall depart from my notes. I do so because they are totally inconsistent with what the noble Lord said about my last amendment. He said that in the matter of community councils we can give no directions to the National Assembly for Wales. The matter is devolved and it is up to the Assembly. However, Clause 37(6)(c) allows the Assembly to vary or revoke the grant, as we pointed out earlier is the case for the English Parliament. Surely, therefore, the response the Minister made on the last amendment means that we need to remove the power of revocation or variation from the Welsh Assembly because it would nevertheless have the power to do whatever it wishes.
  I do not understand the position. Surely these two provisions in the Bill are totally inconsistent. The Minister said that we cannot tell the Welsh Assembly what to do, but here is a provision that does tell them what to do. I am absolutely sure that the Minister will not be able to respond. The reason why I am seeking more clarity in this area is because I knew that we were about to reach this amendment. What he said in his last reply will not be consistent with this provision. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall attempt to achieve consistency across Ministers. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the provisions are inconsistent. When he has heard my response, he will realise why that is the case. We have some sympathy with the amendment,

  GC 95
  not least because it is our hope that only one straightforward determination will be needed for each financial year.
  It is not our intention to use the power to revoke or vary a determination of best value grant in an arbitrary way. That is not what we seek, but we believe that it is right to be able to compensate a council that had lost a significant amount of best value grant through no fault of its own, perhaps as a result of an administrative error.
  There may be circumstances when some Welsh community councils become subject to best value duties—and hence become eligible for best value grant—perhaps quite late in the day and after the initial determination of grant had been made. The power would allow a replacement determination to be made to allow them to receive grant. This provision has been included as a helpful measure, offering a degree of flexibility so that we could make an extra determination if it were to become clear that a community council had qualified to become subject to best value duties and thus required eligibility.
  Lord Hanningfield: I am sorry, but the noble Lord has not answered my point. We have just pointed out on the earlier amendment that the Government have no power to tell the Welsh Assembly to publish or make available a list, but here the Bill takes the power to tell the Assembly that it can change or vary a grant. That is the point I sought to make.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that we cannot tell the National Assembly for Wales to publish a list, but we can tell them to vary the grant. I find the whole thing inconsistent and I do think the Minister has responded to that.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose it is part of the beauty of the workings of devolution. As regards powers, Parliament can choose not to give the power to the National Assembly for Wales, but if it chooses to do so, then it has to do it in a way that is consistent with the devolution settlement. This is the way the power should work.
  Lord Hanningfield: I still do not understand how these two elements are separate in the devolution settlement. On a minor point such as grants to community councils, we cannot tell the Assembly to publish a list, yet we can tell it to make variations to the grant. I am afraid that I do not accept these responses.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a matter of choice for the National Assembly for Wales. The power is in place. How the Assembly chooses to exercise it is a matter very much for itself.
  Lord Hanningfield: I hear what the Minister has said, but I am sure that we shall return to these issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Grants in connection with designation for service excellence]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 101A:
  Page 17, line 35, leave out "any of the following"
  The noble Baroness said: I had asked for this amendment to be grouped with Amendment No. 101B as it makes no sense without it. Will the Minister be happy for me to speak to both amendments? I cannot say anything about Amendment No. 101A on its own.
  Lord Rooker: Although the amendments are not together on the groupings list, I shall be quite happy to deal with them both.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. An error has crept in somewhere in the procedure. In effect, Amendment No. 101A is consequential to Amendment No. 101 B, which questions the ability of the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly to make a grant for applying for designation based on excellence—here I suppose that we are talking about beacon status under the CPA regime—and a grant for rewarding the award of such a designation.
  Earlier the Minister said that grants are made on the basis of need, but clearly that does not extend to this clause. It seems quite extraordinary that here we are allowing for the giving out of goodies to those who have been good boys and girls. That is more or less what this provision amounts to, other than the provision allowing for expenditure on disseminating information about best practice, which I am sure we would all support.
  This clause was not dealt with at all in the Commons and I think it proper to ask the Government to justify its inclusion. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I support the questions posed to the Minister by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The clause raises the question of how much it costs to become a beacon or best value authority. If the clause is what the Explanatory Notes say it is, it enables the Government to repay to a local authority the costs that it has incurred to achieve beacon status or to become designated as "excellent".
  That is an extraordinary admission of the folly and the amount that must be done to achieve such designations. We are always discussing the cost to local authorities of regulations and of various government squeezes. The clause seems explicitly to underline that. If the Government are to be able to pay to a local authority the money which all that has cost it, what are we talking about in terms of grant? Is it expected that the grant will be as much as it needs to be to achieve the status or to carry out the duties?
