Sitting of 20 June 2003

Preamble
The House met at half past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), SIR ALAN HASELHURST, The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, Proceeded to the Table.

Point of Order
9.34 am
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you yet had a request from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House to explain the total confusion that now appears to reign in Government circles about the very important matter of tax? We heard on the wireless this morning the part-time Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales apparently intruding on the Chancellor's territory in seeking to sow confusion about tax. Surely it would help not only the House but the taxpayers of this country if the Chancellor were to be allowed to come to the House. If you have not already heard from him, can you confirm, were he even at this stage to request permission to make a statement today, that that would be procedurally possible, and that such a statement could be made at 11 o'clock, as is traditional? Can you confirm that so that we can all quiver in anticipation that this matter might be clarified?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): No such request has been received, but it is possible to receive such requests until 10 o'clock, and the Chair will always be accommodating to a Minister seeking to make a statement to the House. I hope that that will prevent the right hon. Gentleman from quivering unduly for the rest of the morning.

Orders of the Day
  National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
    New Clause 1

      COMMENCEMENT
      `.—This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (9).
      Mr. Chope: In part, new clause 1 is a probing new clause. Paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states:
      "The Bill will commence immediately on Royal Assent."
      That is relatively unusual for a piece of legislation. The wording is normally in line with that in new clause 1, giving the Secretary of State the discretion to commence the Act as soon as he thinks fit, but normally not within two months of Royal Assent. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will be able to comment on the fact that the wording in the Bill is different from the wording in the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, which was considered by the House in the 2000–01 Session but which, sadly, had insufficient time to make progress to Royal Assent. I would like to ask my hon. Friend why he wishes to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State on the issue of commencement, as the present wording does.
      My second reason for tabling the new clause is that, when I did so on Wednesday, I feared that the Government might in tend to commence the Act before the regulatory impact assessment had been published. On Wednesday, no such assessment had been published, and I wondered whether this was going to be a re-run of the situation that we had last week, when the regulatory impact assessment for the Fireworks Bill—which received its Second Reading on the same day as this Bill, 28 February 2003—had still not been published at the closing time for the submission of amendments on Report. In the case of the Fireworks Bill, the Minister told us:
      "I shall inform the House of the reason that the draft regulatory impact assessment was not published sooner. It had been produced, but the actual publication failed to take place due to an administrative oversight."—[Official Report, 13 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 967.]
      Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that this illustrates yet another undesirable trait in the attitude of the Government towards Bills and towards the House? Regulatory impact assessments are supposed to help all of us to assess the impact of a Bill. How can we be expected to

      607
      do that properly if they do not appear, or if they appear only at the last minute? Is this becoming a habit? If so, is it not time the House put its foot down?
      Mr. Chope: I fear that it is becoming a habit. In legal language, I was adducing what happened last week by way of similar fact evidence. Last week, I quoted from the foreword that the Prime Minister had written in 1998 to the paper on better regulation, in which he insisted—the Minister should listen to this—that the regulatory impact assessment process should be complied with to the letter by his ministerial team. It was not complied with by the Fireworks Bill team, nor has it been complied with in this case. No doubt we will find out whether that is also because of an administrative oversight.
      Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responsible for that Bill, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is to be congratulated on moving to another Department during the reshuffle to become Under-Secretary of State for Health, graciously apologised for Members not having more time to study the regulatory impact assessment. However, I was most surprised to find that there was no RIA for this Bill, as the Minister for Sport had said on Second Reading:
      "As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said,"—
      I am sure my hon. Friend will bear this out, although, having read the Official Report, I am not sure that he said any such thing—
      "my Department has also prepared a regulatory impact assessment for the Bill that I will place in the Libraries of both Houses."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 543.]
      On Monday, I asked the Library for a copy, only to be told that it had not yet been delivered. After prompting through a parliamentary question, the RIA was placed in the Library yesterday. There was, I am afraid to say, no apology for its being deposited late.
      The Minister, who I am pleased to see in his place, has not answered the question that I tabled yesterday as openly as he might. I asked
      "when the regulatory impact assessment was (a) prepared and (b) placed in the Library."
      He replied:
      "DCMS prepared a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Private Members Bill when it was first tabled. I said at the time of the Bill's Second Reading on 28 February 2003 that copies would be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and this has now been done."—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 353W.]
      However, the Minister did not say, "This has been done today, almost four months after it was prepared." Nor did he take the opportunity presented by the question to apologise for the RIA being placed in the Library so late. I hope that we get an apology this morning.
      Another thing surprised me. When I read the RIA, I found that the Minister had signed it on 27 January.
      Mr. Forth: Oh!
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is right to exclaim, because we did not have the benefit of the RIA on Second Reading, which is what the Prime Minister says
      608
      should be the process, although we now know that it existed at that time. Almost five months later, it has reached the public domain.
      Mr. Forth: This is getting more and more worrying, I must admit. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's analysis, is there anything in the RIA that is sufficiently damaging for it to be concealed? In other words, is it his assessment that there is either a Government conspiracy or a Government cock-up? There are so many of both that it is difficult to tell one from the other these days.
      Mr. Chope: I was not going to refer in detail to the RIA, but I should summarise my point: if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and other Members had seen it on Second Reading and in Committee, they might have raised a lot more questions on the Bill's contents and the Government's intentions regarding the powers in it.
      The RIA should have been publicly available in time for Second Reading, as required by "Better Policy Making: A Guide To Regulatory Impact Assessment", issued by the Prime Minister in 1998 under his own foreword. There is a flow chart on page 10 of that document, which has 81 pages, so perhaps the Minister may be excused if he has not read it right through.
      Mr. Forth: He should have.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is, as always, rather unforgiving in these matters.
      That document was reissued by the regulatory impact unit in January 2003, and it makes it clear that an RIA should be sent to Parliament with the legislation. It is no good saying that this is a private Member's Bill, and that therefore everything is different, because paragraph 1.8 explicitly says:
      "In the case of Private Members' Bills which the Government is planning to support, or is not intending to oppose, you"—
      that is addressed to the Minister—
      "should produce an RIA by the date set down for Second Reading."
      That brings me to the question of the new clause: why is there a need for such haste in wanting commencement on the same day as Royal Assent when there has been such manifest tardiness and laxity from the Department in dealing with this matter? That point is reinforced by the situation relating to the issue of draft guidance. On Second Reading, the Minister referred to guidance that he intends to give the lottery distributors:
      "I can announce that, should the Bill proceed—I hope that it will"—
      as do I—
      "my Department will issue guidance to distributors on this matter, and that a draft of the guidance will be made available to peers during the Lords stages of the Bill."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 542.]

      609
      I requested that such guidance be made available in advance of this debate, but yesterday the Minister replied to a question by saying:
      "The guidance is currently in the process of drafting, and we will want to consult distributors before finalising the text and making it available for parliamentary scrutiny."—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 354W.]
      Parliament is to play second fiddle to the distributors, which is thoroughly unsatisfactory, but it is clear from that answer that there has not yet been consultation with the distributors, because the draft has not been produced. However, the Minister said that it would be made available in time for consideration of the Bill in the other place.
      As we learned in last Friday's debate, the other place has to consider whether it wishes to amend the Bill pretty quickly, because if there are any amendments they must return to this House no later than 11 July if the Bill is not to be excluded from making further progress. The House will have no opportunity to consider private Members' legislation beyond that date, so time is short, but we are told by the Minister, who is so desperate to get the Bill on the statute book that he wants commencement immediately upon Royal Assent, that he has not even got round to completing the drafting of the guidance, which will be made available for parliamentary scrutiny in the other House, but not in this one.
      I asked the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk why the House cannot see such a draft. Surely we are entitled to that. Is the reason slackness or a cavalier approach on the part of the Minister? Most of all, and in respect of underlining the case for the new clause, what is the urgency behind the immediate commencement on Royal Assent when there has been so much tardiness over this aspect of the Bill?
      That brings me to amendment No. 1, which is extremely significant since it would remove the requirement that the Bill be retrospective by leaving out clause 1(9). Why does it need to be retrospective? I looked for guidance in the explanatory notes, which say:
      "Clause 1(9) provides for these amendments to have retrospective effect."
      That is all they say. They give no reason or further explanation as to why there should be retrospective effect. We as legislators should be nervous about Bills that seek to be retrospective. Retrospection offends against the basic principles of law making, and it should be used only in the most extreme and special circumstances.
      What was said about this aspect of the Bill on Second Reading? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, who is the promoter of the Bill, said:
      "The Department for Culture, Media and Sport previously advised that distributors other than the Community Fund could fund endowments, and some distributing bodies have made such grants. The Bill would have retrospective effects, which are in clause 1(9)."
      I am not sure whether that answered the question that I have asked. I was none the wiser after reading my hon. Friend's statement. Was the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wrong to advise that distributors, other than the Community Fund, could fund endowments? Have endowments been made that are, unless validated retrospectively, ultra vires?
      610
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said:
      "At the moment, all lottery distributors are able to make grants to endowments but the Community Fund is not."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 528–29.]
      If that is the situation, what is the problem? Why is there any need for the Bill to be retrospective? It is apparent from this Bill and its predecessor Bill that the people of Norfolk, and indeed the people of Dorset, are concerned to ensure that they can raise money to help carers, and they want to do that by means of an endowment. There has never been any suggestion that they have received an endowment that was ultra vires and that they now need to validate it retrospectively.
      On Second Reading, several references were made to endowments, such as the £200 million endowment to the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. I want to ask the Minister a direct question. Was that endowment ultra vires? Is clause 1(9) designed to validate that expenditure retrospectively? Was the New Opportunities Fund's £50 million payment to a 10-year endowment as part of the fair share initiative ultra vires? Was the £16 million Millennium Commission 10-year expendable endowment to the millennium seed bank ultra vires? What about the £100 million endowment fund of the Millennium Commission to ensure a permanent future for millennium awards? Is that ultra vires?
      On Second Reading, the Minister implied that nothing ultra vires had gone on. He said that the Bill
      "will ensure that charitable bodies are not put at a disadvantage in gaining access to lottery funding."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 541.]
      That is fine. In my submission, there is no need for the Bill to be retrospective. The Minister used the expression "tidy up the legislation". That is the precedent that the Government have used on the latest draft of the proposed European constitution, which they say is a tidying-up exercise. We now find its origins in the Minister's comments on Second Reading of this Bill.
      I thought that all might be revealed by reading what was said about this issue in Committee. I must say that I was extremely disappointed to see that the Standing Committee on the Bill sat for only 22 minutes. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that during those 22 minutes the key questions were asked and they were certainly not resolved.
      On Second Reading of the previous Bill, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that
      "out of eight national lottery distributing bodies, only the charities board is prevented outright from granting endowments".—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 584.]
      The then Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), said that that Bill
      "would help to put the NLCB on the same footing as the other lottery distributors, enabling it to make grants towards endowments when it wished to do so."
      She went on to say:
      "Anyone who is against the Bill must say why the National Lottery Charities Board should be treated differently from the other lottery distributors under the current law."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 619–20]

      611
      We must consider whether the Government are using this Bill as a device retrospectively to validate that which is at the moment ultra vires. If not, what is the purpose of clause 1(9)? I hope that the Minister will address these serious concerns.
      Mr. Keith Simpson: I welcome my hon. Friend's gimlet eye over the proceedings. I am sorry that he was unable to be with us for Second Reading. If I had known of his enthusiasm, I would certainly have asked him to serve on the Committee, but I understand that he has wider parliamentary duties. I hope that he will accept that there was no attempt on my part to ensure that the regulatory impact assessment was not available or hidden from hon. Members on Second Reading or in Committee. Like him, I believe that there should be transparency and openness, and that such documents should always be put in the public domain and preferably made available to colleagues before a debate.
      I note that new clause 1 has been tabled in a probing spirit. It would delay the commencement of the Bill following Royal Assent. As I understand it, although this is a common provision for which preparatory work may be needed, such as the drafting of any underpinning statutory instruments, it is not necessary in this Bill. No statutory instruments need to be prepared, and there is no other reason for delaying commencement when it is enacted.
      The Bill makes the proposed changes retrospective, because they are liable to throw doubt on powers that have already been exercised in good faith by distributors. My hon. Friend questioned that. Delaying commencement would lead to an unsatisfactory period of limbo, in which distributors who had reasonably believed they had the power to fund endowments might feel constrained no longer to exercise those powers until after commencement.
      Mr. Chope: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says. How does he square that with what is contained in paragraph 1 of the regulatory impact assessment, which says:
      "The stated view of the Department is that all Lottery distributors, with the exception of the Community Fund (the operating name of the National Lottery Charities Board, which gives grants to charities and the voluntary and community sector), are able to make grants to fund endowments."
      Mr. Simpson: That is an opinion. I shall link this issue with the points that my hon. Friend made about amendment No. 1, which would remove the retrospectivity provision. As he knows, in its current form the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 gives distributing bodies the power to distribute lottery money for meeting expenditure such as that covered by section 22 of that Act.
      The relevant provisions of the 1993 Act do not make explicit whether that power includes the power to fund endowments. It became obvious on Second Reading and in Committee—the Minister has also made it clear—that distributors other than the Community Fund have the power to fund endowments, and advice to that effect has been issued by the Department in the
      612
      past, both under the present Government and when we were in office. However, the position is by no means clear in the legislation. The intention of the Bill is to clarify the position for distributors generally, as well as ensuring that the Community Fund has the power to fund endowments.
      That said, it would be wrong in clarifying the position to cast doubt on the legality of previous grants made by other distributors to fund endowments, especially when that has been done in the light of advice by the Department and when no one has ever sought to challenge the lawfulness of doing so. That is the key point
      Mr. Chope: Surely the mere fact of making such provisions retrospective raises the spectre that existing endowments are indeed ultra vires. I take my hon. Friend's point, but if there is a need to clarify matters, why cannot that clarification apply in future, instead of being a retrospective validation?
      10 am
      Mr. Simpson: We are perhaps debating on the margins. There is no conspiracy at all. We want to clarify the position, and in no way are we raising the spectre that something was done illegally. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we are acting in good faith and not attempting to set a precedent, and that he will consider that and listen carefully to what I say. Obviously, I hope that he will also take into account what the Minister says, and I have no doubt that he will ask the Minister some probing questions.
      Mr. John Greenway: Having dealt with the original Bill for the Opposition two years ago, I am very glad to contribute today to what I hope will be a satisfactory conclusion of the Bill's consideration in the House and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on it.
      I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) had to say, and he has served a very useful purpose in reminding hon. Members who introduce private Members' Bills that we need to pay regard to regulatory impact assessments. As I am promoting the Ragwort Control Bill, which is due to be considered on Third Reading on 11 July, I have made a note to ensure that the regulatory impact assessment is published forthwith. My hon. Friend is exactly right to suggest that, even if the advice is that there is no reason to be concerned, it is still worth having.
      I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on the point about Royal Assent. We had hoped to put such a measure on the statute book two years ago, so I cannot see the point of any further delay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk says, there is no requirement for statutory instruments, so let us press on with the Bill and hope that it is dealt with expeditiously in the other place.
      My impression is that the very fact that we are making this change at all calls into question the legality of the advice, so retrospectivity is probably essential. Governments of all colours introduce Bills and the

      613
      House scrutinises them, but sometimes not with all the time available that we would like. That is a growing concern, but when it becomes clear something that has been done may not be absolutely correct, we have to take the advice of parliamentary counsel and make the change.
      I would simply say to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that the original legislation was introduced by a Conservative Government, and if a small change needs to be made to put right what may have been an oversight by that Government, all Conservative Members have a duty to support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and to reject the new clause.
      Bob Russell: I support the Bill as drafted. It was dealt with in Committee in 22 minutes, with cross-party support. I sincerely hope that the long debate that we have already had will not prevent the Bill from proceeding. It could and perhaps should have been passed two or three years ago. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on introducing the Bill and the Eastern Daily Press on supporting it, so I hope that the new clause will be rejected.
      The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): It would have been good if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) had attended the debate on Second Reading and raised his concerns then, because the general approach to the Bill has been one of all-party support, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, and there was simply an oversight when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was originally put on the statute book. A general consensus has emerged to try to rectify that anomaly in the 1993 Act, so it is unfortunate that such a new clause, which throws doubt on that, has been tabled during the later stages of the Bill's consideration.
      May I say straight away that I apologise to the House for the fact that the regulatory impact assessment was not placed in the Library immediately after the debate on Second Reading? That was an administrative oversight. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) always finds a conspiracy or something similar when there has been an administrative oversight, but I will nevertheless ensure that my Department lives up to what the Prime Minister said about regulatory impact assessments in the future. We will try to hit those time targets because it is very important for the fullness of debate, whether on this or any other Bill, that those assessments are in the public domain, so that objective judgments and debate can take place on the Bills to which they refer.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that fulsome apology. Will he explain further why, considering that he signed the regulatory impact assessment on 27 January, it was not even available before the debate on Second Reading? Does he accept that it would have been much better if it had been available even before the debate on Second Reading?
      Mr. Caborn: The answer is yes. As I say, there was an administrative oversight. I do not think that the Bill was probed to a great extent in terms of its regulatory impact
      614
      assessment, but I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I reiterate that the regulatory impact assessments ought to be made available, and I shall try to ensure that my Department puts them in the public domain, so that they can inform the debates on Bills with cross-party support, such as this one, or on any other Bill. I give that assurance, and my Department will try to live up to that.
      I wish now to refer to new clause 1. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) that it is not necessary. As we said on Second Reading, there is a need to make progress with the Bill—it needs to be implemented as quickly as possible. New clause 1 would add nothing to it.
      On amendment No. 1 and retrospectivity, I wish to say that, on the basis of the Department's legal advice, the current legislation allows distributors other than the Community Fund to fund endowments. However, the Bill seeks to clarify the position of distributors generally. Distributors' existing powers could be called into question, so we believe it is right to confirm the legality of past grants to fund endowments. It is important to take this opportunity to reassure people and to ensure that things are watertight in that sense, as that produces good legislation. It would be wrong to allow the opportunity to bring surety to the situation to pass. We have taken that opportunity, but there is no doubt that all the legal advice obtained by my Department says that the actions taken to date are indeed proper.
      Mr. Chope: Will the Minister therefore speculate on what the situation would be if such retrospectivity were not included in the Bill? Is he saying that its inclusion makes no difference, or that it would put in jeopardy endowments that have already been set up? If so, which existing endowments would be questioned?
      Mr. Caborn: I am not going to speculate; it would be very foolish to start to do so. We are only trying to take advantage of the opportunity, which all parties want to take, to reassure people that all those decisions that have been made on endowments are indeed legal. We have no doubt that they are legal, but we want to take the opportunity to give that reassurance, and in my opinion it would be stupid not to take it.
      Mr. Greenway: Perhaps we could give the assurance in a slightly different way. Can the Minister confirm that to his knowledge there has never been any suggestion of a challenge as to the legality of the endowments that have been created? That is my understanding.
      Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There has been no challenge. Indeed, there has been no inference of a challenge. However, I reiterate that it would be foolish if we did not take the opportunity to reinforce the provision and reassure those who are distributing those funds.
      Mr. Chope: We have had a useful debate, as I think everyone who has participated in it has accepted. It is important to get on the record the reasoning of the Government and of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in introducing a retrospective element. As I said earlier, to have a retrospective element in a Bill is exceptional; it should be

      615
      included only in exceptional circumstances. As the Minister has assured us that there have not been any challenges on the matter and we are not seeking to prevent someone from making a challenge, for example, in the courts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      FUNDING OF ENDOWMENTS
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, after "expenditure', insert
      "as long as the value of funds spent on such endowments does not exceed 5 per cent of the value of total funds given to the Distribution Fund'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      "(7A) After section 43D there is inserted the following section—
      "43E. The Comptroller and Auditor General may, with respect to any person in receipt of money under section 25, 25B, 41 or 43B where that money is paid for the purpose of establishing or contributing to an endowment, examine—

      (a) the accounts of that person so far as relating to the endowment,

      (b) any records relating to those accounts, and

      (c) any report of an auditor on those accounts.'.

      No. 4, in page 2, line 11, at end insert
      "Any endowment, or contribution to endowments, established by this bill is liable to be reclaimed by the Distribution Fund in the event that,

      (a) the recipient body of such funds ceases to exist, or

      (b) the function of the recipient body changes substantively.'.

      Mr. Leigh: May I start with amendment No. 5, which gives powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at the accounts of endowments and any records relating to those accounts? I think that it is the most important amendment in the group. The House may remember that I am Chairman of the relevant parliamentary Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, and this amendment has been drafted with the help of the National Audit Office. I do not believe that it is contentious, and I hope that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), will accept it.
      I will to speak to my other amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, later. They are more probing, particularly amendment No. 3. Although it may be difficult to set any particular figure on the amount of cash to be distributed to endowment funds, it will provide a useful opportunity for my hon. Friend to give some reassurance on those matters.
      As I say, I do not think that amendment No. 5 is contentious. The Bill is only seeking to clarify something anyway—that lottery funding can be provided for endowments as well as to fund expenditure. All that I seek to do with amendment No. 5 is to ensure that adequate accountability arrangements are in place to match the new provisions.
      616
      My hon. Friend may know that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee continuously drive to ensure that more and more items of public expenditure—effectively, this is public expenditure—are brought under the purview of the NAO. As we seek to clarify matters and to put the Bill into statute, it is important that the NAO's powers should be clearly stated.
      I recognise that the Bill has cross-party support, but it is true to say that concerns have been raised during its passage about the value for money and accountability aspects of funding endowments. That is important territory for my Committee. It is what my Committee is all about: ensuring that we get value for money and accountability.
      It is true—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to this—that some distributors have already made grants to fund endowments. The Millennium Commission has made a grant of £100 million, which is quite a large grant, to the Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs, which operates under the trading name UnLtd.
      The governance arrangements for the Millennium Commission endowment are complicated. Let me try to explain them briefly. For example, the millennium award trust deed requires the appointment of an independent protector of the endowment, whose fiduciary duty is to ensure the integrity of the administration of the trust and the propriety of its procedures. If necessary, his duty is to report matters of serious concern to the Millennium Commission, the Charity Commission and, where appropriate, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
      10.15 am
      Under the terms of the Millennium Commission's grant to UnLtd, the CAG has access to all documents that are necessary for his audit of the Millennium Commission, or its successor body. While his rights of access concerning grants have recently been put on a statutory basis with the coming into force of the order made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, which we took a lot of interest in and helped to push through the House of Commons, it is necessary to clarify statutory access to lottery endowments to ensure that all forms of funding are covered. We are trying to ensure that there is absolutely no doubt about the rights of access of the CAG, who operates on behalf of Parliament.
      I have taken advice on the matter, and the Minister can deal with the point when he sums up the debate, but I understand that the Bill's omission of accountability arrangements is not deliberate. I am confident that distributors of lottery money will apply to applications for endowments considerations similar to those that they would apply to grants of expenditure. I also understand that the Government will produce guidance for distributors on the factors to take into account when considering applications for endowment funding. However, the amendment ensures—this is why I believe that it is necessary—that all types of lottery funding are subject to the same scrutiny arrangements. Essentially, the aim is that the CAG's rights of access in relation to lottery grants should be extended to cover endowments. The money is raised from lottery players in the same

      617
      way, and the public surely will have an equal interest in knowing that it is spent properly and well. The CAG's access will provide that assurance.
      Let me sum up my argument by putting it in terms of questions and answers. It may be asked in summing up the debate: does not the CAG already audit lottery grants? It is true that he has rights of access in relation to lottery grants, but the Bill will expressly allow funding for endowments and my amendment seeks to clarify that the CAG has similar rights of access in relation to grants that are extended to endowments, so it is a tidying-up process.
      Why is the amendment necessary? We are on Report. When better for the whole House to take a view on the matter? Hon. Members raised value for money and accountability issues on Second Reading. Obviously, we followed those debates. This is important territory for the Public Accounts Committee and we are keen to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by Report to ensure that the right provisions are in place, rather than discover problems later.
      Another question might be: does not the CAG already have these powers? The amendment simply mirrors the clarity that the Bill seeks to provide, so as to ensure that adequate access provisions match new forms of funding. Just as the Bill is in effect a clarifying Bill, so my amendment is a clarifying amendment. Lastly, do the NAO and Public Accounts Committee have anything against funding endowments? In principle, we have no objection to funding endowments. There are both advantages and disadvantages, and those have been aired in the debates we have already had. The purpose of the amendment is simply to give the same clarity to both the funding and review arrangements, so that we can be assured that those issues have been adequately addressed.
      I hope that that fairly sums up amendment No. 5. I hope that the promoter of the Bill and the Minister can accept it. If the Minister does not accept it, I hope that he will give a good reason why.
      Amendment No. 3 would amend clause 1 by adding the phrase
      "as long as the value of funds spent on such endowments does not exceed 5 per cent of the value of total funds given to the Distribution Fund."
      As I said, this is really a probing amendment. I accept that it is very difficult to establish a figure—should it be 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent.? We simply do not know, but the amendment provides an opportunity for a short discussion of the safeguards in the Bill and of how such matters will be administered.
      On Second Reading, certain Members raised concerns about "technical matters", even though everybody supported the Bill; indeed, I support it and I am confident that it will soon pass into law. Those Members seemed confident that such technical matters would be thrashed out in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said:
      "On this side of the House, we will need reassurance on the technical issues that the Bill raises. However, we are confident that those can be teased out in Committee."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 534.]
      618
      But as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, the Committee lasted only 22 minutes, and no amendments were made. So this is another opportunity to tease out these technical matters and to receive reassurance.
      I have tabled such an amendment because putting some form of cap on the amount of money used for endowments provides a safeguard against future developments. I do not know how that could be achieved; if it cannot be done through the Bill, perhaps some form of policy guideline could be laid down. We have tried to obtain firm figures but it is difficult to do so. If the Community Fund is any indication, the evidence suggests that the number of charities applying for endowments is indeed small. An estimated 20 to 30 of 100,000 applications to the Community Fund were for endowments. However, although the total number may be small, the figures can be very large indeed. The same is true of the exposure for the future.
      The promoter of the Bill needs to explain to the House how he will provide for a safeguard to be put in place against possible future developments. We must be careful that the law does not allow any such endowments to get out of hand and be unavailable for scrutiny. As we know, there are of course risks involved in giving out endowments. They require large sums of money in advance to provide reasonable revenue for applicants in the longer term, as the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, pointed out on Second Reading. Indeed, he was very fair about this issue. Hence a set amount of money is tied up or committed to a fund. If this got out of hand, less money could be available for other lottery grants in need of immediate funds. Setting some form of cap, or explaining how matters might develop in future, is a reasonable way, therefore, of providing a safeguard against that problem.
      Another problem associated with endowments is that they are vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on Second Reading. The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts was cited in a previous debate as a good example for possible national lottery endowment funds to follow, given the similarity between it and various charities. NESTA was praised not only for its method of funding, but because of the freedom given to NESTA trustees from central Government interference.
      However, NESTA, which was in receipt of an endowment of some £200 million, found that the income that it was expecting—and probably spending—had declined because of low interest rates. It appealed to the Government for more money to put into the endowment fund. Given what subsequently transpired, perhaps it was not such a good example to cite. The nature of the stock market and the free market makes it hard to predict how interest rates will perform, and potentially puts limits on long-term planning for charities. Although there is no doubt that the Bill should become law—it is essentially a tidying-up process—it is certainly worth putting on the record the risks associated with endowments. It is therefore perhaps advisable to limit the amount going into them.