  I am bound to say that when I scoured the Bill I missed the implications of the clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it requires explanation so that we know exactly what is being proposed. On grant towards expenditure incurred, every other local authority which does not achieve excellence or best value status would also have spent that money. So why

  GC 97
  is it only those who achieve that status—they will receive a reward anyway for such a designation under paragraph (b)—that will receive grant for the costs incurred? Explanations are required for the clause and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having picked it up.
  Lord Rooker: I shall break the habit of a lifetime and the commitment I gave earlier today. I shall not only do what I agreed to for Amendments No. 101A and 101B, but I shall also put a few words on the record about the clause. It may be more appropriate if I speak first to Clause 38 and then to the amendments.
  Clause 38, which applies to England and Wales, provides that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may pay grant to best value authorities, subject to any best value duty, in relation to any expenses that they have incurred in applying for the award of a designation based on excellence in provision of services. That was one sentence, by the way. Where a best value authority is awarded such designation, the power will also enable grant to be paid as a reward for such designation and in relation to expenses incurred or to be incurred by the authority in disseminating information about best practices.
  The background to this is the beacon council scheme, introduced in 1998, to identify centres of excellence from which others can learn. Authorities are awarded beacon status on the strength of excellence in the delivery of specified services, supported by good overall performance and effective plans for dissemination. The scheme is open to all best value authorities in England, but subject to any of the best value duties in Sections 3 to 6 of the Local Government Act 1999. Beacon authorities are currently awarded a retrospective grant to cover the costs incurred in disseminating information about their best practices. Grants are paid by the Secretary of State under the special grant-making power of—here we go—Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  The local government White Paper confirmed the Government's commitment to the long-term future of the beacon scheme. Wales does not currently operate a beacon scheme, but may introduce something similar in the future. Clause 38 reflects the Government's long-term commitment to the scheme by establishing a specific legislative basis for paying grant to beacon authorities. It will also enable the Government to provide financial incentives to encourage participation in the scheme through grant relating to expenses that authorities have incurred in applying for beacon status and grant as a reward for gaining beacon status. That is why the clause is in the Bill.
  I shall now deal with Amendment No. 101A. It relates to Clause 38, on which I have just given some background information and which provides for grant to be paid to best value authorities. Under Clause 38, grant can be paid for any of three purposes: first, as a grant towards expenditure incurred in applying for the award; secondly, as a reward for being awarded a
  GC 98
  designation; or, thirdly, as a grant towards expenditure incurred in disseminating information about best practices.
  Amendment No. 101A would mean that where an authority was awarded a designation, grant would be payable both as a reward for being awarded a designation and towards expenditure incurred in disseminating information about best practices. Central government would not therefore have the discretion to restrict the grant to only one of the above purposes, which we may want to do.
  Under Amendment No. 101B, which relates to the same clause, any grant payable under Clause 38 would be payable only for the third purpose—as a grant towards expenditure incurred in disseminating information about best practices. Central government would therefore not have discretion to pay grant for either of the other two purposes listed above. That could significantly limit policy options—for example, if it were thought that paying grant towards expenditure incurred in applying for an award would be a necessary incentive to encourage authorities to take part in the scheme.
  I realise that this is a special, one-off provision, as it were, but I hope that what I have said about the two amendments and the background to the clause explains why the clause is in the Bill, which was a legitimate question. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered it.
  Baroness Hanham: I want to come back on one question; again, to confirm what the Minister said. In Clause 38(1)(a), am I right that the grant towards expenditure incurred by the authority relates only to those designated as best value authorities? Would it be open to the Minister to decide that authorities which had not achieved that status ought to receive some sort of grant to enable them to apply for or advance their rationale for such status? The Minister may have answered that, and I apologise if I missed it.
  Lord Rooker: True, it was wrapped up in my explanation of the clause, but any authority can receive a grant under paragraph (a)—that is, for the cost of applying for designation. So it is not just for those that are successful. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for authorities to apply. If they thought that they would incur the cost of applying if they were unsuccessful, they would be wasting that cost, so any authority can receive a grant under paragraph (a) for the cost of applying for the designation.
  Baroness Hanham: I am sorry to be tiresome about this, but, as far as I understand it, a best value authority is an authority that has achieved best value status. The clause states:
  "of the following to a best value authority".
  That suggests to me that the grant is payable only to an authority that has achieved best value status, not, as the Minister just said, any authority that applies for that status. That matters because, as the Minister just said, not to be able to give grant to any authorities applying would discourage them from doing so. But I

  GC 99
  do not think that that is what the clause states. There is a bit of nodding going on in the back row; I think that I am right to say that it would be payable only for expenditure incurred by an authority that had achieved best value status.
  Lord Rooker: That is the shorthand of local democracy, if you like. The noble Baroness is quite right: if we read the first line of the clause—line 35—it states:
  "The appropriate person may pay any of the following to a best value authority".
  But it applies to those who are applying for beacon status. If a best value authority applies for beacon status but fails to achieve it, it may receive grant under paragraph (a) for the expenditure incurred in making that application. But it must be a best value authority in the first place. Any confusion is my fault, because of the way in which I gave my previous answer, but that concerns best value authorities applying for beacon status.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for putting some flesh on the bones of the provision. As I understand it, the definition of a best value authority in Clause 123 applies in the clause, as it does throughout the Bill.
  As I said, I understand the desirability of grants to assist the dissemination of best practice, and that the third purpose in Clause 38(1)(b)(ii) is necessary to trigger Clause 38(1)(b)(i)—the reward. It is questionable whether there should be a payment to reward the designation of beacon status, which carries with it various other rewards that one would have thought were perfectly adequate.
  I do not accept the policy of financial incentives to apply to beacon status, but I am glad that we at least understand what are the proposals. We have been told that there is currently not only a grant-making power but a practice under our old friend, Section 88B, for the dissemination of best practice, so I am not persuaded of the value or desirability of the clause. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 101B not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 102:
  Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) Any grant paid under this section shall be reported to Parliament as a special grant report pursuant to section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) within not more than five months of such grant being made."
  The noble Lord said: We thank the Minister for his explanation of how he envisages the clause working—how best value and beacon status may be supported and that authorities will be able to apply for expenses in trying to achieve that status.
  We have debated whether the clause is good, but we are here trying to add to the clause by stating that, although we agree with the Government's recognition that the application process can add to expenses, we
  GC 100
  are concerned to maintain the transparency of any grant paid to best value authorities for service excellence by ensuring that it is scrutinised by Parliament. That is the only way to ensure the transparency and credibility of such transactions. Importantly, that is also the best way to provide a clear incentive to those councils striving to improve. Can the Minister assure us that the grant system will operate in a clear and accountable manner? I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: The answer has to be "yes". The noble Lord deserves a better explanation. The amendment would require any grants made under Clause 38 to be reported in a special grant report under the now—I should not say "infamous"—Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 within five months.
  This would not be workable because Section 88B does not apply to English parish and town councils or to Welsh community councils. It would not therefore be possible for a determination made under these clauses in relation to those bodies to be reported. It would also represent a significant increase in the scope of Section 88B.
  In so far as principal local authorities are concerned, Amendment No. 102 would raise the possibility that a grant made under the new power could be struck down after it had been paid, by a later decision made by Parliament—I referred to this in relation to a previous amendment. Apparently the amendment would also apply to Wales and the requirement for parliamentary approval would be inconsistent with the devolution settlement.
  The absence of a special grant report under Section 88B would not mean that Parliament would no longer be able to consider grants under Clause 38, as indeed is the case under the other clauses that we debated. Parliamentary approval will still be needed to the ambit of the relevant department's request for resources and, in England, Treasury consent will also be needed. In Wales, appropriate safeguards will be put in place.
  In addition, the grants made under Clause 38 are likely to be quite small or to be repeated and therefore the need to continue to rely on the grant-making powers under Section 88B would be cumbersome. Furthermore, Amendment No. 102 would apply to Wales, and the requirement for parliamentary approval would be wholly inconsistent with the devolution settlement.
  I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with an answer. The points that I have made about Section 88B being cumbersome and about the fact that Parliament knows what is going on, as I indicated in relation to Clause 36, should be taken in the round. No secret grants will be paid. No grants will be paid either without Treasury approval or without proper procedures in the Welsh Assembly, and they will be publicly listed in due course.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not intend to return to the discussion

  GC 101
  about devolution of powers to Wales, but this point also relates to a further amendment. This is a new policy and a new initiative. The point relates to wider publicity, if that is the right word—if there has to be Treasury approval and so on. The accountability that we should like to see is not provided.
  Lord Rooker: No, it is even worse than that. I am informed that Treasury approval is not required under Clause 38, merely under Clause 36.
  Lord Hanningfield: So it is worse. As I said, we support the policy. It is merely a question of the process of making it public, visible and accountable. Even if it does not apply to parish and town councils, because powers are not included in the previous Act, surely something could be done to make the process more transparent and visible.