      619
      There is another important point: endowment funding could increase the perception gap between buyers of lottery tickets and good causes. Lottery sales are falling. In February, Camelot announced that sales for the weekend lotto game were the lowest ever. Last November, it announced that sales had fallen by 5 per cent. during the previous six months. Lotteries across the world often show initial signs of great success that soon trails off, so to a certain extent such a decline is to be expected. But as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said on Second Reading, another explanation might be that people do not see a clear link between the purchasing of tickets and the good causes that the lottery is supposed to help.
      That is why we have some concern about endowments; they break that clear link. Creating too many endowment funds could increase this tendency, so it would be sensible to cap them in some form. Whether that should be done through the Bill or through some other administrative procedure, I do not know; perhaps the Bill's promoter could explain that point. The hon. Member for Twickenham said on Second Reading that the perceived lack of a link
      "is a psychological danger and it should be addressed, although it is not a fundamental argument against the proposals."—[Official Report, 28 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 535.]
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, the hon. Member for Twickenham raised an issue that, although not fundamental to the Bill, was important and should have been addressed. As we know, consideration in Committee was rather short, so today provides an opportunity to seek the reassurance that we need and desire.
      Several damning recent media reports have discussed how lottery money is given out. For example, in 2002 the national lottery gave £336,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, which is trying to prevent the deportation of asylum seekers after their applications have been processed by the Home Office. One can agree with that highly controversial decision, or not. I shall not comment on whether it was a good thing, but there was an immediate and massive outcry. That outcry was able to produce a change in policy, because there was no endowment and the matter was not tied up for a long time. If we have endowments, with no limit on how much can be put in, we will lose the immediate link between what is said in the press and how grants are distributed. Another notorious decision was that to give £295,000 to a Worcestershire charity for the breeding of guinea pigs in Peru.
      All such grants were given through conventional funding methods under current law. One advantage of non-endowment funding is that the lottery can respond to the public mood quickly. However many endowment policies there are, they will involve very large sums of money and it will not be possible to respond quickly. These policies are supposed to serve the public. For something that the public took issue with, it would be more embarrassing and awkward to terminate an endowment fund than to terminate short-term giving. Non-endowment funding is easier to withdraw, if the public express dissatisfaction with it.
      620
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk can address all those points, reassure the House that it will not be necessary to set a cap through the Bill, confirm that there will be a limited number of endowments, and confirm that the entire process will be handled with great care.
      Amendment No. 4 would insert the following provision:
      "Any endowment, or contribution to endowments, established by this bill is liable to be reclaimed by the Distribution Fund in the event that,

      (a) the recipient body of such funds ceases to exist, or

      (b) the function of the recipient body changes substantively."

      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked what would happen to endowed lottery funds if the recipient body ceased to exist. In my own constituency, a charity did indeed go under—it was an ordinary charity that had nothing to do with the national lottery. Charities, and endowment funds, do get into difficulties. We therefore need an exit policy. It would be best to provide legal clarification so that the lottery distribution fund can claim back the money disbursed.
      The point of the Bill as a whole relates to legal uncertainty. Current legislation does not define what meeting expenditure means in respect of the powers of the distributing bodies. It is therefore reasonable to clarify the law as the Bill proposes. In the same way, including a right of the distribution fund to reclaim its money if a charity ceases to exist would provide greater legal transparency and clarity. That would seem to make sense, and I see no reason why anyone should argue with that point of view.
      10.30 am
      Section 28 of the Charities Act 1993 allows relevant bodies to investigate dormant charitable accounts, which might be some sort of safeguard. However, in view of the long-term nature of endowment funds, it is reasonable to imagine that a charity's function might change over time. It is important to ensure that the money is being used for exactly the purpose for which it was intended. Recent revelations that lottery funding is going to unpopular causes should not be repeated. An appeals panel reinstated two Surrey schoolboys who had been expelled after threatening to kill their teacher. The lottery gave £200,000 to the organisation giving the expelled boys advocacy—the community education network. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport called it
      "another blow to the credibility of the lottery".
      In another example, £350,000 was given to the Runnymede Trust—the think—tank that described the word "British" as racist.
      Those are controversial examples and I am sure that we are not going to get involved in providing endowments for such things. However, if something goes wrong with an endowment—if it is either unpopular or badly managed—surely we need some device to ensure that the moneys can return to the distribution fund. That is what my amendment is about.

      621
      Those are my three amendments. The first would provide reassurance that the Comptroller and Auditor General could become involved; the second would provide an opportunity to debate at what level the moneys distributed should be capped; and the third would ensure that moneys could, if there were a problem, be returned to the distribution fund.
      Mr. Keith Simpson: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), from his formidable position as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has outlined his amendments with clarity. I recall during my time as special adviser at the Ministry of Defence that the only Select Committee that truly alarmed the policy-making civil servants was the PAC. That body, together with the National Audit Office, is quite rightly regarded as the guardian of public expenditure. Given that my hon. Friend generally supports the Bill, I hope that we can view his amendments as probing amendments, and that we can answer some of his questions.
      I begin with amendment No. 5. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it would enable the Comptroller and Auditor General—and therefore the National Audit Office—to examine the accounts of any person in receipt of lottery moneys
      "for the purposes of establishing or contributing to an endowment".
      I note that it does not impose any restrictions on the circumstances in which such an examination could take place; nor does it expressly provide for the CAG's power to report to Parliament in respect of any examination that he undertakes.
      Mr. Leigh: That is unnecessary, because the Comptroller and Auditor General always reports to Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee. There is therefore no need to build that into statute.
      Mr. Simpson: I accept my hon. Friend's intervention.
      It is worth mentioning that the CAG is already the external auditor of distributing bodies, with wide-ranging powers to examine their books, documents or papers and to
      "carry out such examinations into the economy, efficiency or effectiveness with which the body has used its resources in discharging its Lottery distribution functions as he"
      the Comptroller and Auditor General "sees fit".
      In addition, I understand that the financial directions for lottery distributors require them to include as a mandatory condition of any lottery grant—whether to an endowment or not—a requirement that the recipient of grant provides regular progress reports and any further financial or other information that the distributor may require. That is right and proper. I believe that those two conditions provide the CAG with adequate scope to obtain information about the control and management of funds from lottery grant recipients. I also understand that the Minister is prepared to reflect further on the issue in respect of future lottery legislation and there is a forthcoming White Paper on lottery distribution. We are all in favour of that.
      I hope that, when he has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough will be
      622
      convinced that the safeguards are adequate. I fully support my hon. Friend's intention and I certainly do not want to open up in respect of the Bill any area of doubt or vulnerability.
      Mr. Greenway: First, I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has rightly reminded us in timely fashion that we need carefully to examine issues of accountability and transparency in respect of the distribution of lottery funds and the value for money that they achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) says, that matter has far wider ramifications than the changes that his Bill will introduce. We believe—it is the view of the official Opposition—that the matter should be addressed in detail in the forthcoming White Paper on proposed changes to the lottery.
      It is now time, some 10 years after its introduction, to review the standing of the lottery. On considered reflection of the findings, we should then introduce and implement the necessary changes. The issues should be examined across the board for the lottery as a whole. We need to examine whether further powers of accountability are necessary and how to implement them. I have no doubt that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee will have important roles to play. However, I do not want to jeopardise the Bill today by introducing the changes in the amendments. As I said, the issues are more wide-ranging than the matters in the Bill.
      On amendment No. 3, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right to draw attention to the fact that lottery funds are in much shorter supply than when the lottery first started. Indeed, in the charities sector more than others, more applicants are disappointed at being unable to secure the money that they want. However, the Bill does not fetter the discretion or flexibility of the funding body. If it transpires that endowments are not the best way of distributing the bulk of lottery funds made available to the distributor, endowments do not have to be made.
      Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have not seen the draft guidance that the Minister intends to give to the distributing bodies? If we had that guidance before us today, it would give us a much clearer idea of the Government's intentions.
      Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Yes, he is right up to a point, but that does not mean that we should not approve the Bill. I am sure that the Minister and his officials will want to consult funding bodies, particularly the charities board, on that guidance. We are moving into a new area for the charities board, which has not previously been able to give money to endowments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough touched on another relevant issue: if people can see that their money is contributing to good causes, they are more likely to buy lottery tickets.
      Bob Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people buy lottery tickets because a few pence go to good causes? My understanding has always been that people buy lottery tickets in the hope of becoming millionaires
      Mr. Greenway: Undoubtedly some people play the lottery in the hope of becoming a millionaire, but others are more realistic and recognise that their chances are around 14 million to one. They care where the money goes, and I am sure one of the reasons why lottery ticket sales have been falling is that people can see that too many of the proceeds are going to causes that the Government should fund out of public expenditure. People want the money to go to good causes.
      I can see the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is making. If money is given to an endowment, how can one ensure that it ends up with a good cause? The answer lies in the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk has had to his Bill. In Norfolk, it is hugely popular and that is because of the good causes that the endowments promise to support—small, local charities that, on their own, do not have the capacity or the ability to apply for a lottery grant individually. The endowments will be able to support them, and that is very pertinent, especially for projects that require revenue rather than capital expenditure. While my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right to remind us that we do not want too much of the Community Fund's money to go into endowments, I hope that those endowments that are funded will—through the charities that they support—encourage ticket purchases and increase sales.
      My hon. Friend referred to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on Second Reading, when he asked what would happen if an endowment ceased to exist. From my experience of supporting lottery applications in my constituency, it is usual for the distributor to ensure, in the funding agreement, that any moneys that are not put to the purpose for which they were given are returned. Indeed, I have a problem in my constituency at the moment because the sports fund gave money to the Huntington stadium to build an athletics track that will have to be ripped up if it becomes the home of York City football club—of which I am the president—and if that happens, the money has to be repaid or a track has to be built somewhere else. The key is to ensure that the agreement deals with the problem that my hon. Friend raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out, that means that the guidance to the funding bodies has to be right to ensure that that point is covered.
      The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has tabled raise three issues pertinent to the general management of the lottery. I hope that he will accept that those issues are not for the Bill before us today, which should proceed, without the amendments. I assure my hon. Friends who have raised concerns today that if I am involved in the scrutiny process of the changes in the lottery that the Government bring forward—as I hope to be—I will consider carefully the points that they have raised and ensure that they are properly debated. We need to strengthen the management of the lottery, because that will give it greater credibility and encourage confidence in it. That is the best way to increase ticket sales and therefore the support for good causes.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has made some excellent points in support of his amendments, so I do not wish to
      624
      speak at length. However, I wish to press the Minister to give us some more information about the likely policy for the distributing bodies, in the light of what has been said. If we do not hear about that until after the Bill goes to the other place, or reaches the statute book, we will be in the dark. The debate on the amendments gives the Minister a clear opportunity to explain exactly what the Government's policy is.
      I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends will not have had a chance to digest the import of the regulatory impact assessment, but paragraph 2 states:
      "The Community Fund has been unable to fund endowments under current statute and so the biggest potential impact is on this body. Whilst firm figures are difficult to ascertain, anecdotal evidence suggests that, to date, only a tiny proportion of charities have applied to the Community Fund for endowment funding (an estimated 20–30 out around 100,000 applications), and there is little evidence that this level of demand would increase if the Fund was given this power."
      10.45 am
      The limit in the amendment on the amount that could be given to endowments may fit in well with the guidance that the Government intend to give, but it would be helpful to have some assurance of that. The regulatory impact assessment continues:
      "In addition, at a time when Lottery income is falling, it is unlikely that applications for endowment funding would be considered a high priority for funding, compared to applications for revenue funding, for the reason highlighted above."
      A slight touch of Big Brother there. How does the Minister know that the independent distributing bodies will take such a view? How does he know that they will take that view in relation to non-charitable endowments? That is a legitimate area for concern, because more and more money from the lottery goes to non-charitable causes under the Government's so-called New Opportunities Fund. It would be ironic if, at a time when the Government are telling schools that they will have to forgo their capital expenditure programmes for the sake of revenue funding, the Government were encouraging the New Opportunities Fund to give capital endowments to educational establishments. Those policies would appear to be incompatible.
      I share the views expressed by my hon. Friends that the lottery is declining in popularity partly because it is a rip-off and a form of regressive taxation—as I have said in the past—and because people can see that their money is going to causes that they would not think of funding if a tin was shaken in front of them, even if they had just won on the premium bonds. That is probably why more people are turning to premium bonds.
      Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the minimum stake for a premium bond?
      Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is about £100. The average weekly spend on the lottery each week is more than £2, so people could save that money for a year. I must say that I have never bought a lottery ticket and have no present intention of doing so.
      Mr. Leigh: I agree that premium bonds are a much better investment. Does my hon. Friend know that a statistician has worked out that unless a person buys

      625
      their lottery ticket in the last few seconds before the draw closes, they are more likely to die before the result is announced than they actually are to win? The chances of winning are infinitesimal.
      Mr. Chope: I agree; that is why, on the whole, few people with more intelligence—such as my hon. Friend, those who work alongside the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General's staff and people learned in mathematics and statistics—enter the lottery in the hope that they might win. Those who do take part may do so because they think the money is going to good causes. When they find that it is not, they may prefer to spend the money on local good causes.
      That is why our proposals to change the distribution system—another new fair deal that will be part of the Conservative manifesto at the next general election—will capture the public's imagination and will win support for our cause. That is the view in my constituency, which pays disproportionately into the lottery and gets very little benefit in terms of the funding of good causes.
      The figures show that money is increasingly being spent on the New Opportunities Fund—a substitute for Government expenditure—with less going to the Community Fund and to proper charitable causes. That is the main reason why the lottery is on the wane. However, I understand from the Government that there may yet be hope, as lottery tickets might be made available on the continent. We might be able to benefit from the regressive taxation of our continental neighbours going into the Government's coffers.
      Perhaps the Government have given up on using the New Opportunities Fund as a substitute for public expenditure and are going straight for the option presented by the new part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer and part-time Leader of the House, that of hiking up income tax.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to our serious concerns about the guidance to be given to the distributing bodies.
      Mr. Caborn: I am glad that the British public are more charitable than the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. I am sure that many people play the lottery because of its charitable nature. In addition, ours is probably the most successful lottery in the world. The Conservative Government brought the lottery legislation on to the statute book in 1993. The Conservatives ought to be proud of that, and not seek to undermine the lottery as the two hon. Members have tried to do this morning. The vast majority of British people think that the lottery is a good institution that encapsulates a British spirit, and I think the two Members are somewhat out of kilter with the general public.
      It is unfortunate that amendment No. 5 has come a little late in the day, like our regulatory impact assessment. However, the amendment is important and merits consideration.The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has outlined the existing powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General over lottery distributing bodies, as well as the relevant mandatory terms and conditions for all lottery grant recipients. I share his view; there are many controls in place to ensure that the finances are used in the right way.
      626
      Nevertheless, we should reflect upon the amendment and I assure him that we will discuss the proposals further with the NAO in relation to any legislation that might emerge from my Department's White Paper on Lottery distribution. We take the amendment seriously and while I would take some convincing that we needed further controls, I assure him that we will consult the NAO before we publish the White Paper.
      Amendment No. 3 refers to a limit of 5 per cent. There is a danger with imposing such limits; we have done a quick calculation and nowhere near 5 per cent. is made up of endowments. I fear that putting such a ceiling in place gives something for people to aim for.
      We will be issuing the guidance notes to distributors, and these will be available in draft in advance of Second Reading in the Lords. They will be in the public domain and will form part of the public debate, while reflecting our debates as well. Some important points have been made on Second Reading, in Committee and now.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has concerns about how setting an arbitrary ceiling on the proportion of grants to endowments would work in practice. However, I hope that with the existing responsibilities of the distributors' accounting officers and the guidance that I have mentioned, he will be satisfied on this matter and will withdraw the amendment. I hope that what we put in the guidance notes will satisfy him.
      Amendment No. 4 concerns the recovery of funds. The amendment refers to an endowment being reclaimed "by the Distribution Fund", but that would go against charity law—which will govern all the endowments—in that the money should go back to the purpose for which it was originally given. However, the distributing body funds all good causes; therefore it would work against a particular good case if the money went back to the fund. In Committee, I said that I believed that there were sufficient controls through charity law and the lottery statute to enable the recovery of funds to endowments should the charity cease to operate or change its functions subsequently.
      Grants for permanent endowments can be made only to a registered charity. Ultimate responsibility for the conduct of a charity rests with the Charity Commission—which is tough by any standards—and the Attorney-General. Existing legislation governing charities requires them to use funds only for charitable purposes. If they fail to do that, or if funds are misappropriated or mishandled, not only will the lottery distributor need to consider what action to take as a result of the breach of the terms and conditions of the grant, the actions of the charity may, depending on the circumstances, amount to a criminal offence. That would almost certainly involve the Charity Commission, where the matter affected a charity in England and Wales, or the Inland Revenue in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      Some draconian actions can be taken if people step out of line. If a charity ceased to exist, charity law would require that, after all debts and liabilities were settled, any remaining assets were applied to a similar charitable purpose to that of the organisation. That would be at variance to the amendment. The Charity Commission, the lottery distributor and, in certain circumstances, the Attorney-General, would be involved in this instance. I

      627
      believe that we have sufficient controls in place to ensure that money is used for the purposes for which it was given.
      11 am
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has summed up the debate, particularly on amendment No. 5, which would give a right of access and control to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He intimated that, if I may read between the lines, it was too early for him to put that on the statute book and that he would need more advice. He said that he was happy for his officials to discuss with the National Audit Office how to obtain some such provision in statute, if not in this Bill, then in a future one. That is very positive.
      On amendment No. 3, the Minister repeated my point that we cannot really put a figure for a capping limit in the Bill. He accepted that there was a legitimate debate about that, however, and he will issue guidance. I am very happy with that.
      On amendment No. 4, the Minister took care to deal with the wide-ranging existing safeguards that ensure that if there is a problem with an endowment fund, the money could, apparently, return to the distribution funds.
      The Minister's summing up was very satisfactory. We have teased out some important elements of how the moneys will be protected in this important debate, and there will be accountability to Parliament. In the spirit of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.1 am
      Mr. Keith Simpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      As a number of Members have said, the Bill received all-party support on Second Reading on 28 February and in Committee on 6 May. I thank, in particular, my parliamentary colleagues from Norfolk, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), who is present, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who represents Norwich, South. Their assistance has been positive and has undoubtedly helped the Bill's progress. I thank, too, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for pressing probing amendments constructively on Report. Both have given the Bill a fair wind, but they rightly teased out some points about the Bill itself and the national lottery in general.
      The Bill's purpose is to amend current lottery statute, as already amended by the National Lottery Act 1998. It is intended expressly to provide all distributors with the power to make grants to endowment funds, should they choose to do so. Current statute gives lottery
      628
      distributing bodies power to distribute lottery money for meeting expenditure of the types covered by sections 22 and 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. It does not, however, define what is meant by "for meeting expenditure" or contain any explicit reference to funding endowment funds. The Minister has confirmed that the wording was not the result of any deliberate intention to prevent distributors from giving grants to endowment funds.
      The Bill's content is straightforward. It amends those sections of the 1993 Act that refer to "for meeting expenditure" to make it clear that the terms include funding of endowments in each case. It also provides for the change to have retrospective effect. Some distributing bodies have made grants to endowments, and the Bill will ensure, as debated on Report, that those payments cannot be called into question.
      I shall speak briefly about the origins of the Bill. As a number of Members have said, it came directly from the fair county of Norfolk, and was born from the "We Care" 2000 appeal begun by our regional newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press. It is appropriate to be holding the Report stages and Third Reading of the Bill in the week after UK carers week. We all know the role that hundreds of thousands of carers undertake in our constituencies. Without their caring for their families and friends, there would be an enormous additional burden on our social services and the national health service. I pay tribute to the work of the 130,000 carers in Norfolk.
      The EDP's appeal had a target of £1 million, and it has reached £750,000., thanks to a £100,000 lottery grant. Efforts to secure that grant took about 18 months. The first bid was rejected because of an anomaly in wording, but the second was successful. That is great news, and the money will make a real impact. The money from the Community Fund will be used to help another 80 carers a year who support loved ones who are unable to look after themselves. It is a huge boost to the EDP appeal, which was set up nearly five years ago, with its ambitious target of raising £1 million, as a partnership between the newspaper and health professionals. One of the purposes behind the Bill is to enable the appeal to raise more money for carers. The money just received will be spread over two years. It becomes available at the end of July and will enable the purchase of domestic appliances, power packs for wheelchairs, swivel seats and computers to loan to carers in Norfolk. We are very grateful for that.
      I hope that the Bill will help many similar charitable bodies that want to establish a secure funding base for their work. The benefits of the Bill are that it will clarify the powers of all distributors, put the Community Fund on the same legal footing as other distributors in being able to fund endowments should it choose to do so, and, perhaps most importantly, benefit charities such as "We Care" that want to apply for lottery funding, enabling them to manage their resources more strategically and with more secure future funding.
      We have debated the benefits of endowment funds. There is no doubt that there is both an upside and a downside. The crucial point is that the Bill provides permissive, not mandatory, power for distributors. It will ultimately be up to distributors to determine how to treat applications for grants to endowment funds against other calls for lottery funding. As was rightly