  Lord Rooker: I may be wrong—I have no experience of local government save for the period when I was a co-opted member of an education committee 30 years ago—but my experience is that local government is not slow in coming forward when grants are available. In fact, sometimes—I shall not go down the road of a current issue—local authorities over-egg the pudding. When changes are made to grant systems, it is suddenly discovered that all kinds of things fall out of the cupboard. The treasurer will say to members: "Let's get in with this little lot before they make changes". So I honestly do not think that local government will be unaware of the changes being made in this legislation.
  I accept the point in relation to the 8,000 parish and town councils—although we have means of communicating with them, and many members of parish and town councils are members of district councils as well. The intention is not to keep quiet about this. I am sure that the LGA will make sure that its members are fully up to speed on the grants that are available.
  Lord Hanningfield: Of course, it would not be the LGA looking after the town and parish councils.
  There is a theme that we might want to reflect on before we go further in our debates on the Bill; namely, how we deal with parish and town councils. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 38 agreed to.
  Clause 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Loans by Public Works Loan Commissioners]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 18, line 15, after "appropriate," insert "by order"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would limit the Minister's ability to make payments to the Public Works Loan Commission without an order of approval being laid before Parliament.
  Clause 40 brings us to the subject of overhanging debt—the amount of money owed to the Public Works Loan Commission as a result of borrowing by a local council to provide housing. It relates also to the amount of debt and to paying it off.
  In another place, it was suggested that the provision of such debt for 2003–04 was currently more than £600 million. That is a substantial figure. It is substantial, too, in the sense that the Secretary of State or the Minister will be making payments to the Public Works Loan Board for individual authorities, as I understand it, as they transfer their housing stock to registered social landlords and consequently ensure that the debt is written off.
  Part of the problem as regards the transfer of housing to registered social landlords is that, sometimes, not all of it is transferred and some remains with the council. The amount of money that the Secretary of State is proposing to pay off will be different in proportion depending on which authority is involved.
  It seems to us that, where this will happen and where the Secretary of State will have the powers to pay this money to the Public Works Loan Board, it is right that he should do it only with the approval of Parliament.
  A further point arises in relation to Clause 41; namely, the right of the Minister and of authorities to use money from one good authority to pay off the debts of an authority that is not quite so well run. Some authorities do not have debts; they are prudent and debt free. We discussed these in relation to the pooling arrangements earlier in the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister can accept an amendment along these lines. This amendment may not be brilliant, but it would ensure that Parliament would see what was being paid to the Public Works Loan Board, on what basis, and on behalf of which authority. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It is based on a concern that the overhanging debt payments are not open to scrutiny. It seeks to reduce the Secretary of State's ability to repay the appropriate amount of an authority's debt and to hamper a transfer, voted for by tenants, taking place successfully. That is the summary of the points that I wish to make. However, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, I want to place rather more on record.
  Clause 40 allows the Secretary of State to assist one or more English local housing authorities to meet debt liabilities through a payment to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Amendment No. 103 would require the Secretary of State to make an order before making such a payment.
  Clause 122(4) would require such an order to be made by statutory instrument. The requirement to make an order before a payment could be made could prevent the Secretary of State from paying the correct amount in respect of an authority's overhanging debt following a stock transfer.

  GC 103
  Members of the Committee will be aware that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is quite open about housing transfer programmes. We publish on the ODPM website a list of those authorities that apply for a place on the housing transfer programme and we announce to Parliament those that secure a place. Once a transfer takes place, details of the transfer, including the number of dwellings, the sale price, private finance and overhanging debt payment are also included on the website and are freely available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Overhanging debt payments were originally recorded in Her Majesty's Treasury's annual accounts. Since 2002–03, they have been recorded in the annual accounts of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, payments are open to scrutiny by Parliament and by the National Audit Office. Were any such payments to be made by the National Assembly for Wales, they would be shown in the Assembly's accounts. There are no secrets about this.
  The actual amount of the overhanging debt which the Secretary of State would repay is known only at the very last moment when the housing stock transfer takes place. As a minimum, the rate for new loans from the Public Works Loan Board is reviewed weekly, with any changes impacting on a local authority's debt redemption premium and therefore on the level of an overhanging debt payment. If the amount had to be specified in an order, which would be made and would have to be laid before Parliament at least 21 days before coming into force, the amount of the debt repayment specified in the order may not be the actual amount of overhanging debt that needed to be repaid.
  The payment specified in such an order might be insufficient, leaving the authority with an outstanding debt or, indeed, an excessive amount. We should be unable to consent to the transfer if the order had not been made before the transfer, as the authority would be unable to meet its housing debt obligations and would remain eligible for housing revenue account subsidy. The purpose of Clause 40 is to remove that possibility, as we believe it is inappropriate for an authority with no housing to be in receipt of ongoing housing revenue account subsidy.