      629
      said on Report, we must make certain that that is not abused. The Minister has assured us that his Department intends to assist distributors by issuing guidance on that, should the Bill be enacted. Draft guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly, in time for the Bill's introduction in the House of Lords.
      As the Bill provides a permissive power for lottery distributors, it will have no impact on central or local government expenditure or manpower. Nor will there be any regulatory cost to business or the voluntary sector. The measure is intended to assist charities and other good causes by helping them to manage their funding more effectively.
      Legislation relating to the national lottery is reserved to the UK Parliament, but I understand that the Bill has attracted the support of the devolved Administrations.
      Finally, it was remiss of me earlier not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his positive and enthusiastic support this morning from the Front Bench.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      11.8 am
      Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): I will speak for only a couple of minutes because I am aware that other Members have equally important Bills to discuss this morning. I want only to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and to offer congratulations, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who tried to promote the Bill two or three years ago. We all know the history of why it did not pass then. It is pleasing that the Bill has support on both sides of the House. The project has certainly united political parties in Norfolk.
      The probing amendments that were tabled today needed discussion, and I hope that the Bill will proceed with all speed so that charities such as the "We Care" appeal in Norfolk, which has already helped many hundreds of my constituents as well as many other people across Norfolk, can gain more money through endowments and achieve much more throughout the country.
      Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk and hope that the Bill proceeds with all haste.
      11.10 am
      Mr. Greenway: I want only to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on the progress of the Bill and to express the hope that it will be well received in the other place. I thank him for his kind remarks.
      I genuinely believe that the way that lottery funds are distributed and the good causes that they are seen to support are vital ingredients in managing a successful national lottery. My hon. Friend's Bill contributes to that process, especially in the county of Norfolk.
      May I ask the House to be kind enough to excuse me so that I can return to my constituency, where, this afternoon, I am visiting a project that has just received funding from—believe it or not—the national lottery and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts? I am going
      630
      to see the new sporty pavilion in all its glory and shall leave the Opposition Front Bench in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who, in fact, originally came from Norfolk.
      Once again, my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have a happy weekend.
      11.11 am
      Mr. Chope: I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) Godspeed and a safe journey to his destination. My constituents will look at his constituents with some envy and ask, "Why can't we get a decent share of the money that is being distributed from the lottery?"
      I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on having steered the Bill to Third Reading. Although I was slightly critical of him for not having asked more questions in Committee, I understand the reason and forgive him. I think that he wanted to curtail the Committee stage so that he could ensure that his Bill was heard first today. Strategist that he is, he has succeeded in doing that, although the tactics were not necessarily to all our liking. However, we have had a chance today to examine some of the issues that would have been considered in Committee and the Bill is none the worse for that.
      Mr. Forth: This is the second Friday running when it would appear that Standing Committees have not done a satisfactory job of examining Bills and that responsibility has fallen to the House on Report. Although that is perfectly acceptable in procedural terms, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that members of Standing Committees, especially those for private Members' Bills, bucked up their ideas and did a rather better job?
      Mr. Chope: I agree. One of the problems is that the members of such Standing Committees are often closely associated with the promoter of the Bill and their motivation is solidarity with the promoter rather than the desire to scrutinise the Bill. Indeed, often Members who might want to scrutinise the Bill are not invited to serve on the Standing Committee—although I am not sure whether that happened in this case. As long as we are able to consider matters properly on Report, however, we shall hold debates such as today's.
      I expressed concern about the use of lottery funds for non-charitable causes. Although I do not object to the Bill, and indeed I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk on getting it to this stage, in my view it would have been better if it did not contain the power for endowments to be made to non-charitable causes.
      Charities can be controlled. If they fall into desuetude and are no longer able to fulfil their charitable objects or the trustees resign, the Charity Commission can intervene to put matters right and any remaining funds can be properly distributed. The situation is not the same for some other bodies, which may be solely dependent on grant funding direct from the Government. In addition, they may also receive funding from the New Opportunities Fund. My hon. Friend the

      631
      Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is an Opposition spokesman on such issues, has expressed grave concern about the abuse of such funding.
      At a time when the national lottery is under pressure, fewer tickets are being sold and there is less income, it is ironic that a greater proportion of its profits are being steered towards substituting for Government funding rather than to hard-pressed charities. The best thing that the Government could do for the lottery would be to insist that it concentrate on helping charities; it should not prop up Government programmes as it has done in the past.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) gave some examples of the abuse of lottery funds, so I shall not repeat them, but I am sure that there will be further examples, not just in the Daily Mail but in other newspapers. Every time one of those cases arises, it reduces people's interest in buying lottery tickets.
      We are reaching the stage where, in desperation, the lottery body is encouraging sales of instant tickets, such as scratchcards, especially to young people, where they can see immediately whether they have won. That is in breach of all the principles that underpin gambling controls. Furthermore, it is well established that the narrower the time gap between gambling one's money and getting the result, the more likely it is to lead to compulsive gambling. Buying a lottery ticket in advance or buying a premium bond gives people longer anticipation of winning and more excitement, but if one buys a scratchcard at the tobacconist, one can see whether one has won within seconds and the temptation is then to buy another ticket. Addictive gamblers will go on and on buying, trying to cover their losses. The lottery raises an increasing proportion of its income from that type of sale rather than the traditional sales that were envisaged by John Major.
      Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole concept of instant gratification is very much a new Labour one? It is very much in line with the Government's whole philosophy, whereas long-term solid investment is a Conservative concept.
      Mr. Chope: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. He puts the point succinctly, powerfully and persuasively. It is a good way to distinguish the approach of the Opposition from that of the Government. Instant gratification and compulsive gambling go together—they are the hallmarks of new Labour. The Conservatives take a longer view, which is why we are such supporters of charities. That is why we want to encourage the distribution of lottery funds to local charities, to get more local involvement. That is why the idea in Norfolk, of a local charitable endowment fund, is so excellent, although it would be easier to raise money for that charitable endowment if people who bought lottery tickets in Norfolk knew that their money would go directly to good causes in their county rather than being diluted among good and not-so-good causes in other parts of the country.
      632
      I have reservations about the fact that the endowment powers will extend beyond charities, but I am pleased about their extension to charities. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk on what he has achieved.
      11.19 am
      Mr. Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on piloting the Bill through the House so effectively. However, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) used what I consider to be an extremely good Bill as a platform from which to launch an anti-lottery tirade. Some of the drivel that he brought out about addiction, gambling, and the uses to which the lottery is put was totally unfounded. He should reflect on the speech that he has just made and see what damage he has done to the lottery, which I believe has been accepted across all parties in the House and across the country as a good institution. The vast majority of its expenditure enhances the quality of life of communities throughout this country, and to that extent the lottery—which, after all, was brought into being by a Conservative Government—is to be commended and deserves all-party support. The theme of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and of others like it, is not well founded and does tremendous damage to the good causes that the lottery supports.
      Mr. Chope: Does the Minister dispute the fact that a higher proportion of lottery income is now coming from scratchcards; that scratchcards are sold principally to young people; and that scratchcard sales have been condemned by experts, who are of the opinion that the purchase of such cards is more likely to lead to compulsive gambling than the traditional lottery ticket?
      Mr. Caborn: This morning's debate is not a discussion on the lottery. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate about the lottery, let me point out that any lottery, wherever it is in the world, eventually has to branch out from the lotto. Our national lottery derives about 80 per cent. of its income from lotto—the highest percentage of any lottery in the world. Sales for the lotto part of any lottery—such as the lotto that was launched here by the 1993 legislation—initially rise, then plateau out and start to decline. It is necessary to refresh lotteries continually, by changing the portfolio of games, and that may include the introduction of scratchcards. The hon. Gentleman spoke disparagingly about selling tickets for our lottery throughout Europe. That is another means of refreshing a lottery. As he knows, we are looking at the question of funding part of our Olympic bid through the lottery, and we intend to seek the House's permission to support the Olympic bid in that way.
      The structure of lotteries must change. If they do not change, they die. Ticket sales in this country have been declining. Unfortunately, the trend has been accelerated by speeches of the type that the hon. Gentleman made this morning. Lotteries must change or die. He may sit there smirking, but a lot of people who are enjoying a better quality of life now because of the lottery would not subscribe to his comments this morning.

      633
      The Government endorse the principles behind the Bill and welcome the cross-party support that has been evident during its passage to date. I can confirm that I do not believe it was the deliberate intention, when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was originally drafted, to prevent distributors from awarding grants to establish or augment endowment funds. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, which the Bill is intended to rectify.
      The Bill is modest and—it says in my notes—uncontroversial. It has been slightly more controversial than we expected first thing this morning, but it is overall an uncontroversial Bill, as befits a private Member's Bill, and I believe its provisions will be helpful not only in clarifying the legal position of all distributing bodies to fund endowments, but in assisting charitable bodies to manage their funds more effectively. I emphasise again to the hon. Members who have been probing this morning that endowments can be dispensed to charitable organisations only.
      The lottery brings enormous benefits to charitable and community groups throughout the country and overseas. The Bill will enhance the impact of the lottery on the voluntary sector in this country.
      It is entirely appropriate that the debate takes place in the week after UK carers week. The Community Fund has played a key role in supporting the work of carers and carers week, contrary to some extent to what has been said this morning. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Christchurch will listen. They have been criticising the lottery, but I hope they will have the courtesy to listen—but obviously not.
      Last week, the Community Fund announced that since 1995, it has given nearly 3,000—[Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentlemen very much for their attention. I am trying to put the record straight on the work of the Community Fund. Since 1995, it has given nearly 3,000 grants, worth more than £200 million, to enable carers to provide sustained health and social care to more than 16 million disabled, frail, long-term ill and socially isolated children and adults. Those impressive figures demonstrate the central role played by the lottery in transforming communities throughout the United Kingdom, countering some of the myths that have been created and perpetrated today and all too frequently in some of the newspapers, which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to, and other negative media attention.
      634
      The Bill also fits in well with a key theme emerging from my Department's review of lottery distribution: that distributors should strive to be more responsive to the needs and priorities of local communities and others. Giving distributors express powers to fund endowments will give them more flexibility in responding to the needs of applicants and will help give charitable organisations more flexibility to manage their resources. I hope we shall be in a position to publish a White Paper outlining our proposals for the future of lottery distribution next month. I urge all hon. Members present, together with charities and the voluntary sector, to play a full part in the consultation on our proposals, because it is our intention to ensure that the lottery is responding to the needs of their communities, and that more ownership is taken of the decisions made.
      To conclude, I welcome the Bill as a useful piece of legislation and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk for piloting it through the House. It will clarify the powers of all distributors to fund endowments, should they choose to do so, and put charities on an equal footing with other grant applicants in accessing lottery funding for endowments. I am therefore happy to offer the Government's support for the Bill.
      11.28 am
      Mr. Keith Simpson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I shall be very brief. I thank the Minister for his very positive approach, and that of his Department and his officials, throughout every stage of the Bill's passage so far. I am very grateful. I know that it is in the interests of his Department, but it is also of wider interest. This private Member's Bill, with all-party support, helps to change an anomaly in the 1993 Act. It will be of benefit to tens of thousands of people throughout the country. It will have no impact on public expenditure.
      I think that, to address the line of argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Bill may not provide instant gratification, but as a former Whip, I believe in anticipatory gratification, because that is the way to persuade people to do something or not to do something. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and hope that it has a trouble-free passage in the other place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

High Hedges (No.2) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
High Hedges (No.2) Bill
  New Clause 3

    ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS BY RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
    (1)The provisions of sections 1 to 23 only apply to the area of a relevant authority if the authority has so resolved.
    If a relevant authority resolves to apply those sections to their area—

    (a) those sections are to have effect there on and after a date specified in the resolution ("the commencement date"), which must be at least three months after the passing of the resolution, and

    the relevant authority must cause a notice to be published, in two consecutive weeks ending at least two months before the commencement date, in a local newspaper circulating in their area.

    A notice published under subsection (2)(b) must—

    (a) state that the resolution has been passed,

    (b) give the commencement date, and

    (c) set out the general effect of those sections.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.29 am
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No 88, in clause 15, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
    No. 89, in line 9, leave out 'under section 18 or 20'.
    No. 45, in page 14, line 25, leave out clause 20.
    Mr. Chope: So that hon. Members can follow the argument, I should explain that "relevant authority" is defined in clause 1 as the local authority in whose area the land on which the high hedge stands is situated. The new clause would give discretion to local authorities to consider whether they wished to opt in to the regulatory regime set out in detail in the Bill. It is modelled on an important precedent in sections 2 to 9 of the Noise Act 1996, which deal with a nuisance issue.
    Lawrie Quinn: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is it not the case that the problems to which noise regulations apply occur principally in urban areas? An advert in a newspaper in an urban area with a particular circulation might not work as well in rural areas such as mine, where high hedges often give rise to problems with near neighbours, sometimes with violent consequences. Such problems form a large part of my work load, and the idea of publishing in a newspaper might not apply so clearly to a rural area.
    Mr. Chope: I do not agree. The provision in the 1996 Act applies to all areas. Complaints about noise are much more frequent than complaints about high hedges. Local authorities and their residents are much more concerned about noise. I do not know whether that is reflected in the hon. Gentleman's postbag, but my postbag contains many letters on noise. Much of last Friday's debate on fireworks centred around noise and
    636
    the antisocial behaviour of people who use fireworks in a way not intended by the manufacturer. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that the noise issue affects all local authority areas, as does the nuisance caused by high hedges. What could be more reasonable than having an active local debate, generated through the columns of local newspapers, involving councillors and council tax payers, on whether a local authority should opt into the Bill's provisions?
    Bob Russell: What is the hon. Gentleman's view if the offending landowner is the local authority? A local authority might not want to opt in to the provisions if action could be taken against it.
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We will have the opportunity to discuss local authorities as judges in their own cause. Without anticipating that amendment, however, I can say that the import of it is to ensure that if a person complains about a hedge situated on land over which the local authority has control, he or she would be able to ask the Local Government Association to request an alternative local authority to adjudicate on the matter so that we would not have the problem of local authorities being judges in their own cause.
    It would be reasonable for a local authority, when considering whether to apply the principles and regulatory regime of the Bill to its own circumstances, to take into account its own resources. Christchurch local authority is unable to afford to maintain the trees in its ownership as it would wish. It says that it can no longer afford to carry out the trimming work that is necessary. Last year, it could not even afford to water the plants that local residents had planted as part of the "Britain in Bloom" competition. If local authorities are under such extreme financial pressure, surely they should be given the responsibility, and the accountability that goes with it, to decide whether to opt in to an expensive regulatory regime. I can sum up my enthusiasm for the new clause as being in line with all those aficionados of the new localism, a cause with which I naturally empathise. It is only the most centralising dirigiste enthusiasts who would wish to oppose it.
    The new clause is born out of my concern about the new financial burdens that keep being placed on local authorities. My local authority recently said that it will inevitably have to increase council tax again next year because of additional burdens placed on it by the Government. If, instead of forcing local authorities to accept those burdens, we and the Government gave local authorities the discretion over whether to take on such burdens, it would make things much easier for the Government, who could say, "Well, your local authority has decided to take on these burdens and the costs will have to be borne locally." It would also be much easier for local people because they would be able to say, "Well, why can't we just get our local authority to carry out its existing responsibilities with proper regard for what is prudent and sensible?"
    Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the concerns of local authorities. What discussion has he had with the LGA and his local authority?
    Mr. Chope: I have had discussions with the LGA in the past about the issue of burdens. As a vice-president of the LGA, which I am proud to be, I am also very much aware of the concerns that it has expressed about, I think, this Bill—but if not this Bill, certainly about others—and the additional burdens that are imposed. The Government have accepted that as a result of the burdens principle, they should reimburse local authorities for the additional costs incurred because of new regulatory burdens that are placed on them. The problem, as I said on Second Reading and, I think, in the debate on the money resolution, is that the money that the Government say they will make available to discharge local authorities' financial burden is not distributed to authorities on a pro rata basis proportionate to their actual costs.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there are other financial burdens for local authorities that should be scrapped? For instance, should local authorities cease to adjudicate over tree preservation orders? Surely those are an expense, but that is an important duty. There is certainly a parallel between a local authority adjudicating over a tree preservation order and adjudicating on whether a hedge is, or is not, a nuisance.
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. An amendment has been tabled on tree preservation orders, which we will have a chance to discuss later. The Bill as currently drafted—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is on top of the detail—would give a local authority the power to intervene. If there was a complaint, and that complaint was decided in favour of the complainant, it would have the effect of totally overruling and superseding any tree preservation order that was already in existence.
    That concern has been expressed to me, because, as the hon. Gentleman says, local authorities are given responsibilities and powers in relation to tree preservation orders. The local authority, of course, is accountable to local people, and it initially decides which trees or groups of trees will be subject to tree preservation orders. As I understand it, the local authority has absolute discretion to change, draw up or otherwise alter a tree preservation order. In introducing the new clause, I am not suggesting that the powers and responsibilities that local authorities have in relation to tree preservation orders should in any way be circumscribed. Indeed, the new clause would enhance both the responsibility and the discretion of local authorities.
    Without the new clause, the financial and administrative burden of the legislation will fall on all local authorities disproportionately. Some of those with the greatest burdens will receive no help at all. The Government said in the regulatory impact assessment or the guidance that any shortfall would be made up out of general grant. The question arising from that, however, is whether that grant will be new money, which is most unlikely. Even if that were the case, will that money be such as to enable a local authority such as East Dorset district council, which does not receive formula funding grant, to be reimbursed for the costs imposed by the Bill? I have raised that issue on several occasions, and the Minister seems to answer that it will not. The people of East Dorset will therefore find themselves funding 100 per cent. of the burden themselves.
    638
    How will such money made available by the Government reach a council that is protected by a floor against loss of grant, which would otherwise operate? The answer is that it would not. There are many councils in Dorset that currently receive more grant than they strictly should, and are protected by what is described as a floor against further loss of grant. If there is some notional increase in grant distributed to them as a result of the Government saying, "We will meet the additional costs of local authorities," it will go into the pot but it will not result in a local authority that is already on the floor receiving any more money. I use this argument on the basis that it is prudent in this world that, if once bitten, to be twice shy.
    That issue has arisen in the context of concessionary fares. The new burden under which every local authority shall provide free bus passes for half-price off-peak travel for the over-60s had a disproportionate impact in my constituency. Local authority areas in which the bus journeys are longer and therefore more expensive got no special treatment, local authorities with above average numbers of pensioners got no special treatment, local authorities not in receipt of revenue support grant got no special treatment, and local authorities losing grant under the Government's redistribution from south to north again got no special treatment.
    Lawrie Quinn: I was beginning to fear that the hon. Gentleman had strayed on to the bus when we should really be sitting on the hedge. Has he studied clause 13(3) and (4), which explain that an authority's expenses would be recoverable? Is he saying that he feels that local authorities would not be able to recover such expenses, as envisaged in the Bill?
    Mr. Chope: I am saying that because of what is in the regulatory impact assessment and the draft guidance produced by the Minister. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the draft guidance, but what that and the regulatory impact assessment make clear is that any shortfall will be funded out of general revenue support grant. As he knows, as he is probably more expert on this subject than anyone in the Chamber, revenue support grant is distributed according to a formula, so for a council such as East Dorset, which does not receive anything, being told that it will be reimbursed through a grant formula rather than through a specific grant is no consolation.
    I have tried to find a means of putting forward an amendment that would give the Government the power and the duty to reimburse the local authority for the actual costs incurred. Last week I tried to table such an amendment to the Fireworks Bill, but it was not found to be in order. It therefore occurred to me that one way of meeting the same problem would be to give local authorities the responsibility and power to opt out of the Bill if they wanted to do so. Under the Bill, as has been accepted in almost every contribution to the debates, some local authorities will receive many more complaints than others, either because they have more hedges or because they have more antisocial and antagonistic residents. Those authorities will not be able to recover all the fee income to meet their costs. In addition, they will have the burden of appeals.
    Residents of certain authorities are wrongly deemed to be able to pay because of the value of their houses. An enormous amount of anxiety exists among people, far

    639
    greater than that about hedges, about how they will be able to pay their increased council tax bills this year. Only today, as some Members may have had a chance to see this morning, one of our great national newspapers, the Daily Express, in a leading article, headed, "Put a cap on unfair tax", states:
    "Council tax, which has risen by more than 20 per cent. in some local authorities, has been dubbed Britain's unfairest tax after it was revealed that it is hitting the poor and middle classes much harder than the rich."
    There is also an article on page 6 of the same newspaper headed, "Unfairest tax: War on the Middle Classes". My new clause is intended to mitigate the impact of further additions to that unfair tax flowing directly from the regulation in the Bill.
    11.45 am
    Bob Russell: Did the hon. Gentleman attempt to table this amendment in Committee? In fact, was he a member of the Committee?
    Mr. Chope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amendment was not debated in Committee, and I do not think that the Committee went on for much more than half an hour. I was appointed a member of the Committee, and when the date for the Committee had been set, I wrote to the promoter of the Bill to say that because of a long-standing speaking engagement, which was fixed last autumn, I was not able to attend on that day. I do not think that he referred to that at the time of the Committee sitting, but I am sure that he accepts that that was the reason why I could not be present.
    When I returned from that speaking engagement, I must admit that I was amazed to find that the Committee proceedings were all over. I had expected the Committee to meet on a second occasion to consider the Bill in the detail that had been anticipated when the matter was discussed on Second Reading. That did not, however, materialise.
    This issue goes to the heart of the matter, and it is also relevant in the context of a letter that I received from one of my constituents, part of which I shall share with the House. My constituent is a pensioner and she says:
    "We are too old to be able to cut the hedge back and we do not have the money, thanks to your increase in Council Tax, to pay someone to do it for us. So have a thought for your elderly constituents. I would have thought your best bet would be to bring in a law forbidding long builders lorries and rubbish to be parked in front gardens, lowering the tone in what was was once a very nice area to live in but is no more."
    She then goes on to discuss the Bill. She is concerned that she does not have enough money to have her hedge cut, because of the high council tax. The Bill's consequences, without the inclusion of the new clause, would be that her council tax would go up even more, ironically resulting in people being less able to pay for the pruning of their high hedges than they are at present. I am sure that is not what the Bill's promoter intends.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's constituents' position, but does that justify those people casting into darkness and depriving of light people whose whole lives have been ruined and blighted by such hedges?
    Mr. Chope: The two issues are not incompatible. My hon. Friend has followed the burden of my argument,
    640
    which is that—as with the noise legislation—a local authority could decide, in response to pressure from my hon. Friend as a constituency Member or from other people, to incorporate within its standing orders the provisions of the regulatory regime to be set up under the Bill. That would then be the policy of the council. Alternatively, it could choose not to do that because of the costs that would be involved and the fact that it would have to increase the council tax. That might be counter-productive, as in the example that I have described.
    We know that this is not just an academic issue. I am sorry, but I do not recall whether my hon. Friend was involved in the proceedings on the Noise Act 1996 but, when it was considered in the House, the issue was how many local authorities would take up the option that it presented. In the end, not many did, because they realised that it would be quite expensive. If my hon. Friend believes, like me and our party, in localism and local responsibility, he will surely accept that we should be big enough in the House to give each local authority responsibility for deciding whether it wants to opt in in relation to this issue.
    The draft guidance to local authorities has been mentioned, and it was issued last week. It is made up of 220 paragraphs. Paragraph 2 states:
    "The Act does not specify which department within the council should carry out this function … such as planning or environmental health … It is for each council to decide which part of their organisation should be responsible for administering high hedge complaints."
    Why not let councils decide whether they wish to take this burden on? As I have already said, the issue was flagged up in earlier debates on the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) also raised it at column 88 on 7 April when he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on the money resolution.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: I confess that I am puzzled. The hon. Gentleman has explained why he was unable to attend the Standing Committee, and I understand that. However, I do not understand why the Committee did not have the benefit of these 100 or so amendments. If this is such an important issue, will he explain why these points were not made in Committee?
    Mr. Chope: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Lady's argument. I flagged up these issues on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and several other hon. Members, including one from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We referred to the Bill's rough edges. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose constituency covers part of the Guildford local authority area, covered these points on Second Reading. The Bill's promoter assured us that these issues would be addressed in Committee. They were not: the Committee sat at 2.30 pm on 7 May and by 3.9 pm had finished considering all the clauses without anything being said about funding. These issues were not discussed because no one on the Committee chose to discuss them. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that I should have broken a speaking engagement to which I had agreed in the autumn of last year, so that I could attend

    641
    the first of what I expected to be several Committee sittings at a time and place about which I had not been consulted, I think she is being rather unreasonable.
    Mrs. Calton: I think I made it quite clear that I was not questioning the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave for not being able to attend the Committee. I merely said that 100 or so amendments have been tabled and that I do not understand why none of them were tabled before the Committee stage—if not by the hon. Gentleman then by members of his party.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such speculation is wholly outwith the scope of new clause 3. I urge the hon. Gentleman to stay within the bounds of the new clause.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, may I just put on the record that 34 of the amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) who is a sponsor of the Bill? He has accepted that he is sponsoring a Bill that is imperfect in 34 respects by the time that it reaches Report. Why did he not do something about that in Committee or at an earlier stage when he must have been involved in the drafting? That is a rhetorical question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the hon. Lady will intervene on the hon. Gentleman when he, no doubt, joins this important debate.
    In the debate on the money resolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said:
    "What is certain is that there will be a cost to local authorities. As the Licensing Bill shows us, if local authorities are to be given new duties and responsibilities, they must have funding to ensure that they can discharge them properly. Will the Minister tell the House how the net costs to local authorities will be met, so as to ensure that the money actually reaches the authorities that are doing the work and dealing with the disputes?"
    He then referred to what I had said on Second Reading. He was very much on to the point. In the same debate, he added:
    "The critical issues are whether the Government will provide adequate funding to local authorities and how the Government are going to distribute that funding between local authorities—in other words, whether the permissive power that the Bill's money clauses give the Secretary of State to expend moneys, where it creates additional burdens, will be translated into the real distribution of hard, as opposed to notional, cash sums to the local authorities."
    He went on to say:
    "A number of issues remain unresolved. We look forward to debating and, I hope, resolving many of them in Committee."—[Official Report, 7 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 90.]
    Unfortunately, that did not happen.
    12 noon
    The concerns were not confined to those being expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Concerns were also flagged up by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), the previous Minister responsible for this subject, who said:
    "I am also worried that not enough regard is being paid to the amount of money that will have to be made available for local authorities to make a case for funds when they have many cases with which to deal. I represent an urban authority that does not
    642
    have many cases, and they can be dealt with under the procedure. However, the cost to a local authority in a rural community could be enormous. I hope that my hon. Friend"—
    he was referring to the promoter of the Bill—
    "will consider including in one of the new standard spending assessments the ability for local authorities that have a definite case to bid for funds. Money has been tweaked in the SSA to help local authorities to bid for extra money to deal with the problem of large areas of floodplains that have been built on so that they can do the work before disaster occurs."—[Official Report,7 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 91.]
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I support the overall aims of the Bill, and the terror that this problem can bring to people's lives has been explained in the previous debate. My hon. Friend is making a point that is causing me concern, however. As a former local government Minister, he will have had many representations about the support that local authorities are given. This year, Derbyshire Dales district council was given only an extra £32,000, when every other council in Derbyshire was given more than £500,000 in extra rate support grant. I am very concerned about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House on this matter.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a point with which almost every hon. Member is familiar. He has made it repeatedly, yet the Government have never come back with a satisfactory response as to why they are discriminating against that council in this way. Like my hon. Friend, I support some of the principles of the Bill. That is why I supported it on Second Reading. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) knows, I expressed reservations at that time, but I took at face value his expression of a desire to improve the Bill and his willingness to listen to representations and to act upon them. I had hoped that when the Bill came back on Report, it would have been a better Bill. In particular, I had hoped that the issue of how the additional costs were to be funded by hard-pressed local authorities would have been dealt with satisfactorily by the Minister. I know that we now have a new Minister responsible for these issues, and I hope that she will be able to get her substantial intellect around the problem and deliver a solution for us.
    During the debate on the money resolution, I put forward what I described as a constructive suggestion, saying:
    "I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to those concerns so that the mood on the Standing Committee will be positive. He said that he does not necessarily believe in consensus, but if the Bill is to have the support of local authorities, the Government have to spell out clearly the basis on which the reimbursement of costs will be made."
    The Minister then said:
    "Many of the issues that hon. Members have raised are worthy of further exploration in Committee. Based on the evidence, we believe that the statements in the regulatory impact assessment on costs to local authorities and appeal authorities, and the assumptions in the assessment on the cost of subsequent appeals, are correct."
    He went on:
    "Any shortfall in our calculations will be covered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under the new burdens principle and through a system that has yet to be determined but which will embrace both elements of the financial regime for local authorities.