  As I said, I believe that the amendment is based on the concern that overhanging debt payments are not open to scrutiny. I hope that I have said enough to assure the Committee that they are indeed fully open to scrutiny.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand his point; namely, that the process is open to some scrutiny. But there is no better scrutiny than an order being laid before Parliament.
  The trouble with these debt repayments is that it is fairly arbitrary as to which authorities are having debts paid off. Some substantial debts are being paid off. A question also arises as to where the money is coming from that the Secretary of State is using to pay off the debts. There is a suspicion that some of the money—money from pooling, for example—might find its way into those coffers. There is more than just a little concern about this.
  GC 104
  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has said that the playing field is not level and that taxpayers' money is being used in a discriminatory fashion—that is, to pay off debts. It has stated that there is also a measure of perverse incentive in the proposal, as it benefits authorities that have not maintained their housing stock in the past to a standard where the market value exceeds the historic debt; that is, authorities which, by definition, have let their housing stock run down. They will benefit from having debts paid off when they have not expended sufficient money on their stock for tenants to wish for them to be maintained.
  I shall not pursue this amendment, but the Minister might like to take up the comment from the Select Committee Report which was in the evidence given by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy. He may have more to add on this matter.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may put on the record that I resent the word "arbitrary". Stock transfer takes place only after a tenants' vote. There is nothing at all "arbitrary" about the issue. It is well known that the Government have a policy. There are three ways to get the extra money to meet the decent homes standards—stock transfer, armslength management organisations or private finance initiative. They are the only ways that local authorities will receive money for meeting decent standards. That is it. The reality is that they will not get dollops of money to continue badly-managed council housing.
  In answer to what the noble Baroness said about CIPFA, in commenting on the draft Local Government Bill, it suggested that these provisions will lead to greater cost to government. However, CIPFA was one of the consultees when the DTI—as it was—issued its consultation paper in August 1999, which outlined the proposed options and arrangements for making overhanging debt payments. Its responses made no criticism of the principles of the proposal in respect of overhanging debt, nor any of the suggested routes for dealing with housing debt. Rather, its comments were centred on technicalities and made no mention of the cost implications to government. That is how I understand the position. I am always quite happy to receive further advice and particulars.
  There is some suspicion about where the money is coming from. We are quite open about that. The noble Baroness spoke about some scrutiny. I have said how the amounts are made available—the stock and the dwellings. The tenants are balloted and the amounts follow. The ballot is done in public. It is not a secret ballot. It is a secret ballot for the tenants, but everyone knows about the ballots arid will report on them. So it is available to total scrutiny, not just some scrutiny.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. What is the total amount that is likely to he written off in the year 2003–04? I understand it to be a sum

  GC 105
  between £600 million and £800 million. I do not know whether the Minister knows the answer to that. I raised the matter in my opening remarks.
  Lord Rooker: The provision for the current financial year of 2003–04 is £110 million.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that. It is not quite as was said in the other place, but never mind. I leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 104:
  Page 18, line 17, leave out "a" and insert "each"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 104, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. These are all amendments to Clause 40. As the Government and the Minister in his recent statements have made clear, and particularly when the draft Bill was published, this clause and the following clause facilitate the transfer of council housing to registered social landlords. I have no objection to that. However, I think we should look carefully at whether there is a level playing field and whether people are being given the right choice. The Bill is about local councils being given a choice. In fact, this is one of its most restrictive parts. If local authorities want to bring their houses up to a certain standard, this is one of the choices they have. It is the same for the tenants.
  Clause 40 enables the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make payments to local authorities in England so that they can meet the outstanding overhanging debts which we discussed in the previous clause. Clause 40 is about debts that arise from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Sometimes early repayment of such loans attracts premiums or penalties. The Bill enables the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to meet these payments.
  We discussed set aside on capital receipts earlier in the Bill. That is how the system is managed at the moment. In 1999 arrangements were made to pay overhanging debts. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter he sent me on these issues following Second Reading. In it he states that, since arrangements were put in place, £824 million has been paid to 10 local authorities for whole stock transfer.
  That is a considerable amount of money. There may be considerable amounts involved in the future. To put the matter into context, basis credit approvals to all local authorities in England amounted to only £793 million in the year 2002–03 and £852 million is the estimate for the year 2003–04.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about discussions in the Select Committee of another place. One matter that came out from the National Audit Office was that this system of improving the property through large-scale voluntary transfer costs the taxpayer £1,300 more per property than if they remained with the local authority.