    643
    I take the point about the difference in the impact on rural and urban authorities, or on urban and suburban authorities. That difference will have to be reflected in any assumptions that are made in the financial regime."—[Official Report, 7 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 93–95.]
    On the basis of that statement by the Minister, I had hoped—and, indeed, expected—that the Bill would by now have been amended to reflect those concerns. As we know, however, that did not happen in Committee.
    So we are left with the fall-back position in paragraph 25 of the full regulatory impact assessment, which states:
    "Local authorities will be able to charge complainants a fee for determining these complaints, the level of which will be set in regulations. If this does not reflect the full economic cost to authorities of administering the system, resources will be transferred into the revenue support grant settlement to cover the shortfall."
    As I have already made clear, that is not good enough. That is a good reason why local authorities should be given the power to opt out if they so wish.
    Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 cover the parliamentary scrutiny regime that should apply to regulations prescribing local authority fees and other regulatory powers under the Bill. Amendment No. 88 would leave out clause 15(2) and amendment No. 89 would amend line 9 of that clause, removing the words
    "under section 18 or 20".
    Effectively, that would require that the regulations be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I think and hope that the House accepts the fact that there is a strong case for that, particularly in the light of the concerns expressed by me and others on the funding of the Bill.
    The regulations would extend not only to the powers under clause 4 but to the appeals procedure. Clause 8(2) sets out an extensive range of regulations that may be made by the appeal authority, which is either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
    Those two amendments are nothing like as important as amendment No. 45, which would leave out clause 20. I regard it as highly significant, and I hope that the promoter accepts it, as that would allay many concerns. What would clause 20 do? Paragraph 34 of the explanatory notes says:
    "Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales power to extend the scope of complaints covered by the Bill (under clause 1) and to alter the definition of "high hedge' (in clause 2) through regulations. This is necessary in case experience shows that the Bill does not cover particular problems with high hedges."
    I ask the House to note the emphasis on extending the Bill's ambit by regulations that cannot be amended. That, effectively, is what we are being asked to sign up to under clause 20.
    The definition of "high hedge" could be changed by clause 20 to cover deciduous as well as evergreen trees and single trees of any type. It could also extend the scope of complaints under clause 1 in respect of the range of those who can complain and the matters about which they can make a complaint. Is it any wonder that the clause has set the alarm bells ringing?
    644
    My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, speaking from the Front Bench in the money resolution debate, said that clause 20
    "could have a significant impact on the cost of the Bill".
    He added:
    "I am alarmed that the kernel of the Bill—the definition of a high hedge—could be changed subsequently by secondary legislation."
    I share his concerns, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who sits on our Front Bench, shares them as well.
    In response to those concerns, the Minister said:
    "I will not be tempted down the route of a debate on clause 20 on definition and scope. Those issues can and should be investigated further in Committee."—[Official Report, 7 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 87–95.]
    Having regard to the history of the matter, it will not surprise you to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they were not. All that happened is that in the 39-minute Committee proceedings, the hon. Member for Ealing, North admitted that clause 20
    "would allow us, for instance, to include deciduous or individual trees at a later date."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 May 2003; c. 5.]
    The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made clear his impatience, as he wants the Bill to extend to single trees.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but may I make an addendum to that remark? Any such amendment would have to be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It could not just happen at the flick of a switch or the snap of a finger.
    Mr. Chope: I accept that point, but is it good enough that legislation can be introduced to define a hedge as any single tree, or any deciduous plant or tree, through a resolution that may be passed after a 90-minute debate in the House and which cannot be amended? That is totally unacceptable. Such a change would transform the Bill's aspect and the mischief that it is designed to address. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Ealing, North is insisting on keeping clause 20 in the Bill. I had hoped that he would respond to the concerns expressed about that wide-ranging definition.
    I do not need to go into further detail about every type of tree that could be the subject of a change to the definition. Every morning, as we come into the car park in New Palace Yard, we see an excellent pleached lime hedge, which is more than 6 ft high. Under the powers in clause 20, an order could be made requiring that hedge to be chopped down to 6 ft.
    Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would first have to be a complainant? A neighbour would have to complain about the hedge or a single tree. If such an order were approved by the local authority, an aggrieved person would have an appeal mechanism. The position is not quite as clear cut as he suggests.
    Mr. Chope: I agree that that procedure would be available. Inherent in what the hon. Gentleman says is that every person who has a single tree in his garden in an urban, semi-urban or even rural environment could be subject to an order if his neighbour changed and disliked that tree because it was blocking his view, causing loss of light or was overhanging his own garden. Some people prefer a desert landscape or a concrete jungle: this is a subjective matter. The hassle involved for the landowner or occupier and for the local authority in fielding and responding to complaints and dealing with the appeals that flow from them is a prodigious burden.
    Mr. Frank Field: Had we planted a hedge at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, we would probably not now be able to see him from this side of the Chamber. There is a third Bill on the Order Paper today that concerns his constituents and those of other hon. Members. It is the Pensions (Winding-up) Bill, and we want to know where the Government stand on it. Will he bear that in mind in contributing to the debate on this Bill?
    Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. Like me, he will know that this Bill could have been put first on the Order Paper for 4 July. Given its complexity and contentiousness, why did the promoter not put it on the Order Paper for 4 July? The right hon. Gentleman may share my suspicions and scepticism, but I suspect that the hon. Member for Ealing, North was told to put it on second today, because it was thought that that would preclude or minimise the House's opportunity to discuss the important issues that are raised in the Pensions (Winding-up) Bill, which is promoted by the right hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that, as a matter of procedure, if a Bill has been through Committee its promoter has the right to insert it in front of one that is already on the Order Paper.
    Intially, I could not understand why the promoter of this Bill would choose to put it second for Report stage rather than first, as he could have done on 4 July. It then occurred to me that there was some monkey business, which is now becoming apparent. We were given warning of that by the large number of amendments tabled by a sponsor of this Bill, the hon. Member for Hendon.
    I do not know whether we will reach the Pensions (Winding-up) Bill. I hope that the substantive issues it contains will he debated. I regret the fact that the previous Bill on pensions was—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should try to keep the monkeys out of this and return to the new clause.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point has been made, and it is a very important one too.
    12.15 pm
    In conclusion, if clause 20 is not removed, the Bill could have a more dramatic impact on the English landscape than the combined effects of the great storm,
    646
    Dutch elm disease and the Luftwaffe's bombing. No tree, bush or shrub—whether single or in a group, or in a city, town, suburb or the countryside—will be safe from being cut down to size—2 m—on the complaint of any individual attracted to a desert or concrete landscape. It would be a veritable end to Britain's green and pleasant land, produced by regulations that could not be amended. That is why I hope that the promoter will accept the new clause.
    Mr. Pound: I deeply regret the coda to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). As one who has been proud to serve in Her Majesty's armed forces, I think that any association, by any hon. Member, with the depredations of a foreign power is unacceptable, and I am sure that, on reflection, he will think and realise that his comments were slightly hyperbolic and to be regretted. However, I wish to put that aside and to refer specifically to this small group of amendments.
    I have been assured by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, just as the nation wants this legislation, just as the 10,000 victims want this legislation, just as the 4,000 members of Hedgeline want this legislation and just as the 1,000 people who have written to me—I have the letters here—want this legislation, the House supports it. I have to say, to use an expression of which the shadow Leader of the House would recognise the provenance, it seems as though some people are supporting the Bill as the rope supports the hanging man.
    I prefer to be charitable and to view the new clause and amendments as an honest and conscientious attempt to make a better Bill. This is fifth occasion that the Bill has come before the House, so this is probably the most scrutinised legislation in parliamentary history. I could speak for long, but out of respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I will try to be as brief and concise as possible, even though it goes against my every instinct.
    New clause 3 is an opt-out clause, under which the Bill would apply only to those areas that local authorities chose. If the issue that we are addressing today were a local problem in one or two areas, that would be entirely appropriate—no one would have any problem with it—but this is a national problem. The Bill would not even apply to Northern Ireland, yet I have had scores of letters from people there who want this legislation.
    I have received letters, cards, e-mails—I have a box of them with me—and visits, even from people in Highcliffe in the constituency of the hon. Member for Christchurch. I have received any number of letters. We cannot simply say that this is a matter of permissive legislation that local authorities may or may not adopt. I remind the House that the extensive consultation with the Local Government Association has at no stage thrown up any wish from local authorities to have an opt-out option.
    The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose name appears on some of the amendments today, introduced the Noise Act 1996, but it did not work and had to be amended by antisocial behaviour legislation. The deletion of the requirement to adopt the 1996 promissory aspect has had to be addressed because it simply did not work. The point that

    647
    I am making is that councils throughout the land are dealing with this issue at the moment with one hand tied behind their backs. They need to have the power; it is not a pick-and-mix option.
    No part of what the hon. Member for Christchurch grandiosely described as this green and pleasant land is not suffering from the problem. We cannot simply pepper the power around the nation. I would strongly resist any move to adopt new clause 3, and I am sorry to have to say that, because the Bill has been discussed at so many levels that we have pared it down so that it is at its most workable and least confused.
    As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, amendment No. 45 would remove the power in clause 20 to extend the scope of complaints. I repeat the point that I made in an intervention. Clause 20 is absolutely crucial in order for a quick response to be made. It is in the interests of moving out of the straitjacket of legislation, accepting that we may have to consider other things in future. Subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses, the provision could be extended. Things change. We cannot legislate for ever, much as we wish we could. Surely it is in keeping with the generosity of spirit and the emotions of new localism that the hon. Gentleman spoke about to allow some scope for change, if it is needed. I assure the House that we would not have someone writing the measure on the back of an envelope and saying, "The Act has now changed." The regulations would be discussed at length in both Houses. That is a recognition of the sensitivities concerned.
    The issue of finance has been addressed before and will be addressed again, but briefly the revenue support grant settlement as delineated in the money resolution debated in the House on 7 April clearly identifies new money to meet the costs. I repeat that local authorities are at this moment having to devote officer time to resolving a problem, when they do not have the legislation to deal with it finally, or the funding and resources to pay for those officers. Those officers are having to address a problem that they can do nothing about.
    Ultimately, the measure will be self-funding—there will be a charge. We know that. In accordance with the money resolution, additional money will be made available if needed. That is not a problem. Like every hon. Member, I weep for Derbyshire and the revenue support grant settlement for the district council in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)—but that is not the point. That is a subject for another debate.
    Today, we are not loading new duties on local government without giving them the means, mechanism and finance to perform them. In fact, we will be saving local authorities money, because can there be anything more frustrating than having to devote hours and hours of officer time to a problem that has no solution?
    I reluctantly request that the hon. Member for Christchurch reconsiders his amendments. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to amendments Nos. 88 and 89. With great respect, I ask the hon.
    648
    Gentleman to reconsider new clause 3, as I do not think that it is in the spirit of the Bill. Equally, I do not think that amendment No. 45 is necessary.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I respect what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is trying to do and he will be relieved to hear that my remarks will be fairly brief, but I want to make one simple point. We may have similar views on many matters but we represent very different constituencies. I am prepared to accept—I am not going to second-guess him—that high hedges are a major problem in the London borough of Ealing, but he should know that I represent a constituency that is 600 square miles. That is about the same size as Greater London. There are about 72 parliamentary constituencies in Greater London. I have one of the smaller electorates in the country. I probably have, let us say, 30,000 council tax payers spread over 600 square miles.
    I accept that, in urban areas—it can be sorted out by the local authorities, which know best—there are some extremely careless, unpleasant or perhaps poor people who allow Leylandii to grow around small suburban or urban gardens, which cuts out the light of their neighbours and causes them enormous distress. I personally believe that we need some enabling legislation to help local authorities to deal with that. In total, there may be a large number of disputes—perhaps 10,000 around the country—but compared with the total number of properties in the country that is relatively small.
    I am still happy, if we want to make progress today in terms of compromise and accepting amendments, to have a Bill that addressed that problem and allowed local authorities, if they so wished, to deal with the very small number of people who allow Leylandii to grow to 30, 40 or 50 ft, which is absurd.
    Let me describe why this provision is important, and why local authorities are best equipped to decide whether they want to get involved in this process. As I have said, my constituency is very different from certain others. I took care to go to the Lincolnshire show, which was held yesterday and was attended by 30,000 mainly rural people. I did a bit of vox pop and asked some local councillors and people whom I happened to meet about the Bill. When I described some of the clauses and what it tries to achieve, everybody whom I talked to was horrified.
    There are thousands of miles of hedges in my constituency. The hon. Member for Ealing, North may find this difficult to understand, but in the lane outside my house—along which perhaps one car or tractor an hour passes—there are hedges not just 2 m high, but 3 m or even 4 m high. They have been left there by the farmer for environmental reasons. I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to restrict the provision to evergreen shrubs, but I can assure him that because of the amount of planting going on and the growth of hedges, we are talking about a completely different environment in the country. It is a great pity, therefore, that we could not reach a compromise on this issue, whereby local authorities have some ability to decide what to do to solve the problem. After all, they know best what is going on in their area.

    649
    As I said, my constituency is very different; it is completely rural, with hundreds of miles of hedges. I would venture to suggest that this is much less of a problem in a district such as West Lindsey, in Lincolnshire, than in the London borough of Ealing, even in the villages and suburban areas. In 20 years as a Member of this House, I have had to deal with just one bad problem—when I visited a suburban location in which somebody had grown a hedge. I can recollect receiving no more than one or two letters on this subject in that time.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman—I speak as somebody who has the largest constituency in mainland Britain, which includes some 92,000 constituents, rural and urban—accept that this is a problem in both an urban and a rural setting? My constituency has three local authorities—a borough council, a district council and a county council—and many parish councils. I have received letters from all parts of that constituency. People recognise that visits to the garden centre are not necessarily decided on the basis of one's postcode. People buy these offensive plants irrespective of where they live, and the plants cause nuisance to their neighbours, irrespective of where they live. Life cannot be easily divided up into rural and urban; this problem affects people throughout the land, irrespective of the nature of the constituency in which they live.
    Mr. Leigh: That is a perfectly fair point. I do not want to take an absolutist point of view. Someone who lives near me in the middle of completely rural location has grown huge evergreen cedars—I do not know why—all around his house. That upsets nobody because all that surrounds his house is fields. Of course, such trees could cause a problem in rural areas in certain circumstances. That is why it is best for local authorities, which know the areas concerned best, to make a considered judgment as to whether there is a problem. I accept that many local authorities cover a mixed area, rural and suburban; it is for them to take that decision.
    Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that if no neighbour is complaining about the high trees around the house of the constituent to whom he has just referred, there is no problem? The Bill does not in any way attack the hedgerows of our wonderful countryside; in fact, many of us would like more hedgerows. The hon. Gentleman should address the point: we are talking about inappropriate trees and hedges in inappropriate locations.
    Mr. Leigh: As I said, I am not taking an absolutist view—I am simply trying to explain the differences. [Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Ealing, North, the Bill's promoter, has returned; unfortunately, through no fault of his own he had to leave the Chamber for a moment. I said a few moments ago that I am genuinely trying to seek a compromise. I accept that safeguards are already built into the Bill, but they do not go far enough. I would refer the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to a local authority such as my own. It is starved of resources—whichever party is in power—and is trying to make provision for more and
    more services laid on it by the Government. It has to
    650
    deliver those services over an area of 600 square miles with only 30,000 council tax payers. Now we are talking about placing yet another duty on such authorities.
    12.30 pm
    Frankly, 2 m is far too low. In my constituency, it is nothing. It is just a tiny shrub of a hedge. Even in the suburban areas where the gardens are much bigger, hedges regularly grow way above 2 m. If the Bill's sponsor were prepared to accept my amendment, which would increase the height to 4 m; if local authorities could have some input; if we could restrict the measures to conifers, I would happily pass the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing, North is the Bill's sponsor and he can do what he likes, but if he is unprepared to compromise, I tell him that the Bill will cause problems for relatively cash-strapped rural authorities such as my own. People will make use of the Bill when it becomes law and extra burdens will be placed on my local authority. What will happen then?
    We are told in the regulatory impact assessment that local authorities will incur costs for determining complaints and enforcing remedial action. It says that responses to consultation suggested that officers' time would cost an average £35 to £40 per hour, and that it would take around eight hours to investigate a complaint and decide whether to require the owner to carry out remedial works. I am prepared to accept that that may cause no problem in a London borough such as Ealing. Such authorities are much larger and much richer in their rate support base. I have no doubt that the London borough of Ealing could take it all in its stride.
    By contrast, when I checked last week, I found that over the whole 600 square miles of West Lindsey, the authority was so strapped for cash that at one stage it did not have even one planning enforcement officer—not one for all of 600 square miles. Let us forget about hedges for a moment. People could be building extensions without permission, flouting existing planning law, yet not a single officer was employed by the local authority to deal with the problem. The regulatory impact assessment says that it will cost only about £35 or £40 an hour, but in some wards in my constituency, the average wage is as low as £10,000 to £12,000 a year. It is a highly rural area with people living on low wages, with a cash-strapped local authority unable to employ—for a time at least—a single planning enforcement officer, and now even more duties are going to be laid on the local authority.
    Let me tell the hon. Member for Ealing, North that this is not a wrecking or unreasonable amendment: it is all about town and country. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the problem of restricting the Bill to certain areas in the country. I accept that in an area such as my own, there may be isolated cases of gardens being much bigger than in London, even in suburban areas, but why not let the local authority decide?
    It is estimated that the average cost will be about £280 to £320 per case. That is nothing for London boroughs, but a much greater burden on authorities such as West Lindsey. The regulatory impact assessment states that the consultation respondents agreed that there was backlog of existing problem cases to be dealt with in the short term and that no one could improve on the

    651
    estimate that 10,000 such cases would remain to be determined. Fair enough. That just shows that we need some sort of legislation.
    I support that view. There could be 10,000 cases of the worst kind in the country as a whole. There are about 400 local authorities in the country. Plucking a figure out of the sky, there could be 10, 20 or 30 bad cases in my local district. The local authority might be able to cope with it: I do not know, but we should let it decide. Do we not all believe in local democracy? I do not understand why, if the hon. Member for Ealing, North believes that there is a problem in Lincolnshire, he cannot allow Lincolnshire local authorities the chance to determine what they want to do about it.
    The regulatory impact assessment also states that local authorities will also be involved in appeals against their decisions, submitting statements and commenting on representations from the parties. I do not know how many people are employed in a London borough such as Ealing—many hundreds, I suspect. How many are employed in a small district authority? Perhaps 100 in total, but they have to determine all the huge paraphernalia of existing Government laws, regulations and so forth. The regulatory impact assessment says that staff will largely draw on existing material and that they will spend no more than three to four hours on each case. Based on an estimated appeal rate of 2,000 cases every three years, that suggests total costs ranging from £210,000 to £320,000. It also says that local authorities will be able to charge complainants a fee for determining these complaints. That is fair enough, and such burdens can be easily borne by urban and London borough authorities, but it is a different story for rural local authorities.
    If a hedge owner does not comply with a local authority's orders, we are told in the regulatory impact assessment that the authority will be able to enforce remedial action by prosecuting the hedge owner. Again, that will be no problem in London boroughs, but I do not know how we will cope with it in West Lindsey, which recently did not have a single enforcement officer. It also says that any unpaid expenses arising from the local authority using its default powers to carry out the work it specified in the remedial notice will be registered as a local land charge.
    I have made my point, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be able to accept it in a spirit of compromise. I dearly wish that we could amend the Bill today so that we can attack those awful people who allow their trees to grow to such a height and who do not care about others. However, I know one person in a neighbouring constituency who has a problem with leylandii at the bottom of his garden, but he cannot afford to cut them down. He is not a nasty person and he does not want to cut off anybody's light, but he simply cannot afford to cut the trees down. That is often a problem in rural or semi-rural areas. People are not being unreasonable: they cannot afford to take remedial action. The local authority could take a balanced view and decide to opt in or opt out. I hope that in a spirit of
    652
    compromise the Bill's promoter will feel able to accept the new clause. or at least some of the other amendments that we will consider today.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Opposition recognise that high hedges can be a significant problem. We already know that some 10,000 complaints have been made and need to be dealt with. Therefore, in principle, we welcome some form of legislation on the subject. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has already said, this is one of the most scrutinised Bills in parliamentary history. Its origins go back to even before my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) introduced his Bill on the issue, on which this Bill is largely based, when the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) introduced a similar Bill.
    In principle, we want to see the Bill on the statute book, but we hope for some signs of flexibility from the promoter of the Bill. Nobody would want the Bill to be so all-encompassing as to catch individual trees. If the Bill remains as drafted, it would be relatively easy to introduce a statutory instrument under it, but that is an inflexible procedure. Statutory instruments are debated for one and a half hours, after which they are either accepted or not, and they cannot be amended. I would therefore be very wary of accepting a Bill that could lead to catching an individual tree, especially a deciduous tree. That would be unfortunate.
    I hope that the Bill makes progress this morning. I hope that the promoter will be flexible, especially on the amendments about evergreens, to which I have appended my name. We will certainly need good will on both sides of the House—I note that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is a sponsor of the Bill, has tabled many amendments—if the Bill is to make progress in the next couple of hours.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): As a new arrival at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and to take the opportunity to address some of the important points raised in the debate.
    On new clause 3, I say to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that I do not see why one area of the country would be immune from the problem of high hedges. I recognise his points about differences in certain areas, but every kind of authority will contain people with neighbours who have hedges. Hedges as glorious as those he described would not restrict people's reasonable enjoyment of their property and gardens, and would not be covered by the Bill.
    On funding, the Government will bear the cost of additional burdens not covered by fees through the general grant.
    Mr. Leigh: The Under-Secretary is trying to be reasonable, and I am trying to give her a flavour of what could happen in rural villages. As I have said, 2 m, or 6 ft, around a house in a rural village is nothing. There may be hundreds of miles of hedges of over 6 ft around houses in such villages. The local authority will have no

    653
    choice as to whether it is dragged into the process, because difficult people will start to complain about their neighbours' hedges. Frankly, we should not be addressing that; we should be addressing people who are growing leylandii of up to 60 ft in urban locations. We should have a narrow Bill to deal with that.
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the nature of the problem depends on the environment and the circumstances. It is not simply a question of the height of the hedge, but about whether it is a barrier to light or access and whether it affects the reasonable enjoyment of the property. I agree that it would be inappropriate to have a completely open-ended measure, but the Bill has appropriate safeguards.
    I can tell the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the money will be paid through the general grant; all county, district, metropolitan and unitary authorities receive the general grant. Changes have been made to the revenue support grant that may address and make outdated some of his concerns.
    Mr. Chope: I realise that this is a new brief for the Under-Secretary, but is she saying that the actual expenditure incurred by any local authority in pursuance of the Bill would be met by the Government on an indemnity basis, or would there be a general distribution of grant, as with concessionary fares?
    Yvette Cooper: We would need to follow the established procedures for assessing the financial burdens imposed on local authorities by new initiatives, as we do in a number of different areas.
    Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 would turn regulations on maximum fees and appeals procedures from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I assure the House that the negative procedure is standard for such measures, whether they are planning or tree preservation appeals, and the procedure provides safeguards.
    On amendment No. 45, which would delete clause 20, I understand the legitimate concern to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of changes. I can assure hon. Members that the Government have no intention of using the clause at this stage and we do not see evidence that there will be a need to extend the Bill.
    It is appropriate to respond to the concerns that have been raised about the possibility of loopholes emerging in future, given how long it has taken to get the Bill this far. The Bill contains safeguards; it must deal with high hedges, and with complainants whose reasonable enjoyment of their property is being undermined. Its measures are proportionate, and it is important that they should be so.
    I must ask hon. Members to recognise the strength of feeling on this matter and the number of people whose lives and enjoyment of their property are seriously blighted by these problems. I ask hon. Members to allow the Bill to proceed and to let us, as politicians, try to solve the problems genuinely brought to us by constituents. I ask them to recognise the safeguards and the assurances that I have given, and I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
    12.45 pm
    Mr. Chope: This has been a good debate, but I am disappointed that the Minister cannot assure us that the actual costs incurred by local authorities in meeting the burdens imposed by the Bill will be met by Government grant. In the absence of that, why not give local authorities discretion on whether to sign up to the Bill's procedures? She has not explained why it is all right for the Government to allow local authorities discretion on whether to operate the Noise Act 1996, which arguably relates to a problem affecting many more people than high hedge nuisance does. As recently as 20 May, another Minister said, in a debate on clause 47 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill:
    "Many local authorities have found that they do not want to provide such a service. We could argue all day about whether they were right to decide that … As I said, we are freeing up local authorities from the requirement to provide the service described."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 May 2003; c. 379.]
    In other words, they are being given discretion to provide the service if they wish to. If that applies to noise legislation, why cannot it apply to high hedge legislation?
    I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said about trying to make progress and achieve compromise and flexibility. Both he and I were present last Friday when the House saw what can happen when there is flexibility and compromise. They are, indeed, what the whole mediation system written into the Bill is all about. We are trying to get the owners of high hedges and their neighbours to come to terms and resolve these matters amicably. I should have hoped that we could apply the same principle to the proceedings of the House.
    If the Government have no intention of applying clause 20 to single trees, why cannot it be excluded? That would be no big deal, surely. If the Government can extend discretion to local authorities on noise legislation, why cannot they do so for this Bill? Again, it would be no big deal. Why should such issues block progress on the Bill'? I repeat the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for reason, compromise and flexibility. With those, we could make much faster progress.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 34.

    Division No. 242]

    [12:48 pm

    AYES

    Wilkinson, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Christopher Chope and

    Mr. Edward Leigh

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Banks, Tony

    Gardiner, Barry

    Barnes, Harry

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hendry, Charles

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Holmes, Paul

    Cohen, Harry

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Cooper, Yvette

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Linton, Martin

    655

    McNulty, Tony

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Maples, John

    Ward, Claire

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Soley, Clive

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mr. Andrew Dismore and

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mr. Stephen Pound

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 6

    COMPLAINT WHERE RELEVANT AUTHORITY IS OWNER OR OCCUPIER OF LAND
    "If a complaint under this Act is brought in respect of land of which a "relevant authority" is the owner or occupier it shall be referred forthwith by that authority to the Local Government Association which shall nominate another local authority to consider the complaint.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
    "() for the purposes of this section, reasonable steps shall include at least one meeting with the owner or occupier of the adjoining land on which the hedge is situated, unless that person has refused to meet or the complainant has reasonable grounds to fear for his personal safety if such a meeting was to be held.'
    No. 81, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
    "() For the purposes of this section reasonable steps shall include at least one meeting with the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land and an offer to share any costs of reducing the height of the hedges'.
    No. 13, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
    "() for the purposes of this section, in deciding whether a hedge is having an adverse effect, the authority shall have regard to—

    (a) the height of the hedge when viewed from the complainant's property;

    (b) the distance the hedge is situated from domestic buildings on the complainant's property;

    (c) the length of time the hedge has been growing;

    (d) whether the complainant was first in occupation before or after the planting of the hedge;

    (e) whether the area is urban, suburban or rural;

    (f) the likely cost of remedial action;

    (g) the means of the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land;

    (h) for how long the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land has been owner or occupier.'.

    No. 37, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
    '() The authority must, when acting under subsection (3), take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant, including in particular (so far as appearing to be relevant)—

    (a) the extent to which the high hedge in question is capable of affording (or, if reduced in height, would still be capable of affording) privacy to an occupier of the neighbouring land,

    (b) the extent to which that hedge contributes (or, if reducer in height, would still contribute) to the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

    656

    (c) any legal obligation (whether imposed by or under any enactment or otherwise) relating to that hedge.'.

    No. 96, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
    "() The authority must when acting under subsection (3) take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant, including in particular any guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales'.
    No. 82, in page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (7) and insert
    "A fee determined under subsection (1)(b) shall cover the reasonably foreseeable costs to be incurred by the authority in considering the complaint'.
    No. 97, in page 3, line 36, leave out from "1(b)' to end of line 38 and insert
    "shall be refunded to such extent as it exceeds the reasonable costs incurred by the authority in considering the complaint'.
    1 pm
    Mr. Chope: What an extraordinary state of affairs! Barely 40 people, including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, are in the House for such an important piece of legislation. Let us hope that we can make some progress even with such a small number of hon. Members.
    Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend should explain that, including the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, there are 659 Members of Parliament—or, sadly, 658 as we speak. In spite of some of the claims made about the importance of Bills—not least this one—fewer than 40 Members of Parliament out of 658 deem it sufficiently important to be here today to make legislation.
    Mr. Chope: Absolutely. That is especially pertinent if, as we are told, so many representations have been made to hon. Members on both sides of the House by constituents who are anxious about high hedges. The number present is probably an indication of the interest in the Bill overall and the extent to which hon. Members take their constituents seriously on this subject.
    Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman is far more knowledgeable than I am about the democratic processes of this esteemed House, but does he agree that the Order Paper clearly states that the Bill was not amended in Standing Committee? Is that not an indication that perhaps there was a consensus on the Bill and that it received all-party support?
    Mr. Chope: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing his colleagues and Labour Members of being naïve in their reading of the Order Paper for assuming that a Bill that was not amended in a Committee that lasted for 39 minutes would sail through? Any hon. Member could see the number of amendments—35, I think—that had been tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). If that did not alert them to the fact that something controversial would be discussed today, I do not know what would have done. Other amendments have also been tabled. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) cannot excuse the behaviour of all those who are not here by saying that they were duped into

    657
    thinking that there was no need to attend. At least the hon. Gentleman was not duped—he was on the Committee and did not dupe himself—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has responded to the intervention. Perhaps he could now address the new clause.
    Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The new clause deals with an issue raised by, I think, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn). I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber. The problem is not new—it was debated when we considered on Report the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in the last Parliament—so it is especially disappointing that it is left in the air and not resolved.
    Paragraph 136 of the draft guidance—about a council as a party to the complaint—states:
    "There are no special procedures laid down in the Act for dealing with complaints in which the council is directly involved as one of the parties. The hedge might, for example, be on land owned by the council."
    The guidance continues:
    "It is important that the process for deciding such complaints is seen to be fair and impartial. Councils should, therefore, consider setting up internal procedures to ensure that the complaint is considered by a committee or officers who do not have responsibility for managing the land or trees in question. This should avoid any potential conflict of interest."
    I do not think that that goes far enough, because what we are talking about is justice being seen to be done. If the local authority is a party to the proceedings and the respondent to the complaint, how can a complainant believe that his complaint is being given just consideration if the local authority deals with it itself, rather than referring it, as the new clause suggests, to another local authority? The draft guidance continues:
    "If someone believes that the council have not handled their complaint properly, they can refer the matter to the local government ombudsman".
    I am afraid that, again, that is no solution. I know from dealing with the local government ombudsman on behalf of my constituents that that is a long-drawn-out process and no proper compensation is payable at the end. Would it not be much easier for the local authorities to proceed along the lines suggested in new clause 6?
    That brings me to the next amendment in the group, amendment No. 12, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon. I think that it is the first amendment in his name that we have had the chance to debate today. It states that reasonable steps shall be taken, and sets out what those reasonable steps shall include. I have supported that amendment. I note that it is tabled by a sponsor of the Bill, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why it was not incorporated in the Bill at the outset, and failing that, why it was not incorporated in the Bill in Committee.
    Amendment No. 81 was prompted by a letter that I received from a member of the public in response to the previous occasion on which we discussed this issue in the House. That member of the public recited to me the successful conclusion of a dispute that she had with a neighbour about a high hedge. She said that, eventually,
    658
    they decided that the costs of reducing the size of the high hedge should be shared between the neighbour on whose land the high hedge was situated and herself, the complainant. She reported to me that that had been done, and that she was pleased. The amendment would therefore add to the pressure on people to resolve these differences privately and in a consensual way.
    Amendment No. 13 is another amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon that I, too, support. It repeats the wording in the previous Bill. Why was this caveat taken out of the previous Bill? It was suggested earlier that this subject had been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny in the House. We will not make progress, however, if the reasonable caveats and requirements contained in an earlier Bill are not contained in a subsequent Bill. Normally, the history of private Members' Bills has been that as they proceed through the iterative process they become more reasonable and more confined to the key mischief that they try to address rather than drifting further away from the point. Amendment No. 13 should therefore commend itself to the House, as it requires that a new subsection should be inserted in clause 4, providing that
    "for the purposes of this section, in deciding whether a hedge is having an adverse effect, the authority shall have regard to … the height of the hedge when viewed from the complainant's property … the distance the hedge is situated from domestic buildings on the complainant's property … the length of time the hedge has been growing … whether the complainant was first in occupation before or after the planting of the hedge … whether the area is urban, suburban or rural … the likely cost of remedial action … the means of the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land … for how long the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land has been owner or occupier."
    I hope that everyone in the House will think that that is eminently reasonable and should not have been excluded from this Bill. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hendon agrees with me on that.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Bill has survived by the closest possible shave? If it had received one less vote in a previous Division, it would have fallen. I appeal again—I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me—for some flexibility from the promoter so that we can make progress. If we have no flexibility, it might be very difficult for the Bill to make progress this morning.
    Mr. Chope: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. He said that the Bill could have fallen, but I am glad that it did not. The previous Bill fell because there was not a quorum and some of the Members who were involved that day were unjustly accused of "talking it out". That is not what happened; there was no quorum. This time, there has been a quorum and I hope that the Bill's promoter took the opportunity to reflect in the previous Division on whether he wishes it to reach the statute book. If he does, the people of good will in the Chamber could enable that to happen. Unless there is the flexibility and compromise that we witnessed last week in the proceedings on the Fireworks Bill, I do not think that the Bill will reach the statute book. We are trying to impress on our constituents the need to mediate and to be reasonable. If we do not show such reasonableness ourselves, I am not sure that we are setting a very good example.
    Amendment No. 37 says:

    659
    "The authority must, when acting under subsection (3), take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant, including in particular (so far as appearing to be relevant)—

    (a) the extent to which the high hedge in question is capable of affording (or, if reduced in height, would still be capable, of affording) privacy to an occupier of the neighbouring land,

    (b) the extent to which that hedge contributes (or, if reduced in height, would still contribute) to the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

    (c) any legal obligation (whether imposed by or under any enactment or otherwise) relating to that hedge.."

    Those words appear verbatim in clause 4(4) of the previous Bill. Why were they removed?
    I shall embellish the debate on this amendment by illustrating it with a particular case from Highcliffe in my constituency. The owner of a property with a south-facing garden has been there for about 40 years. To the south boundary of that property was a bungalow, but the site was redeveloped and the bungalow was replaced with a two-storey block of flats. The planning authority made it a requirement that the flats should be situated a specific distance away from the other property's southern boundary, but they were built 20 ft closer to that boundary than they should have been. Instead of rigidly enforcing that planning requirement, the local authority said a screen should be built to protect the owner of the other property from the flats.
    The screen was never planted, so the owner planted one instead. He has kept it trimmed but it is much higher than 2 m. It needs to be that high to afford him privacy from those on the first floor of the flats who overlook his garden. I spoke to the owner of the house last weekend, and I know that his wife—who is in hospital recovering from a slight stroke—would be extremely pleased to know that this proposal had been accepted by the promoter of the Bill. She would be even more pleased could she be assured that the Bill would not be retrospective in respect of cases such as hers. We shall discuss the amendment that deals with that in due course. Each of these safeguards is born out of the real-life experience of ordinary people. That has been reflected in my postbag, in the context both of this Bill and of its predecessor.
    1.15 pm
    Amendment No. 96 states:
    "The authority must when acting under subsection (3) take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant, including in particular any guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales".
    I would have thought that that was a common-sense requirement to place upon a local authority, but the draft of the guidance that I have seen so far leaves much to be desired. I shall not go into detail on that because I am sure that we want to make as much progress as possible.
    Amendments Nos. 82 and 97 address the issue of fees. They provide a fallback position in the event of the amendments in the previous group not being accepted by the promoter. Amendment No. 82 would provide that
    660
    "A fee determined under subsection W(1)(b) shall cover the reasonably foreseeable costs to be incurred by the authority in considering the complaint."
    Amendment No. 97 would ensure that, if there were any excess income as a result of that, compared with the actual reasonable costs incurred by the authority in considering the complaint, there should be a refund. That seems eminently sensible, but unless we have a system for ensuring that the costs incurred by the local authorities can be met by the people who are causing those costs, we shall effectively be saying that everyone should pay a higher council tax to accommodate this regulatory requirement. For the reasons that I set out earlier, I do not think that that would be right. Having cantered briefly through the amendments, I hope that new clause 6, in particular, will find favour with the promoter, because its provisions would resolve the issue of a local authority being the judge in its own cause.
    Bob Russell: The problem with amendments being grouped together is that they are like a good rustic historic hedge: to remove one or two of the species would be to damage the whole. The promoter of the Bill should seriously consider the new clause relating to a local authority being both offender and judge. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for drawing to my attention a problem caused by Powys county council, which has planted a row of high trees 140 m long in front of Dyfnant terrace and Rock terrace on the B4518 at Llanidloes. It is probably not pronounced like that, but I have done my best. I am sure that there will be other examples of the trees or high hedges that are causing a problem to a complainant or group of complainants being on land owned by a county council, district council or borough council. The promoter of the Bill must in fairness address the question of how people who have a complaint against their local authority in those circumstances can get the matter resolved to their satisfaction. Surely the local authority cannot be judge and jury in cases involving its own property.
    Mr. Leigh: I shall speak briefly, if I may, to amendments Nos. 13, 37 and 96. I particularly commend amendment No. 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which is eminently sensible. I hope that, in a spirit of compromise, the promoter will accept it, because it would answer a few of my concerns about rural areas.
    The amendment would allow local authorities to be far more responsive to local conditions, and they would not have to consider only the height of the hedge. As I have pointed out, 2 m is not a great height and if the proposal went into statute local authorities would be able to take account of
    "the height of the hedge when viewed from the complainant's property"
    in considering larger gardens in rural areas. The issue could be considered in the round, and the local authority could get some idea of whether the hedge was blocking out light and, on the face of it, causing a major nuisance to the complainant.

    661
    If the amendment were passed, the local authority could consider
    "the distance the hedge is situated from domestic buildings on the complainant's property".
    If someone complained to the local authority, an officer could make a brief visit to a rural garden and say to the complainant, "I'm sorry, but I am not prepared to take up the case on your behalf with all the attendant costs and difficulty as there is a large garden involved. The hedge may be over 2 m, but, objectively, it simply should not cause you any problem. The time for which it has been growing is reasonable." Local authorities could also consider
    "whether the complainant was first in occupation before or after the planting of the hedge."
    That is a good point.
    May I illustrate my argument with a constituency example? My constituency has a large number of fairly old-fashioned modern developments, if I may put it that way, comprising bungalows with fairly large gardens that were put up in the '50s, '60s and '70s. Under the new guidelines, particularly those laid down by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, there has been a dramatic increase in the density of new housing in rural areas—in particular, in Wragby in my constituency. That is partly because the cost of the land is rising and partly because modern couples who are buying new houses apparently do not want larger gardens. Another reason is that, under planning policy guidance note 3, I think, the ODPM is giving developers an open gate to increase the density of housing in rural areas dramatically.
    In my constituency, there are many hedges more than 2 m high growing at the end of the fairly large gardens of those rows of bungalows, which once had arable fields beyond them. That is typical of the edges of villages in my constituency, where people were concerned about pesticides and fertilisers in the fields beyond, so they allowed their hedges to grow. New developments are growing up on the edges of the villages. Few bungalows are going up, but large numbers of two-storey houses are being built very densely and right up to the hedge line.
    I constantly hear that complaint, often from elderly people who are without great resources. They reluctantly accept that they do not have any right to a view and that the estate is going up because it is in the planning guidelines so they will have to put up with it. However, they are already pretty upset that the corner of the house on the edge of the estate is right up against the hedge.
    If the amendment is not passed and if the local authority is unable to take some cognisance of
    "whether the complainant was first in occupation before or after the planting of the hedge"
    and unable to have regard to
    "the height of the hedge when viewed from the complainant's property",
    what will happen in respect of the bungalow, which has been up 20 or 30 years, and the person who has lived there, allowing his hedge to grow, who may now be a pensioner whose children were brought up in the constituency? Suddenly a new house is built and the occupier who moves in issues a complaint. His new house is right up against the hedge line, and he
    662
    complains to the local authority that the hedge should be cut down. If the local authority were to act on that, it would be an unfair imposition on a constituent who has happily enjoyed his bungalow and hedge for 20, 30 or even 40 years.
    I refer to that problem constantly, and I wish we could have a Bill that took it into account. Amendment No. 13 tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon is excellent, no doubt because it was in the previous Bill and was probably drawn up by Government draftsmen. If accepted, it would take account of the likely cost of remedial action and the means of the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land. That would help my pensioner constituent living in a bungalow, and some cognisance could be taken of his means.
    The amendment would require the local authority to take into consideration
    "for how long the owner or occupier of the neighbouring land has been owner or occupier".
    That would also help to solve the problem of someone moving into a modern housing estate and immediately issuing a complaint. Some of the other amendments similarly give local authorities greater scope to consider the complaint in the round, to take a common-sense view and to come up with sensible and objective action.
    In a sensible, moderate world in which people try to come to an agreement, how could anyone argue with the wording of amendment No. 37? It says:
    "The authority must, when acting under subsection (3), take into consideration all matters appearing to them to be relevant"
    such as
    "the extent to which the high hedge in question is capable of affording … privacy"
    and
    "the extent to which that hedge contributes (or, if reduced in height, would still contribute) to the amenity of the neighbourhood".
    These are sensible amendments. I shall stop there, because I am sure that the promoter will say that he is prepared to accept them and make progress on the Bill.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: The reasons why I proposed amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are similar to those given by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I support the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) knows, which is why I agreed to sponsor it. However, whenever we sponsor a Bill, there are always issues to raise, either to get assurances or to move the debate on a little. My amendments may be technically flawed, but that does not mean that they do not address issues that should be considered.
    Amendment No. 12 tries to deal with the problem of ensuring that people talk to each other to try to solve their differences before they end up having to use the complaints procedure. It is important that, whenever possible, people find an amicable solution to these serious disputes. If people meet face to face, perhaps

    663
    with the help of a mediator, many of these problems can be resolved without the lengthy process outlined in the Bill.
    Bob Russell: Given that the hon. Gentleman is a sponsor and supporter of the Bill, has he discussed these amendments with the promoter? Is the promoter happy with what the hon. Gentleman is proposing?
    Ms. Dismore: The promoter will speak for himself shortly. I shall certainly not put words into his mouth. I am sure that he agrees with the principles behind my amendments, but whether he thinks they should be in the Bill, we will no doubt find out when he responds to the debate.
    On amendment No. 12, with the best will in the world, these disputes can get somewhat heated, and occasionally downright dangerous—we have seen some terrible stories in the newspapers recently. Although I am a great believer in the art of mediation to try to get people to resolve their difference; in a friendly way, sometimes the recipient of the complaint refuses to have anything to do with the process and puts the proverbial two fingers up to the complainant saying, "Do your worst." Alternatively, things can get out of hand and people suffer violence. There has been a case like that in the past week.
    Mr. Leigh: I particularly warmly welcome amendment No. 12, which I did not have a chance to mention. I am not sure whether the publicity reached southern England, so hon. Members may not know that, last week, someone in Lincoln was shot dead because of a dispute over a hedge in a urban area, so any provision, such as amendment No. 12, to resolve such disputes amicably would be very welcome.
    1.30 pm
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is precisely the case to which I was tangentially referring.
    Although efforts definitely need to be made to bring people together through mediation, frankly, there are times when mediation will not work, either because the recipient of the complaint flatly refuses to have anything to do with the mediation, or because tempers have got so heated that things can be made worse, rather than better, by such meetings. However, it is far preferable to make progress through sensible discussions.
    The hon. Member for Gainsborough also referred to amendment No. 13, which I tabled, and he is right to say that we are going over old ground I remember debating such things on previous occasions when we have considered such legislation in previous years. The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to set out the sort of things that any reasonable local authority would bear in mind when considering those disputes.
    In earlier debates, we have heard about the risk of local authorities adopting either a rather hard-headed approach or a rather lax approach. Assuming that we agree that some parameters should be laid down, amendment No. 13 sets out the sort of issues that should
    664
    be considered. To build on some of the comments made in earlier discussions, it is important that we reflect on whether the hedge under consideration is situated in an urban, suburban or rural area. I know from my own constituency, which is suburban, that one can occasionally find circumstances in which a hedge that has significant and impinging effects might not cause any problem at all if it were in a rural area, and some interesting points were made about that earlier in the debate.
    It is also very important to bear in mind which came first—the complainant or the hedge. If someone moves into a property where the hedge is already growing, that is a very important fact because they either bought or rented the property in the knowledge that the hedge was already there. Obviously, that could affect property values.
    The amendment very much speaks for itself. It has been ably introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch, rather than by myself, and I cannot add a great deal to the debate other than to say that there are some important factors that need to be taken into account.
    Mr. Pound: I am sure I cannot be the only hon. Member who sometimes wonders what sort of impression we give to people who watch our debates. We seem to be discussing ever more abstruse issues when people are dying. The problem that we are trying to address is not in dispute, yet we seem to be conducting some sort of stately quadrille in a world of "what ifs?" and "what mays?". Some people outside the House would think that we are in dereliction of our duties to those people in whose name we sit in this place.
    I am, by nature, someone who is flexible and emollient, and I should like nothing more than to be able to give a warm welcome to a great many of the amendments under consideration, but on this fifth introduction of a high hedges Bill, virtually all room for flexibility has long gone. I am not suggesting that we are adhering to a rigid code that does not allow flexibility—merely that the debates have been debated, the discussions have been discussed and the amendments have been incorporated. We now have a stripped down, pared down Bill that works with local authorities, Hedgeline and the police. It works.
    What is more important than any hon. Member's personal opinions and views, as expressed today, is what we do for the people of this country in whose name we sit in the House. It is vital that we address this need. Until a few seconds ago, I have been involved in negotiations in a desperate attempt to meet some of the concerns that have been well expressed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
    I seem to recall that new clause 6 was tabled as an amendment to the Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). It would create a strong and slightly suffocating additional bureaucracy. The draft guidance that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has already placed in the Library advises local authorities on the erection of Chinese walls, or invisible walls within the local authority. Local authorities currently investigate aspects within their remit. They do so quite efficiently. Were they not to do so, the sanction