  I have already mentioned the other problem of the denial of choice for tenants. The choice is not very real when one looks at the financial matters that surround it.
  The inclusion of this power moves the Government further away from the level playing field that we would prefer to see. Therefore, we have tabled these amendments. The Government argue that payments made from a sum of money requested on an annual basis come from the Treasury as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's annual managed expenditure. They are made on the basis that it would otherwise have to pay ongoing housing revenue account subsidy to the local authorities. So, in practice, the overhanging debt payment is treated as a one-off payment, discharging that liability.
  One can—as are the Government—pay £X million to an individual authority, or one could pay all authorities some money. We seek in these amendments to do that in order to make the situation fairer. The reduction in the liability to pay ongoing housing revenue account subsidy is the same amount.
  I do not expect the Minister to accept these amendments for one moment because he has made it quite clear that the Government want to make sure that local authorities are pushed into this way of dealing with their housing. We do not agree with him and would like to see much fairer treatment across local authorities and that we do not have some local authorities getting large amounts of money. The advantage of what we propose is that it has the potential to release revenue streams within housing revenue accounts that could then be used under the prudential framework introduced in Clauses 1 to 6 and enable local authorities to finance renovation of their own stock. I recognise that the Minister will not approve of that, but I think that many people in local government would support a fairer use of this money.
  If the Government wish to take powers to repay outstanding debt loans, we believe they should be applied equally between local authorities, regardless of whether a decision has been made to transfer the housing stock. The whole matter will get even worse when regional boards are distributing money to local authorities. At the moment, the Minister has said there are three ways in which people can deal with their housing stock—large-scale voluntary transfer, arm's length management organisations and PFIs. It seems to us that councils that go down the route of large-scale voluntary transfer get an advantage, and we want to see a fairer playing field. That is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness gave an interesting speech. I know she has a great passion about these matters—housing being one of her interests. I appreciate where she is coming from on this issue, but there is a disagreement between us. We must acknowledge and accept that.
  The noble Baroness has described the effect of Clause 40. In our view no amendment is required because the clause allows the Secretary of State, or in

  GC 107
  Wales the National Assembly, to make payments in respect of all authorities' debts, in proportion to those authorities' debts at the time.
  As is understood by the Committee, the policy behind Clause 40 is to assist individual authorities who transfer their housing stock to a registered social landlord, but need assistance to meet outstanding housing debt liabilities where the receipt is insufficient to do so.
  I think the amendments are based on a misunderstanding that we are somehow giving favourable treatment to those authorities which transfer their housing stock and for which we make an overhanging debt payment. That is not the case. My noble friend explained that there are three ways in which local authorities can take forward their policy in terms of investing back into the stock through ALMOs, through the PFIs or through this route. We think that provides the basis of fair and reasonable choice.
  We say that clearly all authorities are treated on a fair basis. It is up to the local authority to choose whether it wishes to retain or to transfer its stock, based on a rigorous option appraisal which will involve tenants and other key stakeholders. If an authority or its tenants choose to retain its stock, the Government, though the housing revenue account subsidy, continues to ensure that a local authority can meet the cost of servicing its attributable debt.
  However, where a local authority has transferred its stock, we believe it is inappropriate for an authority that has no housing to remain in receipt of ongoing housing revenue account subsidy. That would make a nonsense of the scheme.
  That approach would be undermined by the amendments which are offered forward as a scheme to remove the Secretary of State's broad discretion and to require us to make payments to reduce or extinguish all English authorities' debts where the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to make such a payment for one authority.
  The amendments would similarly constrain the National Assembly for Wales. It is a policy matter for the Secretary of State, or in Wales the National Assembly, to decide whether and how to contribute towards meeting local authorities' debt liabilities. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly should have the discretion to decide whether to make such a payment, or whether to leave it to authorities to use their own resources to pay off debts if those resources are sufficient. The amendments would of course take away that discretion.
  Clause 40 is drafted sufficiently broadly to allow us to reduce or extinguish authorities' debts in other circumstances. By constraining the Secretary of State to reduce all authorities' debts proportionately, if he wished to reduce one authority's debts, the amendments would effectively prevent the use of the powers in Clause 40. So there is a clear divide here in policy terms. I have set out clearly our position. While
  GC 108
  I respect what the noble Baroness has said with regard to this, we simply disagree. We do not think she has the matter right.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his not totally unexpected reply to my amendment. One issue he failed to address was the extra cost per property in doing it that way.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have the response to that. The £1,300 per dwelling was over 30 years and represents the cost of private finance. That comes from the NAO report and is in that sense a hypothetical calculation. Our argument is simple: over time, the benefits of the housing transfer, including bringing forward works and better performance, outweigh the costs. That is how we see it and that is how we think it will work in practice.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for filling us in on that matter. Does that mean that we do not take an awful lot of notice of National Audit Office reports? He seemed to dismiss it rather lightly.
  I still think there is a large question mark here over whether some local authorities should end up in the position—
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I invite the noble Baroness to agree at least to the proposition that the sum over 30 years which I described is pretty good value. Surely she is not saying that it is not.
  Baroness Maddock: It was not that; it was the Minister's throwaway comments about the National Audit Office. However, let us forget that; it is not important. It is what comes of making throw-away comments to oneself—it is not always a good idea in such circumstances.
  I appreciate that the Government approach the matter from different points of view. I think that there is a case to be made for creating a more level playing field for local authorities that are trying to improve their stock. Large sums are involved. That is not necessarily the fault of local authorities—very often it occurs because the housing is located in parts of the country with much lower housing costs. That is one of the reasons why their stock is not in good condition. I also remember the years when many local authorities were starved of the ability to spend money on housing. So the history is not simple.
  I certainly do not think that local authorities should be penalised because they find themselves in that situation. However, I am concerned that some of them which do find themselves there are able to get out of it more easily than others which have been trying desperately to improve their properties. We may return to the issue. Given the Minister's comments, I may be able to improve the amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 105:
  Page 18, line 18, at end insert—
  "( ) Any payments made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must not be financed by monies recouped from debt free councils via capital receipts."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 105 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 110. However, I shall not do so if that mucks up the Minister's speaking notes.
  Lord Rooker: We have gone much more slowly than we should have today. I want to pull stumps. I shall not move that we adjourn until we agree to Clause 42 stand part. Amendment No. 110 will therefore be the last amendment that we debate today. After that, we will still have to agree that the clause stand part. However, given that there are only four groups of amendments left, I am quite happy to mix and match. If the noble Baroness wants to speak to Amendment No. 110 in moving Amendment No. 105 I will reply to them together. I have not read Amendment No. 110 but I shall now.
  Baroness Hanham: It will be very enlightening. The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that the capital receipts of debt-free authorities—which the Committee discussed last week, and which cannot benefit from these provisions—are not taken by the Secretary of State to be used to pay off the debts of perhaps less prudent authorities.
  The first purpose of the amendments is to enable the Government to spell out in detail the circumstances in which they might intend to use the powers under this section. The Liberal Democrat amendments have probed, as we have in other clauses in the Bill, why the Government feel the need for selective powers at all and how we can prevent injustice and political decision-making. However, it is vital that the objective criteria that will govern the exercise of these powers are published. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say—I do not know whether he is saying this—that these are reserve powers.
  The amendments specifically attempt to prevent what would be an abuse of power—for the Government to seize the capital receipts of well-run, debt-free councils and use them to bail out the less prudent. Not only would that be wrong in principle, it would create a moral hazard for both good councils and bad ones. Why should any council seek to be a debt-free council and operate responsibly if it feared that its reward would be to see its capital receipts, or at least a proportion of them, creamed off? I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: A quick perusal of my speaking notes answers why the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has done me the favour of speaking to Amendment Nos. 105 and 110 together. My speaking notes for the two amendments are nearly identical. I can therefore comfortably cope with the grouping. However, and by
  GC 110
  the way, I do not want to give the impression that I think that the Opposition are speeding up. I still think that we have gone very slowly today.
  Baroness Hanham: It has been perfectly normal.
  Lord Rooker: No; we have gone very slowly. There are only three more sittings and we want to scrutinise the Bill properly.
  Clause 40 allows the Secretary of State to assist one or more English authorities to meet debt liabilities through a payment direct to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Both in Committee and on Report in another place, and through this amendment, there has been a suggestion that the pooling provisions in Clause 11 could apply to housing transfer receipts. It has also been suggested that there is a direct link between the money paid in respect of overhanging debt and the money likely to be collected through the pooling proposals. That is mistaken.
  For the record, I hope that it is now recognised that receipts from a large-scale voluntary transfer by an authority that is debt free will not be subject to the pooling provisions. When a housing transfer takes place we expect the local authority to use the receipt as provision against any housing attributable debt. Any receipt over and above that will be subject to the already existing large-scale voluntary transfer levy, which is currently set at 20 per cent. As is prescribed in Section 136 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 this levy is paid into the Consolidated Fund.