    665
    of the reference to the local government ombudsman or the National Assembly for Wales would be more than sanction enough.
    With amendments Nos. 12 and 81, I have much sympathy. They are in line with the approach mentioned in the leaflet entitled "Over the Garden Hedge". I am anxious not to limit the area in which the local authority can operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon recognises that discussion and mediation are the ideal solution. I think that, in 85 per cent. of cases that local authorities are concerned with, that works but we must allow local authorities flexibility to take account of the particular circumstances of individual cases. Of course, it is best if there is a meeting between the parties before a complaint is made to the local authority but we cannot tie the local authority's hands on what they can or cannot consider.
    I was tempted by amendment No. 37. The hon. Member for Christchurch makes a powerful case. His amendments to the Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull moved in a slightly different direction. On that occasion, he wanted to expand the list of factors to be considered because he felt that it was restrictive. However, in the interests of good governance and good service to the people whom we represent and of emollience, and recognising the strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches, my hon. Friend the Minister has assured me that there is sympathy on the Government Front Bench for the acceptance of amendment No. 37, as hon. Members will shortly hear.
    In the interests of expedience, I finish by saying that, with the exception of amendment No. 37, with which I have much sympathy and which I am happy to support, I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members not to press the amendments.
    Yvette Cooper: May I briefly respond to the points that have been raised? On new clause 6, clearly I agree that decisions must be fair and impartial. The guidance explains that local authorities will need to set up internal walls. That is the kind of thing that local authorities already do. Suppose the council wants to knock down a tree that is subject to a tree preservation order, or suppose social services has a stake in a planning application, it is a standard approach to set up internal walls. There are checks on local authorities to ensure that they are fair and follow due process, whether it be through the appeals system or the process to judicial review.
    On amendments Nos. 82 and 97 and the way in which fees are set, it is appropriate that we have proper consultation on the level of the maximum fee, rather than requiring that the fee should be set at the full cost for the local authority of considering the complaint. We would take account of all those considerations in the consultation and in setting the maximum fee. We have already said that we would make good the shortfall through the revenue support grant. Otherwise, it should be up to the local authority to decide whether to set a fee within the framework of that maximum, as set out in regulations.
    666
    On amendments Nos. 12 and 81, there is a problem with setting that kind of thing out in the Bill. They set out too much detail about the meetings that need to take place. They do not take account, for example, of someone who is disabled or other problems that may make meetings difficult. That matter is properly dealt with through guidance.
    I have a lot of sympathy with the aim of amendments Nos. 13, 37 and 96, which attempt to set out all sorts of issues that should be considered by local authorities. As we pointed out in the draft guidance, local authorities should consider such issues in taking decisions on an individual case. My concern about amendment No. 13 is that, in listing the factors that must be considered, it would make it very difficult for local authorities to consider anything not on the list. On amendment No. 96, because the guidance is published, if a judicial review were undertaken, for example, it would in any case be appropriate for the courts to take into account any guidance. So local authorities would take account of the guidance in making decisions. However, I recognise that the House is concerned—
    Mr. Leigh: I am somewhat amused by the Minister's comments about amendment No. 13. I see no reason why any reasonable person cannot accept that amendment, which was tabled by one of her hon. Friends. She intimated that there are various extra factors that a local authority might want to consider, but what are they? Perhaps she could advise us.
    Yvette Cooper: The truth is that such problems often arise in respect of legislation. When we want local authorities to take account of the factors that might be relevant in a particular circumstance, it is sometimes difficult to anticipate, as the legislation passes through this House, what all of those factors might be. If we could think of them in advance we could add them to the legislation, which would make matters easier.
    Mr. Leigh: Unfortunately, the Minister is unable to help us in respect of the other factors that local authorities should consider. If she reads the amendment, she will discover that it says,
    "the authority shall have regard to",
    not that it shall "only" have regard to; it is not an exclusive amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I are both barristers; we do attempt to understand legislation. If the legislation were amended in this way, it would not force local authorities to consider only those points mentioned in the amendment. Given the way in which it is drafted, why is she opposing it?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we often have debates such as this on a wide variety of legislation, particularly in Committee. Attempts to ensure that particular factors are taken into account can often become constraints on other factors being taken into account as well. Let us consider the difference in the wording of amendment Nos. 13 and 37. The latter states that an authority must take into account
    "all matters appearing … to be relevant, including in particular"—

    667
    and then proceeds to list some specific factors. The use of the word "including", by contrast with the provision of a comprehensive list, makes it is easier to avoid future problems, whereby local authorities are unable to take into account matters that they consider relevant because of the legislation's drafting. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a drafting issue, and the drafting of amendment No. 37 has advantages over that of amendment No. 13. For that reason, the Government are happy to support acceptance of amendment No. 37, which would provide greater safeguards in respect of the privacy of the occupier of the neighbouring land, and the extent to which a hedge contributes to the amenity of the neighbourhood, by including such safeguards in the Bill as well as in the guidance.
    I urge the Members concerned to withdraw the other amendments, but the Government are certainly happy to support acceptance of amendment No. 37.
    Mr. Chope: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies, and indeed I am, but let us examine the facts. A version of amendment No. 37 was actually included in the previous Bill. Why was it removed, and why have we had this debate about it? The Bill's promoter and the Minister have accepted the underlying principle at the last minute, as a result of an amendment, tabled in my name, that is identical to the original version. I am delighted that the amendment will be accepted, but I am disappointed with the argument that the Minister deployed. Having listened to her comments and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right. If we cannot make the Minister see our point of view, that is all the more disappointing.
    New clause 6 is about justice being seen to be done. It may well be that the authority in the London borough of Ealing is so large and employs so many people that one can have a meaningful description of different departments—Chinese walls, and so on—dealing with a complicated issue. However, the borough of Christchurch would be lucky if it could afford one tree officer and there are probably only a handful of people in the planning department. A system in which the council is on one side of the argument and a complainant on the other—the complainant would likely view the council as judge in its own court, but the council has only 24 elected members and we also have to take into account their various roles as chairmen and others on regulatory and scrutiny committees—would not work.
    1.45 pm
    What is so unreasonable about new clause 6? Why cannot it be accepted? If the Government or the sponsor will not accept it, I hope that the House will in the Division that we shall shortly have. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) says that the Bill has been much discussed before and that iterative process has removed the room for flexibility. Unfortunately, the iterative process has not improved the Bill as it should have done and as I still hope that it can be. I shall say no more now, because we want to make as much progress as possible.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 35.

    Division No.243

    [1.46 pm

    AYES

    Wilkinson, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Christopher Chope and

    Mr. Edward Leigh

    NOES

    Banks, Tony

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Barnes, Harry

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    McNulty, Tony

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    McWalter, Tony

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Maples, John

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Cohen, Harry

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Cooper, Yvette

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Ward, Claire

    Gardiner, Barry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mr. Andrew Dismore and

    Holmes, Paul

    Mr. Stephen Pound

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 1

    COMPLAINTS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES
    Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'by', insert
    `for an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50 in page 1, line 13, after 'by', insert
    'an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by'.
    No. 87 in page 1, line 17, after the first 'of, insert
    `the obstruction of light caused by'.
    No. 43 in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    "() This Act does not apply to hedges more than 10 metres from the complainants house.'.
    No. 46 in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'or access'.
    No. 47 in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out 'or access'.
    No. 48 in clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection 31.
    No. 90 in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
    "(1 A) The authority shall dismiss a complaint if the height of the hedge in metres is less than
    D/2+2,
    where D is the distance in metres between the hedge and the nearest outside window wall of the complainant's property'.
    No. 52 in clause 4, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    `(3) If the authority do not so decide, they must decide—

    (a) whether the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property specified in the complaint is being affected by an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by a high hedge so specified; and

    (b) if so, what action (if any) should be required to be taken in relation to that hedge, in pursuance of a remedial notice under section 5, with a view to remedying any such obstruction or preventing its recurrence.'.

    No. 84 in clause 4, page 3, line 4, after `whether', insert
    'the obstruction of light caused by'.
    No. 85 in clause 5, page 4, line 4, after the second `that', insert
    `the obstruction of light caused by'.
    No. 86 in clause 5, page 4, line 36, after `of, insert
    `the obstruction of light caused by'.
    I should draw the attention of the House to a misprint in amendment No. 48, which should end with a reference to subsection (3).
    Mr. Chope: In moving the amendment and speaking to the consequential—
    Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend proceeds, may I ask whether he is impressed with the consistency of support for the Bill? We have seen two Divisions in which 35 out of 658 MPs have exhibited their support for the Bill. Does that degree of support give my hon. Friend any encouragement that the Bill should proceed, or does he think that perhaps it indicates that a degree of caution on the part of the House would be appropriate?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in the process of moving the amendment.
    Mr. Chope: I shall not respond to my right hon. Friend, who makes his point clearly.
    Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 87, 52, 84 and 86 deal with objectivity and try to restore to the Bill the degree of objectivity that was in the previous Bill on this subject. This goes back to my point on the previous group; if we are to an iterative legislative process to try to produce the best Bill, it is disappointing if the Bill in question leaves out many of the safeguards in a previous Bill.
    2 pm
    Objectivity is fundamental to the tests in the Bill and good regulation. On Second Reading, I expressed concern that the Bill no longer had an objective test of whether there was an unacceptable loss of light as a result of a high hedge and that the test had become more subjective on whether the hedge itself had an impact on a particular person. I said:
    "That is a recipe for disastrous law-making."
    670
    So I believe it to be. I expressed the hope that, in light of statements made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), objective tests would be introduced in Committee. I reminded him that whether his Bill would obtain a Second Reading was in the balance because of shortage of time, and I went on to say that
    "if it does get a Second Reading, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that has happened only because of the indulgence of hon. Members who have severe and serious reservations about it and wish the Bill to be substantially altered in Committee."
    What did the hon. Gentleman himself say about objectivity on Second Reading? He said:
    "Objectivity is a key component of the Bill, which is written specifically to ensure that a series of objective criteria can be used as a template involving the Building Research Establishment and various other groups."
    Referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is not in his place I fear, but who support; the amendments, the hon. Gentleman added:
    "I hope that he will come to see that the objective criteria in the Bill will address precisely the issues that he is raising." —[Official Report, 28 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 625–32.]
    The amendments are intended to insert in the Bill the objectivity that is currently lacking and that was not incorporated in Committee, much to my disappointment. I can best illustrate the point by referring to paragraphs 121 to 124 of the draft guidance, which relate to the blocking of views. The guidance says:
    "A tall hedge can block out an eyesore or someone's cherished view … The value that is placed on an individual outlook is very personal. In addition, nc-one has a right to a particular view … Nevertheless, factors that might be taken into account include the extent of the view and whether it is near or distant. For example, the effect might be more severe if the property would, without the hedge, look out onto open countryside than if the hedge blocks a narrow gap between other properties that leads down to the sea. The circumstances of the complainant could also be relevant."
    That introduces a subjective test, based on the circumstances of the complainant. It continues:
    "The loss of view because of the hedge would probably be felt more by a person with limited mobility who is tied to the house than by someone who is out at work for most of the day."
    The guidance seems to be saying that if a property is occupied by somebody who is out at work most of the day and there is a hedge next door, that hedge may remain, but if the house is then sold to someone who has limited mobility, the council could order the hedge to be cut down, not because the hedge or the owner have changed, but because the neighbour has changed from being someone who goes to work to someone who is confined to home. Surely it must alarm serious legislators to introduce such a ludicrous, subjective test, removing all predictability and objectivity from the law.
    Paragraph 124 says, and if hon. Members have not read it they should:
    "In addition, consideration might be given to whether the particular view could be obstructed by future development, including development within the curtillage of a dwellinghouse that is permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This could allow someone to build an extension to their home (up to a certain size) or to erect a ridge-roofed summerhouse in their garden up to 4 metres high, without needing to get express permission from the council."
    That introduces the extraordinary scenario in which a hedge 3 ft high could be ordered to be chopped down and the person who owned the land on which it had

    671
    stood could erect a ridge-roofed summer-house of 4 m. In other words, it would be 1 m higher than the hedge had been, thereby putting the person who had complained more into the shade and out of the sun than they were before. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North really wants to legislate on such a basis, I am amazed. When he really addresses the implications of including in the Bill a test as subjective as that of whether people's view is blocked, I hope that he will recognise that it is long-established in our common law that no one has a right to a view and that the measure is going much too far.
    Amendment No. 43 would restrict the Bill so that it did not apply to hedges more than 10 m from the complainant's house. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) so I shall not comment further on it. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would limit the Bill, rather as the Bill that we discussed earlier was limited.
    Amendment No. 90 is similar to one that we debated earlier. It is reasonable for us to challenge the promoter of the Bill on how the objective test that he proposes would be assessed. The material for such an assessment has, fortunately, been prepared for us by the Building Research Establishment, in a document drawn up in anticipation of a previous Bill. The amendment proposes that one way of assessing objectivity would be to require an authority to
    "dismiss a complaint if the height of the hedge in metres is less than D/2+2, where D is the distance in metres between the hedge and the nearest outside window wall of the complainant's property".
    Despite the need to make as rapid progress as possible, I must express my disappointment that, following the good arguments deployed on the issue in April 2001, the promoter of the Bill has not accepted that objective test. I hope that he will be minded to consider the error of his ways and incorporate such a test in the measure.
    The Government asked the Building Research Establishment and the Tree Advice Trust to look into the impact of evergreen hedges on loss of light to buildings and gardens, and to devise a method for calculating the height that a hedge should be so as to avoid the obstruction of light. They undertook that work, which was paid for by the Government, to try to produce an objective test for use in adjudicating on hedge disputes between neighbours. Guidelines were produced, including the procedure for calculating hedge height, and I am greatly disappointed that, after all that hard work, they are not being included in the measure.
    I hope that the promoter of the Bill will accept the amendments in the spirit in which they were tabled, which was to try to introduce objective tests and fairness to the Bill.
    Mr. Leigh: I hope that the promoter of the Bill will give some credence to my arguments for amendment No. 43, that the Act
    "does not apply to hedges more than 10 metres from the complainants house".
    I should certainly be prepared to accept a compromise; the distance could be 10 m, 15 m or a bit more. I simply wanted to make the point that we need some element of
    672
    compromise in the case of large, more rural gardens. Local authorities should not be put to the expense of having to deal with a large number of complaints where the hedge is a long distance from the complainant's property and could not obstruct his light. However, I am quite prepared to argue about whether the distance should be 10, 15 or even 20 m. I am simply trying to exclude the larger, more rural and suburban gardens from the Bill's provisions.
    I very much hope that the promoter might accept amendment No. 49. At the moment the Bill would apply a purely subjective test. The Bill applies to a complaint from someone who
    "alleges that his reasonable enjoyment of that property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge",
    so a complainant merely needs to tell the local authority, "My enjoyment of my property is being affected by the height of that hedge". No other explanation is required. There is no need to state distances or make a reference to light. Surely it is not impossible to accept this important amendment, which would simply put in the Bill the very clear requirement that the complainant must allege that his reasonable enjoyment of the property is being adversely affected by
    "an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by"
    the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person.
    Thus amendment No. 49 goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in this series of amendments, which we had very much hoped to get through today; it would have made the passage of the Bill possible. We could have had a very narrow Bill to deal with the enormous leylandii trees. Instead we have a large Bill—large and wide-ranging in terms of private Member's legislation—which would put a severe burden on local authorities, based on an entirely subjective test. I very much hope, even at this late stage, that the promoter may at least be prepared to accept amendment No. 49.
    Mr. Pound: I assure the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that his 3 ft tall nightmare will not come true. Nothing anywhere in the Bill talks about anything below 2 m being cut down.
    I wish to address the substantive point. I hope that you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak principally to amendment No. 49, as the remaining amendments in the group are consequential on that. As I commented in Committee, nothing—very few things in life, anyway—would have made me happier than to arrive at a mechanistic, subjective test that we could use: a formula, an equation, that would work. 1 shall now draw attention to one way in which the Bill has changed following consultation. Sadly for Opposition Members, the change has taken place in the opposite direction from that in which they are rowing.
    The final report of the Building Research Establishment clearly demonstrated that no one calculation method could cover every situation adequately. In addition, Hedgeline, to which credit should be paid, which represents at least 4,000 people adversely affected by this problem, is concerned that a large number of its members live next door to hedges that are already lower than the heights that the BRE guideline would have specified. In drafting the Bill, I

    673
    have accepted that the height and light guidelines cannot be regarded as providing a remedy by proxy for all problems associated with high hedges, and that some extension of the grounds of complaint beyond light obstruction is justified.
    The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to someone making a complaint about their loss of amenity or light. The clause that specifically excludes frivolous and vexatious complaints was crafted precisely with that thought in mind. The solution that has been adopted is to allow people to complain to their local authority under the Bill if their reasonable enjoyment of their property has been adversely affected by a high hedge. That seems to me to offer the flexibility that hon. Gentlemen have been asking for, within the context of defining the problem. It includes obstruction of daylight and sunlight, jointly and as separate issues, as well as loss of view. In addition, someone in a small garden might feel that they were being unduly closed in.
    I would have loved to accept more amendments than I have been able to, but the amendment is in fact an amendment of an amendment, because the original BRE proposals, as discussed in Committee, have been changed and brought back to the Floor of the House in a far better form: a form that everyone that we have consulted supports. On that basis, I most respectfully urge those who tabled the amendments to consider those outside this place who at the moment have no solution to their problems, and consider whether it might be appropriate to withdraw, or not press, the amendments.
    Yvette Cooper: I support my hon. Friend in urging the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw the amendment. The group of amendments would unduly restrict the Bill. It is true that a hedge could be 10 m away, but it could also be 30 or 40 m high. Equally, it would be slightly surreal to include the formula D/2+2 in the Bill. It is clearly right that there should be fair standards for judging individual cases, but the guidance will do that. It would be inappropriate to restrict the Bill in the way that the amendments would do.
    2.15 pm
    Mr. Chope: That is a disappointing response. Effectively, the guidance introduces a subjective test instead of the objectivity that the Bill's promoter promised us on Second reading. There is revised tree advice and BRE guidance. Why not rely on that? It is available to the promoter, but there is no suggestion that it should be incorporated into the Bill. Indeed, the references to BRE guidance are relegated to a small part of the overall guidance, which puts greater emphasis on the particular circumstances of any individual resident.
    There may have been a slip of the tongue in my example of a hedge having to be cut down when I referred to 3 ft rather than 3 m. I did not want to amend the Bill to put the height into feet because I thought that some people might regard that as trivial and unnecessary and I wanted to table serious amendments for debate. It is no surprise that I lapsed back into thinking in terms of feet, however, because that is how I usually think of such measurements. The fact that I mentioned 3 ft rather than 3 m does not alter my point that a hedge might have to be reduced to 2 m but could be replaced by a building with a roof of 4 m high under planning regulations.
    674
    It is a great disappointment to me that the objective tests contained in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) have been removed and replaced with the subjective tests, which offend against all good legislation. However, I am keen—even if no one else—to make progress so that we can discuss the next group of amendments. If we are wedded to the iterative process, there will come a time—indeed, I think I promised this to some constituents—when I introduce a private Member's Bill, and it may well be on this subject, although I would confine it to the very limited circumstances and mischief that need to be addressed. This Bill's provisions are disproportionate to the problem. To enable me to draft the Bill that I may promote, it will be useful to discuss the next group of amendments. In light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 91, line 7, after 'on', insert 'adjoining'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 77, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 20.
    No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 22.
    No. 92, in page 1, line 14, after 'on', insert 'adjoining'.
    No. 55, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `No complaint shall be made under this Act in relation to a high hedge by the owner or occupier of a domestic property if that property was constructed after the hedge was established.'.
    No. 71, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `This Act shall not apply to any land situated within a conservation area'.
    No. 60, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in a National Park'.
    No. 62, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    '() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in a cemetery or burial ground'.
    No. 68, in page 1, lime 20, at end insert—
    `() This Act shall not apply to any land situated within a rural area'.
    No. 70, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `() This Act shall not apply to any tree which is protected by a tree preservation order'.
    No. 59, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in public open space'.
    No. 61, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing within the curtilage of a school or other educational establishment'.
    No. 58, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    `() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge situated within 3 metres of any public highway.'.
    No. 51, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
    No. 41, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—
    `() This Act shall only apply to hedges which were planted or otherwise came into existence after the commencement of the Act.'.
    No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
    `or prospective owner or occupier.'.
    No. 69, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
    "'rural area" means any ward or postcode sector which is outside a settlement of 10,000 or more people'.
    No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out 'wholly or mainly'.
    Mr. Chope: By inserting the word "adjoining", the Bill would apply only to complainants with hedges in properties adjoining them. It would reduce its scope and extent and remove a big concern and alarm that was flagged up in the brief Committee stage. There are many amendments, and I shall endeavour to get through them as quickly as possible.
    Amendment No. 77 would restrict the right to complain to owners or occupiers of properties that are in occupation and are not empty. Again, that amendment is supported by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and his amendment No. 92 is in similar terms.
    Amendment No. 55 is important and would require that no complaint should be entertained if the complainant's property was constructed after the hedge was established. Similarly, under amendment No. 41, the Act
    "shall only apply to hedges which were planted or otherwise came into existence after the commencement of the Act."
    Introducing retrospectivity is most unhealthy. Were this a planning Bill, for example, it would not operate retrospectively: that which had already been built could be left where it was, which is exactly what happened under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That is a standard principle of planning law.
    When I discussed the Bill with Baroness Gardner of Parkes, she reminded me of an example in south Buckinghamshire where a specific planning condition had been placed on the development of a property on the basis that a new hedge could not be planted that would reach above a specified height—I think that her example was 3 m. That applied, however, to hedges in the future rather than hedges that are already in existence. That is the nature of good legislation and good regulation, and the power to take such action already existed under planning law. Powers also exist through the use of covenants, which have been used effectively as a means of ensuring that high hedges are not grown in the future on estates being developed, whether in urban areas or in the countryside.
    Amendment No. 71 would exclude application of the Bill to any land in a conservation area. That is important because at the moment tree preservation orders automatically apply to trees in conservation areas. Under the Bill, that legitimate control over those trees would be removed, which should cause a great deal of concern. People who buy properties in conservation areas, which are designated by local authorities in their discretion, might suddenly find that, under the Bill, trees that in their view add to the amenity of the neighbourhood and the value of their homes could be ordered to be chopped down without their even being notified about it. Interestingly, in relation to any
    676
    complaint being raised, the guidance to local authorities is that the matter should be kept quiet and not publicised. By contrast, were there an application to reduce in size a tree in a conservation area or prune it in any way, neighbours who were directly affected would have to be notified.
    Amendment No. 60 would exclude the application of the Bill to national parks. Again, I would have thought that a sensible proposal. I do not yet have to declare an interest in relation to that, because the New Forest national park has not yet been designated, although it is apparently the Government's intention to do so.
    Amendment No. 62 would restrict the ambit of the Bill so that it would not apply to cemeteries or burial grounds. That is a significant issue, as we know that many ancient cemeteries and burial grounds have well-established yew trees, some of which are up to 40 ft high. Those may result in neighbouring gardens being put in the shade, and not being able to get the evening sun or even the midday sun. Are we really saying, however, that those yews, which are part of the English heritage, could be ordered to be cut down to 2 m on the complaint of somebody living nearby?
    Amendment No. 59 would likewise restrict the ambit of the Bill so that it would not cover trees or hedges growing in public open space.
    Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 certainly deserve consideration by the House. They would restrict the Bill's ambit so that it did not cover rural areas. I asked the Library to supply me with a legislative definition of a rural area, but there is no such definition. I understand that the Government are working on one and have promised to produce it by the autumn. In the meantime, the best definition is that in amendment No. 69. If the Bill's application were restricted so that it did not apply to rural areas, our concerns would be reduced considerably.
    Mr. Forth rose—
    Mr. Chope: I know that the amendment would not deal with my right hon. Friend's constituency, as probably none of it is made up of postcodes inside a rural area.
    Mr. Forth: Many of the other amendments in the group probably would have a bearing on my constituency, but I am a bit anxious when I hear my hon. Friend say candidly to the House that this amendment may not contain a satisfactory definition of what is at its kernel. He is almost asking us to take on trust something as important as the definition of a rural area. Is he satisfied that the definition that we have or might have would not give rise to unacceptable anomalies on the borders between rural and adjoining areas? Can he give me that assurance?
    Mr. Chope: I cannot give my right hon. Friend that assurance, because despite having considered the issues carefully, I accept that I have not dealt with the borders between rural and urban areas. Indeed, he has identified a further lacuna in the Bill. It would not cover cases in which the complainant is in one local authority area and the trees and hedges about which he is complaining are in another.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is now dealing with a whole new sector of the Bill, so I ask him to think

    677
    carefully about these amendments. He knows, as I do, that there are many problems with high hedges in rural areas. In an effort to get the Bill through this morning, I hope that he will consider not pressing these amendments.
    Mr. Chope: I have not yet even come to all the amendments. I do not think the prospects of the Bill making progress this morning are terribly great, but it is possible that it will be reconsidered on 4 July and, if its proceedings are not completed then, on 11 July. I hope that my hon. Friend will be present in the House on the occasions when we can consider this and other groups of amendments further. People might think that the Bill is lost because we have not reached all the groups of amendments today, but that is largely the result of the fact that it appeared on the Order Paper immediately after another Bill, the consideration of which we knew would take some time.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has raised a number of very important points this morning. I urge the Bill's promoter and the authorities in the House seriously to consider listing the Bill so it can be debated on another Friday. I hope that it will become an Act.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend's sentiments are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and myself. That is why we were disappointed that the Bill was not set down for a day on which it could have appeared first on the Order Paper. It would have appeared first if it had been put down for debate on 4 July.
    Amendment No. 70 deals with tree preservation orders. I do not think that the Bill should override them. If it is thought that a tree that is subject to a tree preservation order should be chopped down, the first thing to do should be to go to the local authority and get permission to cut it down or prune it under the tree preservation order legislation.
    Amendment No. 61 proposes that the provisions should not apply to any hedge growing in the curtilage of a school. This is relevant to the issue of peeping toms, and to schools that grow hedges in order to stop people looking at schoolchildren in a state of semi-undress.
    Time is running out, but I am sure that we shall have time to come back to this issue on 4 July.
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 4 July.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  PENSIONS (WINDING-UP) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Frank Field: As the Government have objected and blocked the Bill going into Committee, I shall bring it back on 11 July, when I hope that they will have had second thoughts, following pressure from the electorate.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

  HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

  FOOD COLOURING AND ADDITIVES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

  TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (RAILWAYS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.