  Resources for making overhanging debt payments are not held within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister provision for capital allocations. They are requested on an annual basis from the Treasury as part of the ODPM's annually managed expenditure and will not be found from the pooled receipts. That reflects the ODPM's liability to pay ongoing housing revenue account subsidy to a local authority with housing attributable debt which in practice the overhanging debt payment discharges. It also reflects the difficulty in knowing the level of resources required in advance. As such, the resources are not available to fund capital expenditure.
  Since arrangements were put in place in December 1999 we have paid £824 million to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of whole stock transfers in 10 local authorities. All that has taken place prior to proposals for pooling of capital receipts in this Bill.
  We have made clear during passage of the Bill that redistribution is a fundamental principle of housing capital finance and that that can be delivered through pooling. We have always taken the view, as have other administrations, that it is right for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of council housing to be available for use in areas of greatest need. Recycling those resources back into housing means that other authorities with lower capital receipts will receive a fair share of housing resources where their need for housing investment is greater. For that reason, when the new capital finance system comes into force, the

  GC 111
  present system of set-aside will end, to be replaced by an explicit pooling system. That is the simplest way of providing the additional resources to contribute to housing investment nationally. It is not a reserve from which overhanging debt payments will be made.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that explanation. We have already debated Clause 11, but I fully accept that it is controversial and that we will return to it on Report. The above remarks are equally applicable to Amendment No. 110, which seems to be word perfect the same as Amendment No. 105.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply which I shall want to read carefully before pursuing the matter further. The proposals on housing finance, how the stock transfer body is being dealt with, the payments to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the new arrangements for improving set-aside are a major aspect of the Bill. The trouble is that the proposals are splattered among a number of clauses. I should therefore like to examine the issue more closely. I think that there are issues to which we need to return, particularly how the housing finance will work. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Payments towards local authority indebtedness]:
  [Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 109:
  Page 18, line 40, leave out "a" and insert "each"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments to Clause 41 are similar to those to Clause 40 except that of course Clause 41 is dealing with debts that are not by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Otherwise they are the same. I do not intend to repeat my earlier remarks. I suspect that the Minister will also give me a fairly similar reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is the same, and I am afraid that my speaking note is
  GC 112
  identical—in the words of my noble friend Lord Rooker, they are "word perfect the same". We simply disagree about the mechanism and about the approach which the noble Baroness is offering. We do not think that the amendments are relevant or will help as she suggests. I am sorry, but that is it.
  Baroness Maddock: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 not moved.]
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Lord Rooker: Before I move that we adjourn, I should like to make a plea. The next group of amendments, on Clause 43, comprises one dozen amendments.
  Baroness Hanham: They will not be separated.
  Lord Rooker: That is my point. I am referring to tomorrow's sitting.
  Baroness Hanham: Yes.
  Lord Rooker: I am not talking about the subsequent sitting. I want to give proper replies. If the amendments are degrouped it causes enormous pressure for staff. All I ask is that, if they are separated tomorrow, that should be done as early as possible.
  Baroness Hanham: No—
  Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness might awake in the middle of the night and think, "I think I will separate some of the amendments after all". I do not want to curtail her decision. All I am saying is that, if they are separated, the earliest possible notice of that would be highly beneficial. There is no need to make a commitment on it; I simply make that plea. This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Serious Fraud Office: Prosecutions and Convictions
  Serious Fraud Office: Prosecutions and Convictions
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  C17 Aircraft
  C17 Aircraft
  Iraq: Oil
  Iraq: Oil
  Home Office Spending: Tackling Drugs and Crime
  Home Office Spending: Tackling Drugs and Crime
  Charity Commission: Spring Departmental Report
  Charity Commission: Spring Departmental Report
  Family Visitor Appeal System
  Family Visitor Appeal System
  Road Lighting
  Road Lighting
  Railway Safety
  Railway Safety
  Transport Act 2000: Implementation
  Transport Act 2000: Implementation
  Sensitive Lorry Miles
  Sensitive Lorry Miles
  Bull Bars
  Bull Bars
  Blue Badge Scheme: Supermarket Enforcement Powers
  Blue Badge Scheme: Supermarket Enforcement Powers
  Railway Penalty Fares
  Railway Penalty Fares
  Channel Tunnel: Safety Checks
  Channel Tunnel: Safety Checks
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  3.4GHz Fixed Wireless Access Licences
  3.4GHz Fixed Wireless Access Licences
  Libraries
  Libraries
  West Antarctic Ice Sheet
  West Antarctic Ice Sheet
  Fisheries: No Take Zones
  Fisheries: No Take Zones
  Customs and Excise: Detection of Meat Smuggling
  Customs and Excise: Detection of Meat Smuggling
  NHS: Management Costs
  NHS: Management Costs
  Seroxat
  Seroxat