  EQUALITY BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.

  LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.

  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.

  GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 4 July.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which Hansard could record the fact that the objections to my Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, and to the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill were made by the part-time shadow Leader of the House, as he shuttles back and forth between that position and his part-time position on the Back Benches?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Objections are valid, from whatever quarter of the House, and from whichever individual, they come.

Hallmarking
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I begin by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), on his appointment as Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. I believe that this could be his first appearance in the Chamber in that capacity, and I wish him well in his new post, as I am sure that other hon. Members here today will.
My interest in the future of hallmarking arises from concerns raised with me by the Edinburgh assay office in the heart of my constituency, which is one of four such offices in the UK. The others are in London, Birmingham and Sheffield. Between them, they continue a tradition and legal obligation that has lasted 600 or 700 years—that gold, silver or platinum articles may not be legally described as such unless they are hallmarked by an independent agency to show who made them and what their precious metal content is.
The concern raised with me by the office in my constituency is now being raised by all four offices: for many years, the European Commission has been considering the introduction of legislation to harmonise the market in such items"in the interest, it says, of promoting freer trade in the Community. That is a worthwhile ambition, but it is important to emphasise the fact that harmonisation should maintain or enhance the consumer protection standards that we in the UK and other member states enjoy in this area. Harmonisation should not weaken or jeopardise those standards. Hallmarkers and the craft and jewellery industry are concerned that the hallmarking proposals before the Commission could threaten those high consumer protection standards.
When the European Commission presented a draft directive in 1993, the UK opposed it. The measure could not proceed because few member states actively supported it, and it has languished, for lack of active interest. However, there are strong indications from the trade that the Italian Government, who will hold the European presidency from 1 July to the end of the year, appear determined to revive progress on the directive and committed to achieving harmonisation that would dispense with the high customer assurance provided to the consumer by the hallmarking system operated in the UK.
Italy is one of four member states that use only a manufacturer's mark to certify the quality of gold or silver items—that mark is uncertified by any third party—whereas five have voluntary hallmarking schemes. Six member states, which comprise the greater number and include the UK, have compulsory hallmarking regimes. The core problem with the draft directive lies in annexe III, which, reflecting the Italian position, allows manufacturers or their representatives to claim conformity with the proposals and that the item in question is properly hallmarked by the use of a manufacturer's mark applied by the manufacturer without verification by an external agency.

681
The concern involves not only items produced in the EU, but the fact that the system would make it easier to import from third countries outside the EU gold and silver items that have no proper independent verification. That could include imports from countries where there has been much systematic fraud over a number of years.
Precious metals are not used in their pure form for jewellery, silverware and so on. They are used in alloys, and not even an expert can tell by sight or touch what the precious metal content of such an alloy is. If an expert cannot tell, the ordinary consumer certainly cannot—so customers risk being deceived, which is why it is important to have some guarantee of quality. The key to the debate is whether that guarantee is best provided by the manufacturer, his representative, or an independent third party with no commercial interest in the article. Of course, the latter position applies in the UK. I am told that last year, under the hallmarking system, the four assay officers between them identified and rejected more than 66,000 items that were below the standard claimed for them.
The Edinburgh assay office has drawn my attention to evidence from other countries that should make us reluctant to move away from the current system of compulsory and independent hallmarking. Finland abandoned its compulsory hallmarking system at the end of 2001, since when investigations into the market as it has now developed have shown that cases of serious swindling have increased, and cases of low fineness, in which the proportion of precious metal is found to be less than was claimed are now much more serious than before the abolition of compulsory hallmarking.
In Denmark, where a similar situation applies, a survey showed that 3 per cent. of goods marked by manufacturers were substandard. If the same percentage were applied to the total number of articles marked in the UK each year, 1.5 million substandard articles would be offered for sale each year, as opposed to the 66,000 that were found to be substandard last year.
Given the nature of precious metals, even small reductions in fineness of an item of gold or silver jewellery can, if made tens of thousands or even millions of times, result in large sums of money being wrongfully retained by the people who have incorrectly stated the proportion of precious metal in those articles.
There is also powerful evidence from outside Europe. In the United States of America, studies were carried out in a county in New Jersey, which found that over a four-month period in which random tests were carried out, two thirds of the articles tested did not meet the Federal Trade Commission's carating standards. A similar investigation showed that eight stores in Florida had been charged with such behaviour. In Princeton, a large variety of chains, rings, charms and earrings were tested, almost all of which responded to magnetic testing, which showed that they were not what they were claimed to be. Those items were stamped as products of Italy or Thailand. That problem is rife in many parts of the USA.
Interestingly, I am told by the Edinburgh assay office that checks carried out on the jewellery purchased by 8,000 consumers in India showed that 4,800 of them—60 per cent.—had substandard fineness of gold and
682
silver. It is not surprising that many countries that currently do not have an independent hallmarking system, including China and India, are showing interest in introducing such a system in their countries.
A couple of years Ago, the Department of Trade and Industry carried out a survey into the UK jewellery sector. It examined the hallmarking system and came to the view that the present system has a neutral impact on UK competitiveness. As a result of that, the Department held a series of meetings, which resulted in a declaration of intent by the British Hallmarking Council, the British Jewellers Association, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the assay offices and the local authority trading standards body, in which they stated that a single market for precious metals in the European Union was desirable. That wide range of organisations also thought that the hallmarking of articles sold in the UK must be given the same protection as is given by the present independent system, so that people can have the same confidence in it. For that reason, the proposals in the draft directive—specifically those in the third annexe, to which I referred—were totally unacceptable to that wide range of organisations, drawn from retailers, producers, independent agencies and local authorities.
I want to highlight a third issue that is of particular importance to Edinburgh, to my constituency, of course, because the assay office is located there, and to the rest of Scotland. Acceptance of a directive in anything resembling its present form would probably lead to the eventual closure of the Scottish assay office and end the existence of the Scottish hallmark, which is particularly sought after by tourists—especially those from the USA, Canada and Japan—as well as by consumers from this country.
Besides the almost certain loss of most, if not all, of the 40 jobs in the Edinburgh assay office, there would be other serious consequences, which would have a much wider impact. For example, I am told that a national retailer, John Lewis, has launched and promoted a range of hallmarked silverware in Scottish branches and its sales have increased by 40 per cent. as a result.
In addition to sales lost to the Scottish economy, the closure of the Edinburgh assay office would end the funding that it provides to art colleges in Scotland, to promoting design and craft skills and to staging major exhibitions at a number of galleries in Scotland. I understand that the assay offices in England also offer such support for the wider community. All that would be put at risk, and could be terminated very quickly, if the current independent hallmarking system were to end in this country.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I recently asked a number of parliamentary questions on this subject, and I greatly welcome the assurances that I was given in answers by the then Minister, who has now moved to another Department. The positive response from my hon. Friend's predecessor was a tribute to the campaign of those concerned about the future of the industry, and, of course, to the many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who have supported my early-day motion on the subject. I hope that my hon. Friend will reiterate the commitment given by his predecessor, but also that he will be able to take that commitment further.

683
As hallmarking is one of those issues subject to majority voting in the European Union, it may not be enough for the UK—to put it in the terms used in the answer to my question last month—simply not to support the draft directive. I would ask the Minister for a commitment to go further, positively to oppose the draft directive if it is introduced in Brussels, and to take every step that he can to ensure that any move to reintroduce that directive is blocked in the EU institutions.
Finally, it would be helpful to myself and those who are also interested in the issue if my hon. Friend would tell us what is his information about the support for, or dissent from, the draft directive in its present form among member states. There have been rumours that the member states that will join the EU next year have been told by some sources in the European Commission that they must give up independent hallmarking as part of the process of joining the EU. I hope that those rumours are unfounded. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that if they are not, that would be a totally wrong position for the Commission to take. I look forward to his reassurance today, or at a later date, that those rumours are unfounded and that the British Government would resist any such move.
My hon. Friend the Minister, and the House, will know that I am a strong supporter of British membership of the EU. Of course, to be a supporter does not mean that one does not fight vigorously for the interests of one's constituency and one's country, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. This is one such example. The adoption of the draft directive would mean less protection for consumers, extra costs for manufacturers and Governments and, if imports with lower safeguards were let in unchecked, it would undermine the tried and trusted British hallmarking system.
I welcome the Government's statements to date on the issue, and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to reiterate their opposition to the draft directive and to commit the Government to pursue that opposition in the most vigorous manner open to them.
2.49 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for his kind remarks about my elevation to the post of Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers. Nine years ago, I made my maiden speech in the House. Some of the thoughts that ran through my mind then are running through my mind now. That is why I am pleased to be with my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who are supporting me in the venture of answering this Adjournment debate.
It is an important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on securing it. As he said, the Edinburgh assay office is located in his constituency. He has a keen interest in the proposed EU directive on hallmarking and the effect it may have on hallmarking in the United Kingdom. The
684
Scottish hallmark, which is a castle—I have a document here that shows how wonderful it is—is viewed as important both to the Scottish jewellery trade and to tourism in the area.
The UK has had a system of compulsory hallmarking since about 1300. It is the UK's oldest form of consumer protection. In the UK, the testing and marking of items of gold, silver and platinum are done by four independent assay offices, which are located in London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Edinburgh. That ensures that they conform to legal standards of purity; offers UK consumers a guarantee that goods are what they claim to be; and provides a high level of consumer protection. The system has worked well for the UK.
Last year, the Italians announced that they wished to revive the draft EU directive on hallmarking during their presidency in the second half of this year. The directive aims to harmonise practices across the European Union, allowing the free movement of articles of precious metal. It offers a choice of three ways of marking items of precious metal: marking by manufacturers to standards regulated by an accredited quality assurance scheme in annexe II; marking by manufacturers making a declaration of conformity in annexe III; and third-party marking by independent bodies, which is roughly equivalent to the UK's system of hallmarking by the assay offices, in annexe IV.
Although the Italians have scheduled a Council working group for July, they still have not made any formal proposal on the directive, and the starting point is likely to be the existing draft directive that was last discussed in 1996. In 1995, it was debated by Committees in both Houses of Parliament, which decided that it was unsound because annexe III lacked sufficient safeguards. At that time, the UK formed part of a blocking minority that would have been able to veto the directive had it been voted on in the Council of Ministers. In the event, however, no vote was taken, as member states were unable to reach a common position.
When the subject was raised again last November, it was clear that, in the intervening years, things had changed in other member states. In the past few years, more states that previously operated a third-party marking system have moved to a manufacturer marking system. That has left compulsory third-party hallmarking states such as the UK in even more of a minority. Other member states that were formerly opposed to the directive, such as Germany, have also indicated that they are ready to consider it again.
When the Italians raised the prospect of resurrecting the draft directive, officials in the Department looked again at the evidence, consulting stakeholders, including trade associations such as the British Jewellers Association, representing manufacturers, and the National Association of Goldsmiths, representing retailers; some manufacturers and retailers; assay offices; the British Hallmarking Council; trading standards and consumer organisations.
At that stage, it became clear that there was still little support for a change to the UK system. The UK system is self-financing—manufacturers and importers pay the assay offices to have their goods checked and hallmarked—and ensures that all articles are independently checked and marked, whether they are from a UK manufacturer or abroad, creating a level

685
playing field for all jewellery sold in the UK. That gives the consumer a guarantee that the items that they are buying are what they say they are. It also means that enforcement agencies are able more easily to spot items that are on the market illegally, keeping enforcement costs down.
It is true that a number of larger manufacturers would change to a manufacturer marking system were the draft directive to be adopted, but even they accept that the current system works well, and that there could be enforcement problems under the proposed directive.
As my hon. Friend has asked me about it, I want to make the Government's position clear. While the directive would not do away with the UK's system of independent marking by assay offices, it would permit three different systems of testing precious metals to run alongside each other. Those would offer different levels of protection against fraud, which would effectively weaken the level of protection enjoyed by the consumer, which we could not and would not support.
After re-examining the evidence and talking to stakeholders, it also became clear that there is no real support in the UK for changing a system that has worked well for more than 700 years. Any formal proposal on the directive put forward by the Italians is likely to be based on the same draft that could not be agreed to last time. My predecessor as Minister with responsibility for the consumer, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), announced on 12 June that if the Italians revive the hallmarking directive in its current form, the Government will not support it. I can assure the industry, consumers and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that I share those concerns about the directive and strongly support retention of the UK system. I am pleased to say that, following oral questions in the other place yesterday, we also enjoy unanimous, cross-party support from their lordships on this issue.
686
I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the future of the Scottish hallmark. Under the directive, the use of assay office marks, which identify where an item has been marked, will no longer be compulsory; instead, an "E" mark, showing that an item has been marked in the European Union, will be used. However, there is nothing in the directive to prohibit marks such as the Edinburgh Assay Office "castle" mark being used in addition "E" marks. I hope that that has reassured my hon. Friend about the future of assay office marks, should we be unsuccessful in stopping the hallmarking directive. I reiterate that, of course, the Government do not support the directive.
I note my hon. Friend's concern that the Commission has applied pressure on the accession states to give up independent hallmarking systems. Although it is true that this may have been suggested in 1995—the year in which the draft directive was last discussed—when there may have been some expectation that it would form part of the acquis communautaire, I am not aware of such a suggestion having been made in recent years, and nor would I expect the Commission to do any such thing. I agree that such a move would be totally unacceptable, and we will monitor the situation. It is perhaps worth noting that although the accession states cannot vote following any forthcoming discussions on this issue, they are permitted to be present and to speak. That will make it difficult for other member states to ignore their views.
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that the UK Government have no intention of altering a hallmarking system that has served the UK so well for so long. We understand the level of concern expressed in the UK by industry and consumers, and we shall not be supporting the directive.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the Department and its agencies and the(a) dates and (b) costs of their acquisition. [118833]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No properties have been acquired by the Angel Group or any of its subsidiaries from my Department.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [117709]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has recently commissioned independent specialist consultants to carry our asbestos surveys in all the buildings the Department occupies and manages. These surveys will provide us with up to date information on the location, type and, most importantly, the condition of asbestos. Appropriate risk assessments have also been carried out, asbestos control measures confirmed and a programme of regular reviews and updates has been scheduled.

  All these procedures are being incorporated into an updated Departmental Health and Safety Management Plan. This will incorporate specific job responsibilities for building safety managers to maintain asbestos registers, undertake appropriate reviews and risk assessments and address all other statutory requirements to effectively manage the risks from asbestos in departmental buildings. These measures are being progressed in cooperation with the Health and Safety Executive and will result in the Department complying fully with the new Regulations.

  Accurate costings for compliance with the new Regulations are not available.

  Rural Issues
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which subjects(a) rural and (b) countryside issues feature in the National Curriculum at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level. [119150]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Rural and countryside issues are covered within the National Curriculum through citizenship and geography.
  446W
  Through geography, a foundation subject studied by all pupils aged 5 to 14; pupils investigate different places and environments, including the countryside within the United Kingdom and abroad. Through citizenship, a statutory requirement in secondary schools from September 2002, pupils should be taught about the wider issues and challenges of global interdependence and responsibility, including sustainable development and Local Agenda 21. This gives teachers in rural schools the opportunity to incorporate issues of a rural nature in lessons.

  From October 2003, schools opting for Specialist School status in any one of the 10 specialisms will be able to build in a rural dimension into their chosen specialism. Target setting subjects, which schools may utilise as part of the rural dimension, include: GCSE Geography, GCSE Environmental Science, GCSE Rural and Agricultural Science, GNVQ or GCSE Leisure and Tourism and GNVQ Land and Environment.

  Phonics
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 785W, on synthetic appliances, if he will list the international research over the last 30 years on which the teaching of phonics in the National Literary Strategy is based; how many schools have adopted the Jolly Phonics programme; and when he will publish the report on the seminar of 17 March 2003. [119912]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The teaching of phonics in the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) is based on a wide range of research, and can be found in Roger Beard's "Review of Research and Other Related Evidence", which is available on the Department for Education and Skills Standards website at: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/literacy/publications

  The Department does not collect information on the number of schools who have adopted the Jolly Phonics or any other commercial programme. Schools are able to choose from a range of phonics programmes, including the NLS Progression in Phonics, as well as other commercial schemes. It is up to individual schools and teachers to decide which scheme is most effective in meeting the needs of their pupils.

  The report on the phonics seminar of 17 March 2003 will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the function of the two vehicles suspected of being biological weapons laboratories that were discovered in Iraq. [120497]

  The Prime Minister
  Investigations into their role are continuing.

TRANSPORT

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within his Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if he will make a statement. [112468]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Special Advisers currently in post, appointed by the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport are Andrew Maugham and Tom Restrick.

  The above are paid appointments. Under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 166W, on drink driving, what plans he has to amend police powers to allow evidential breath-testing at the roadside and to increase penalties; when he plans to introduce these changes; and if he will make a statement. [119993]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As stated in our Road Safety Strategy, the Government intend to create a power for police to carry out evidential breath-testing at the roadside. This measure requires primary legislation and will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  With regard to penalty changes, the Criminal Justice Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment. We are planning to implement further penalty changes referred to in the report on the Review of Road Traffic Penalties (July 2002), including those applying to repeat drink-drive offenders, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Freight Grants
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what body co-ordinates the national strategy for freight grants. [120074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government support the movement of freight by rail and waterways as a key part of our sustainable distribution policy. The freight grants programme is a demand-led scheme, which encourages the movement of goods by these means.

  Following the Transport Act 2000, the programme is administered by the Strategic Rail Authority (for rail freight) and by the Department for Transport (for inland waterways and sea freight). There is regular consultation between the Department and the SRA.
  448W
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much track access grant aid was paid to freight operators in each year since 1992(a) at current prices and (b) at outturn prices, broken down by location of company. [120075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Track Access Grants became available in 1994, with the first payment being made in 1996. The table below excludes grants made by the Scottish Executive, which is a matter for the Scottish parliament. Track Access Grant is awarded only to freight train operators, who operate throughout the network.

  £ million

  Value of TAGs

  Value of TAGs at 2002–03 prices

  1996–97

  12.2

  14.3

  1997–98

  21.3

  24.3

  1998–99

  19.3

  21.4

  1999–2000

  17.2

  18.6

  2000–01

  13.9

  14.7

  2001–02

  19.9

  20.5

  2002–03

  20.7

  20.7

  Mersey Tunnels Bill
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings his Department has held in the last five years with the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority and Executive to discuss the Mersey Tunnels Bill. [120136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been five meetings between the Department and the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority and Executive to discuss the current Mersey Tunnels Private Bill.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Residences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial contribution(a) Her Majesty the Queen and (b) His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is making to the redecoration and refurbishment of Clarence House. [115778]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Her Majesty the Queen is not paying anything towards the redecoration of Clarence House; and

  (b) His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales is paying £78,000 including VAT towards the decoration costs. In addition, he is paying about £1.6 million for the soft furnishings, including carpets, light fittings and curtains.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117214]
  449W
  Mr. Caborn
  Cultural matters are not subject to Qualified Majority Voting: matters are voted unanimously. Audiovisual matters are subject to Qualified Majority Voting, but DCMS Ministers have not voted against proposals.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal that was passed by Qualified Majority Voting. [117237]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers in the DCMS have not abstained in voting on audiovisual matters that are subject to Qualified Majority Voting.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers; and if she will list the legislation by year. [117241]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department has not been outvoted by Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117256]

  Mr. Caborn
  On no occasion has this Department registered dissent from a proposal that has been voted on in the Council of Ministers.

  London Olympic Bid
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from what budget the salary for the leader of the London Olympic Bid comes; and how many days a week the leader of the Bid will be contracted to work. [120171]

  Mr. Caborn
  The salary for the leader of the London Olympic Bid will come from the joint provision set aside by the Government and the London Development Agency to cover the costs of the bid. It is envisaged that the leader of the Bid will be contracted to work a two to three-day week, although this is likely to be flexible to reflect changing pressures of work and to meet priorities and needs.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been allocated for redundancies and early retirement at(a) Sport England and (b) UK Sport for (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [119950]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures requested are shown in the following table:

  £

  2002–03 (Actual)

  2003–04 (Plans)

  Sport England

  —

  7,236,000

  UK Sport

  767

  25,000

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding programmes are operated by her Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been in each of the last three years. [120531]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will be paying £134,000 this year, as we have done for each of the previous two years, to Community Service Volunteers (CSV) for the Lending Time project—involving volunteers in public libraries. The Home Office will also be putting in £134,000 for each of these years.

SCOTLAND

  Reshuffle
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he offered on the designation of officials in his Department in(a) correspondence and (b) communications issued on Friday 13 June. [120676]

  Mr. Darling
  None.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Infanticide (Mothers)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Solicitor General what plans she has to change the way in which the criminal justice system deals with mothers accused of murdering their children; and if she will make a statement. [119933]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service will continue to apply the two-stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors—namely, whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In the light of the Sally Clark judgment the Crown Prosecution Service is issuing guidance to all Chief Crown Prosecutors instructing that the defence should be made aware of the criticisms of the Court of Appeal should any future case involving Dr. Williams or Professor Meadow arise. The CPS is also involved in a number of working groups that are considering the work of expert witnesses.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106971]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 7 April.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 4 April 2003, Official Report, column 891W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to visit south Cumbria to discuss the operation of the fallen livestock disposal scheme. [119337]

  Ben Bradshaw
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit south Cumbria for this purpose. However we have regular meetings with stakeholders to discuss this issue.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on developing country producers of EU enlargement, with particular reference to the payment of production-related subsidies to accession country farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. [119007]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Enlargement will bring important benefits for developing countries. The new member states will take on EU partnership and co-operation agreements, and will therefore provide expanded access for developing countries under preferential and free trade arrangements, the EU's Generalised System of Preferences and the "Everything But Arms" scheme. Overall, enlargement will give access to a larger single market of up to half a billion people, with one set of rules and regulations applying throughout.

  However, enlargement will not alter the conclusion that the CAP as it stands has a detrimental impact on developing countries. The government are committed to CAP reform as a key element towards their goal of a more sustainable agriculture. A fundamentally reformed and market-oriented CAP would benefit developing countries, as well as farmers, consumers, the environment, and taxpayers in both old and new EU member states.

  Computers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) computers, (b) computer printers and (c) other computing equipment were (i) purchased, (ii) disposed of by (A) landfill, (B) incineration and (C) other means, (iii) recycled and (iv) reused, broken down by households and businesses in the last year for which figures are available. [119066]

  Mr. Morley
  These figures are not collected centrally. However, a report by the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) suggests that in 1998, 225,000 tonnes of IT and LAN equipment were discarded. Of that, about 20 per cent. by weight was sent for reuse or recycling. This report is currently being updated and revised figures will be available shortly.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers she has to accept or reject the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment with respect to proposed GM releases into the environment. [119076]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment is the statutory committee appointed under section 124(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the exercise of her powers in granting consents for the release of genetically modified organisms and other relevant matters. The Secretary of State may accept or reject the advice of the committee, but decisions must be based on an assessment of risks to human health or the environment and other criteria set out in the legislation and are open to challenge through the courts.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding the licensing of GM crops for commercial use from(a) farming organisations, (b) supermarkets, (c) other Governments and (d) others. [119257]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and Defra Ministers and officials regularly receive representations on GM crops from a wide range of stakeholders, including farming organisations, supermarkets, other Governments and others. No central record is kept of these communications.

  Landfill Licences
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what licence modification in respect of the landfill site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd. at Ingram Works in Leeds is now under consideration; and how many applications for licence modifications have been received from that applicant in the last month. [119583]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Harry Sanders Ltd. do not hold the licence for the landfill site at Ingram Works, Leeds. I understand the licence is held by Peter Saunders and the Environment Agency has not received any application to modify the licence over the last month.

  Light Bulbs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) GLS bulbs, (b) fluorescent tubes, (c) halogen bulbs, (d) low energy bulbs and (e) other lighting bulbs were (i) purchased, (ii) disposed of, by (A) landfill, (B) incineration and (C) other means, (iii) recycled and (iv) reused, broken down by households and businesses in the last year for which figures are available. [119067]

  Mr. Morley
  The Lighting Industry Federation, which accounts for the majority of lighting manufacturers in the UK, estimates the figures for its members are as follows.
  453W

  Lamp sales 2002 (million)

  Percentage business use (approx)

  Disposal in 2002 (per cent.)

  Landfill

  Incineration

  Recycle

  Filament lamps (GLS)

  323

  40

  100

  0

  0

  Fluorescent tubes

  54

  90

  93.5

  0

  6.5

  Halogen

  26

  40

  100

  0

  0

  Low energy lamps (CFL)

  24

  45

  97.5

  0

  2.5

  High intensity discharge

  5.5

  100

  82.5

  0

  17.5

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from her office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118872]

  Alun Michael
  I have asked officials to follow precisely this approach and I know they make considerable efforts to do so. It is a formal aim within Defra for all correspondence, reports and documentation to be written according to Plain English standards (allowing leeway in technical reports aimed at a specialist audience) and to avoid non-standard spelling. I have also asked officials to avoid use of initials except when they are in standard use, but this is even more difficult to achieve in practice. Publication of reports is carried out in line with Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service.

  Resource Productivity
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Resource Productivity: Making More with Less", published in November 2001. [119701]

  Mr. Morley
  The recommendations in this report were initially under consideration by an interdepartmental group of officials, formed in early 2002. However, this work has taken on a much broader context because of the agreement successfully reached last September at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) on the theme of sustainable consumption and production. The Government's intention now is to publish, later this summer, a strategic document on the broader WSSD theme. This will draw on the earlier work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on resource productivity, as well as on developments in the related areas of energy and waste, on which the PIU and then the Strategy Unit have also reported.

  Sellafield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the quantified radioactive discharges, by terabecquerels, from Sellafield to(a) air and (b) water in each year from 1980 to date; and what the projected discharges are in each year to 2020. [117422]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Liquid and aerial discharge data for the years 1980 to 2002 inclusive, is provided in the following tables. For liquid discharges, the total alpha plus total beta (excluding
  454W
  tritium) measurements in table 1 provide a simple indication of past and future discharges that is representative of the overall discharge. Tritium in liquid discharges, which has very low radiological toxicity, despite being high in quantitive terms, is shown separately in table 2.

  For aerial discharges in table 3, the total alpha plus total beta measurements relate to particulate activity discharged to the atmosphere from the Sellafield site. In addition to the particulate activity there are low active radioactive gases and vapours discharged from the site which require specific sampling equipment dependent upon the gas to be measured. These measurements are separate from and in addition to the total alpha and total beta measurements and are provided in table 4 to give a more complete picture of past aerial discharges. Included in the gaseous measurements are the noble gases such as Krypton 85 and Argon 41 which are inert and consequently do not react with the environment through the normal pathways of rainwater or ground deposition. Their impact on man is through external exposure and as such their impact in terms of dose is relatively low, although in quantitive terms the discharges appear to be large.

  The projected results of liquid discharges in tables 5 and 6 are reproduced from the UK's Strategy for Radioactive Discharges, 2001–20, published in July 2002 and are shown as averaged 5-year predictions. Aerial projections are not currently available. These will be developed in the context of the first revision of the UK's Radioactive Discharges Strategy which is due to be published in 2005.

  Table 1: Sellafield liquid alpha plus beta radioactive discharges, excluding Tritium 1980–2002 (TBq)

  1980

  4,345

  1981

  3,861

  1982

  3,556

  1983

  2,504

  1984

  1,204

  1985

  593

  19861

  123

  1987

  91

  1988

  83

  1989

  104

  1990

  73

  1991

  64

  1992

  59

  1993

  100

  1994

  127

  1995

  188

  1996

  143

  1997

  138

  19982

  86

  1999

  110

  20002

  77

  2001

  123

  2002

  113

  455W
  1 Discharge authorisation revised in 1986

  2 Reduced discharges in 1998 and 2000 were due to their being no treatment of Salt Evaporator Concentrate (SEC) arising from Magnox re-processing.

  Table 2: Sellafield liquid tritium radioactive discharges 1980–2002 (TBq)

  1980

  1,300

  1981

  2,000

  1982

  1,800

  1983

  1,800

  1984

  1,600

  1985

  1,100

  19861

  2,200

  1987

  1,400

  1988

  1,700

  1989

  2,100

  1990

  1,700

  1991

  1,800

  1992

  1,200

  1993

  2,300

  1994

  1,700

  1995

  2,660

  1996

  3,000

  1997

  2,600

  1998

  2,300

  1999

  2,500

  2000

  2,260

  2001

  2,560

  2002

  3,320

  1 Discharge authorisation revised in 1986

  Table 3: Sellafield aerial alpha plus beta radioactive discharges excluding vapours and gases 1980–2002 (TBq)

  1980

  0.50

  1981

  0.25

  1982

  0.102

  1983

  0.08

  1984

  0.06

  1985

  0.05

  1986

  0.03

  1987

  0.02

  1988

  0.01

  1989

  0.01

  1990

  0.01

  1991

  0.01

  1992

  0.01

  1993

  0.01

  1994

  0.005

  1995

  0.004

  1996

  0.003

  1997

  0.002

  1998

  0.002

  1999

  0.002

  2000

  0.001

  2001

  0.001

  2002

  0.0001

  Table 4: Sellafield vapours and gases 1 discharged 1980–2002 (TBq)

  1980

  32,354

  1981

  53,770

  1982

  45,685

  1983

  43,411

  1984

  38,808

  1985

  26,875

  1986

  56,066

  1987

  36,501

  1988

  42,332

  1989

  54,914

  1990

  40,700

  1991

  47,727

  1992

  30,290

  456W

  Table 4: Sellafield vapours and gases 1 discharged 1980–2002 (TBq)

  1993

  60,570

  1994

  41,556

  1995

  100,289

  1996

  97,130

  1997

  97,764

  1998

  101,758

  1999

  102,857

  2000

  76,720

  2001

  105,140

  2002

  101,579

  1 Tritium, Carbon-14, Sulphur 35, Iodine 129 and 131, Argon 41, Krypton 85.

  Table 5: Projected alpha/beta radioactive liquid discharges from Sellafield excluding tritium 2003–2020 (TBq)

  2003

  165

  2004

  165

  2005

  165

  2006

  104

  2007

  104

  2008

  104

  2009

  104

  2010

  104

  2011

  75

  2012

  75

  2013

  75

  2014

  75

  2015

  75

  2016

  54

  2017

  54

  2018

  54

  2019

  54

  2020

  54

  Table 6: Projected liquid tritium radioactive discharges 2003–2020 (TBq)

  2003

  9,280

  2004

  9,280

  2005

  9,280

  2006

  8,930

  2007

  8,930

  2008

  8,930

  2009

  8,930

  2010

  8,930

  2011

  9,110

  2012

  9,110

  2013

  9,110

  2014

  9,110

  2015

  9,110

  2016

  9,520

  2017

  9,520

  2018

  9,520

  2019

  9,520

  2020

  9,520

  Note:

  The projections in tables 5 and 6 are annualised average figures for the five-year periods 2001–05, 2006–10, 2011–15 and 2016–20. They do not represent targets or limits for sp.

  Waste Management
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the locations broken down by(a) county and (b) region of (i) existing waste incinerators and (ii) pending planning applications for waste incinerators in England and Wales. [117482]
  457W
  Mr. Morley
  There are at present 16 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerators operating in the whole of the UK, two of which are in Scotland. Details of planning applications for proposed facilities that have yet to be

  Location

  MSW/year (kilotonnes)

  Net capacity (MW) (megawatts)

  Operator

  Cleveland (Billingham)

  245

  20

  SITA

  SELCHP (Lewisham, London)

  420

  32

  Onyx/SELCHP

  Tyseley (Birmingham)

  350

  25

  Onyx

  Edmonton (north London)

  600

  32

  SITA/London Waste

  Coventry CHP

  215

  17.7

  Coventry and Solihull

  Dudley

  90

  7

  Martin Engineering Systems

  Wolverhampton

  105

  8

  Martin Engineering Systems

  Stoke

  200

  12.5

  Martin Engineering Systems

  Nottingham CHP

  150

  13

  Waste Recycling Group Ltd.

  Bolton (Manchester)

  130

  10

  Greater Manchester Waste

  Sheffield CHP

  135

  6.8

  Onyx

  Kirklees

  135

  12

  SITA

  Isle of Wight (RDF)

  35

  1.8

  Biff a

  Pebsham (RDF)

  Z5

  Z5

  Slough Heat and Power

  There are many hundreds of other incinerators for sewage sludge, hazardous waste, clinical waste, production waste from factories etc. In England and Wales, the larger plant generally is regulated by the Environment Agency and details of their locations are available on the Environment Agency's public register. Other plant, that is part of another process regulated by the Agency, may not be shown separately on the register. Smaller plant is regulated by local authorities. In Scotland all such plant are regulated by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.

  Operator

  Location

  Size, t/yr

  Planning status

  Permit status

  NEWLINCS Developments

  Grimsby

  56,000

  Granted

  IPC authorised. PPC application to be submitted

  Onyx

  Portsmouth

  165,000

  Granted after appeal

  IPC authorised. PPC application expected this year

  Onyx

  Marchwood, Southampton

  160,000

  Granted

  IPC authorised. PPC application being determined

  Surrey Waste Management

  Capel, Surrey

  116,000

  Granted, but there has been a successful legal challenge

  PPC permit issued

  Grundons

  Slough

  400,000

  Granted

  IPC authorised. PPC application expected

  Onyx

  Chineham, Surrey

  110,000

  Granted

  PPC permit issued

  HLC Waste Management Services

  Neath, Port Talbot

  85,000

  Granted

  PPC permit issued

  Waste Recycling Group

  Hull

  150,000

  Planning appeal turned down

  PPC permit issued

  Kent Enviropower

  Maidstone, Kent

  500,000

  Granted

  PPC permit being determined

  Riverside Resource Recovery

  Bexley, London

  580,000 nominal capacity

  Application submitted; public enquiry pending

  IPC authorised; PPC application pending

  Shanks

  Milton Keynes

  353,000

  Application submitted

  PPC application to be submitted if planning permission granted

  Onyx

  Sheffield

  225,000

  Application approved

  PPC application determined

  Sita

  Ridham Dock, Kent

  200,000

  Subject to a planning appeal

  No application

  County Environment Services

  Roche, Cornwall

  64,000

  Application submitted

  No application

TREASURY

  Civil Service Relocation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of Sir Michael Lyons' review into civil service relocation. [119986]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Lyons Review was launched in the Budget 2003 statement on 9 April and Sir Michael intends to report his findings by the end of the year. The Review will identify the scope for relocating substantial 458W
  determined by the respective local planning authorities, are not held centrally. The following table lists the 14 MSW incinerators in England and Wales.

  A new plant will need planning permission to start construction and a PPC permit to start operations. The table gives the number and status, as at 16 June 2003, of new Municipal Waste Incineration Plants in England and Wales. The table contains information shared with the Environment Agency by prospective applicants for pollution control permits. There may also be other planning applications or amendments which have been submitted to local authorities over which the Agency has not been consulted. The planning status may have been changed since the data were supplied.

  numbers of central Government and other public sector jobs from London and the South East to other parts of the United Kingdom Sir Michael has written to Permanent Secretaries and Heads of United Kingdom Government departments requesting asking them to submit proposals for relocating activity.

  Sir Michael will also consult a range of organisations at national, regional and local level. This consultation will begin before the end of June and will welcome responses until 12 September. It will also be accessible through the Treasury and ODPM websites.

  Co-operative Societies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to apply the same conditions to co-operative societies under industrial and provident society rules as to companies regarding(a) audit and accountants' reports and (b) publication of unaudited interim accounts. [119973]

  John Healey
  The Government are keen to see, where appropriate, a level playing field between industrial and provident societies and companies. We are currently examining our options for taking forward this agenda. However, in order to provide for a strategic, consistent and up-to-date approach between companies and societies, the Government believe that the general modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation in this area should be considered in the light of the planned major reform of company law, announced in the "Modernising Company Law" White Paper, published in July 2002.

  Euro
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations were received from Ministers in Departments other than the Treasury on the document, "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776), prior to its publication; and whether these were taken into account in the final draft of the document. [120329]

  Mr. Boateng
  The assessment of the five economic tests was produced by the Treasury for the Government. The work on the assessment was undertaken by the Treasury, and it was then circulated to the Cabinet on 29 May 2003.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the length of time required, following structural reform in housing markets and other areas, before sustainable and durable convergence in relation to membership of the single currency can be judged to have occurred; [120330]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the time required for the dynamic changes to come through before business cycles can be judged to have converged in relation to reforms to the housing market as set out in the Executive Summary of the document "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776) [120343]

  Mr. Boateng
  In his statement to Parliament on 9 June 2003, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced major reforms, right for the British economy, reforms which will be implemented over the next year and will greatly assist the process of achieving sustainable and durable convergence and the flexibility necessary for Britain to succeed sustainably within the euro zone and realise its potential for trade and investment.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out the analysis behind his conclusion in "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury,460W
  Cm 5776, paragraph 5.19), that over the long term, 2.5 per cent. for RPIX inflation corresponds to around 2 per cent. for HICP inflation; [120336]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of including housing depreciation as a component of the inflation target; [120337]

  (3) pursuant to his oral statement of 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 412W, if he will publish the supporting papers for his conclusion that the HICP measure of inflation is a better measure; [120340]

  (4) pursuant to his oral statement of 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 412, if he will make a statement on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the various measures of inflation, in light of his conclusion that the HICP measure of inflation is a better measure. [120328]

  John Healey
  In his statement on 9 June 2003, the Chancellor said that the advantage of the internationally recognised index of consumer prices—HICP—is that it is a better measure, will improve the quality of our target, is in line with best international practice and is used by every other G7 nation but Japan, and by our neighbours in Europe. The Chancellor also said that, subject to confirmation at the time of the Pre-Budget Report, he intended to change the inflation target at that time.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when officials from his Department first had discussions regarding the planning of events to promote the UK's entry to a single currency after 9 June 2003. [120025]

  John Healey
  Ministers will be holding a series of meetings around the country, campaigning for a pro-European consensus.

  The arrangements for any events taking place following the announcement on EMU will adhere strictly to the published Ministerial Code. The Code governs the boundary between the legitimate presentation of Government policy, for which Government resources can be used, and party political activities, for which they cannot.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the expenditure on the promotion of UK entry to the European single currency will come from the budget of his Department; [120027]

  (2) if he will list the projected costs of (a) events and (b) publications planned by his Department to promote UK entry to the European single currency. [120029]

  John Healey
  The arrangements for any events taking place following the announcement on EMU will adhere strictly to the published Ministerial Code. The Code governs the boundary between the legitimate presentation of Government policy, for which Government resources can be used, and party political activities, for which they cannot.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of Britain in Europe regarding a campaign to promote UK entry to the European single currency. [120028]
  461W
  John Healey
  As the Chancellor said at the press conference on 10 June 2003,"Tomorrow I'll be meeting Britain in Europe and discuss with them the changes we need in Britain and in Europe."

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the programme of events planned by his Department to promote UK entry to the European single currency. [120030]

  John Healey
  Ministers will be holding a series of meetings around the country, campaigning for a pro-European consensus.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further work is being undertaken on the role of discretionary fiscal policy inside EMU, further to paragraph 2.215 of "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776); and when this work will be completed. [120334]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury will conduct further analysis into these issues to ensure that the policy proposals deliver effective counter-cyclical stabilisation of the economy if the UK were to join EMU.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further work is being undertaken on the role of automatic fiscal stabilisers inside EMU, further to paragraph 2.196 of UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests (HM Treasury, Cm 5776); and when this work will be completed. [120335]

  Mr. Boateng
  Paragraph 5.32 of the Treasury discussion paper "Fiscal stabilisation and EMU" describes what further work will be required over time to assess the case for strengthening the automatic stabilisers if the UK were to join EMU.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposal to change the inflation target. [120338]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents seeking confirmation that pensions will continue to be increased in line with the RPI. In his statement on 9 June the Chancellor confirmed that pensions and benefits and index-linked gilts would be calculated on exactly the same basis as now.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis he has made of the performance of the existing inflation target and its effect on the conduct and performance of UK monetary policy since 1997. [120339]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury published a paper in October 1999, "The New Monetary Policy Framework", which assessed the performance of the new framework in its first two years. This analysis was updated in the book "Reforming Britain's Economic and Financial Policy—Towards Greater Economic Stability", HM Treasury, published in 2002. In addition, the Government publishes regular commentary on, and analysis of, the performance of inflation and inflation expectations under the new monetary policy framework in Budget and Pre-Budget Reports. The analysis demonstrates that the 462W
  new monetary policy framework has made a difference, in particular in closing the credibility gap between inflation expectations and the inflation target.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his oral statement of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 412W, if he will make a statement on the consultation process on the new fiscal rule. [120333]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury discussion paper "Fiscal stabilisation and EMU" discusses how the new fiscal rule could be set up if the UK were to join EMU. In his statement to Parliament on 9 June 2003, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "to ensure stability inside the euro area we will consult on the case for an open letter system on fiscal policy and a new and additional fiscal rule." We intend to discuss the new fiscal rule with external experts. Given that decisions on how such consultation will be carried out have not yet been made, the draft answer quotes from the statement that "we will report on progress in the Budget next year"

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions he draws from the UK's correlation of business cycle to the euro area compared to Germany's as shown in Table 1.1 of "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776). [120341]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 1.166 of "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" which states:

  "On past performance, UK business cycles have been much less compatible with the euro area average than has been the case in other countries such as Germany and France. There is some evidence that compatibility may have increased in recent years, reflecting greater macroeconomic stability in the UK and increased convergence between the business cycles of all the advanced economies. Over the last five years, the UK output gap cycle has been more correlated with the German cycle than that in the US…"

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" HM Treasury, Cm 5776, paragraph 1.121, what conclusions he has drawn from his finding that the United Kingdom left the ERM at least in part because of a lack of convergence. [120342]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor said in his statement to the House on 9 June 2003,"The discipline of the five tests is to ensure there will be no repeat of the experience of the ERM when Britain joined at the wrong rate and at the wrong time without either convergence or flexibility and the potential benefits could not be realised."
  The Government believe there is a realistic prospect of making significant progress on this reform agenda over the next year. We will report on progress in the Budget next year.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his assessment of the effect of EMU membership on pensioners, and in particular his conclusion in "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic
  463W
  Tests", HM Treasury, Cm 5776, paragraph 5.139 that overall the environment would be one of greater uncertainty. [120344]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor said in his statement,

  "we will do nothing to put stability and the national economic interest at risk."

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether officials from Departments other than the Treasury contributed to the final contents of the document "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776). [120346]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is a Treasury assessment produced for the Government. The work was undertaken by the Treasury.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the final changes were made to the document "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (HM Treasury, Cm 5776). [120347]

  Mr. Boateng
  The assessment of the five economic tests was produced by the Treasury for the Government. The work on the assessment was undertaken by the Treasury, and it was then circulated to the Cabinet on 29 May 2003.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether officials from departments other than the Treasury contributed to the final contents of the 18 EMU studies accompanying the Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests, published on 9 June. [120349]

  Mr. Boateng
  As stated in the EMU study "EMU and business sectors"

  "This study has benefited from comments and analytical inputs from Department of Trade and Industry officials.… All content, conclusions, errors and omissions in this study are, however, the responsibility of HM Treasury alone."

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether ministers in(a) the Treasury and (b) other Departments made a contribution to the final contents of the 18 EMU studies which accompanied the Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests, published on 9 June. [120350]

  Mr. Boateng
  The EMU studies are Treasury studies, and the work was completed by Treasury officials and, in some cases by external authors with specialist expertise.

  One EMU study, "EMU and business sectors"

  "… benefited from comments and analytical inputs from Department of Trade and Industry officials.…. All content, conclusions, errors and omissions in this study are, however, the responsibility of HM Treasury alone".

  The EMU studies were then circulated to Cabinet on 17 May 2003.

  Orphan Funds
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what analysis he has conducted of the amount of unclaimed orphan funds in(a) banks, (b) building societies and (c) elsewhere; [120684]

  (2) how much unclaimed money lay in orphan funds on 1 January in each year since 1973; and what records his Department has of unclaimed funds in years before 1973. [120685]

  John Healey
  The Treasury does not hold this information.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 2003–04 pay negotiations for the Probation Service in England and Wales will commence. [120597]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under pay delegation, it is for the individual organisation, in this case the National Probation Service, to determine when negotiations with their unions will commence.

  Travel and Subsistence Allowances
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of travel and subsistence allowances paid to Customs and Excise officers in the Law Enforcement South Region was in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and what estimate he has made of the total cost of travel and subsistence allowances payable to Customs and Excise officers in the Law Enforcement South Region in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [120041]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise Law Enforcement South Region was created in April 2001, as an entity did not exist prior to April 2001. Law Enforcement changes its structure from time to time in order to meet new business challenges. Over the period in question there have been some changes to regional management structures in the South, which together with accounting constraints, mean that no exact correlation of data is possible.

  For the fiscal year 2001–02 the total spend on travel and subsistence for the Law Enforcement South Region was £2.32 million, and covers the operations of all detection, intelligence and investigation officers.

  For the fiscal year 2002–03 the total spend was £2.42 million. The initial allocation of funds to cover travel and subsistence costs for this region for 2003–04 is £2.55 million.

  For 2004–05 we would expect similar expenditure to 2003–04 but would adjust accordingly at the time of allocation in the light of any new business developments or changes.

  The figure for 2003–04 does not yet take account of new activities related to anti-terrorism and Products of Animal Origin (POAO), which may result in higher spending on travel and subsistence allowances in the South Region.

  Whitehall Refurbishment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what searches were carried out for surveillance devices during the refurbishment of the Treasury buildings in Whitehall; and if he will make a statement on the results of searches. [120139]

  John Healey
  The Treasury does not comment on security matters of this nature. Exemption 7 of the Open Government Code applies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what funds were made available through the Department and its predecessors for aid, expressed as a percentage of GDP, in each of the last 30 years. [120635]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) from 1977 are available in "Statistics on International Development 1997/98–2001/02", Table 16.1 page 153; the document is available in the House of Commons Library. The table sets out the figures from 1973. The provisional figure for 2002 is 0.30 per cent.

  ODA as percentage of GNI

  1973

  0.34

  1974

  0.40

  1975

  0.39

  1976

  0.39

  1977

  0.44

  1978

  0.46

  1979

  0.51

  1980

  0.35

  1981

  0.43

  1982

  0.37

  1983

  0.35

  1984

  0.33

  1985

  0.33

  1986

  0.31

  1987

  0.28

  1988

  0.32

  1989

  0.31

  1990

  0.27

  1991

  0.32

  1992

  0.30

  1993

  0.31

  1994

  0.31

  1995

  0.29

  1996

  0.27

  1997

  0.26

  1998

  0.27

  1999

  0.24

  2000

  0.32

  2001

  0.32

  Child Labour
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if she will make a statement on treatment of child labour on banana plantations in Ecuador. [119987]

  Hilary Benn
  There are some 6,000 children working on plantations in Ecuador and thousands more working on small farms. They do so because of the lack of 466W
  earning opportunities available to their parents. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that children are being forced against their will to work in plantations. The only sustainable solution is to improve earning opportunities for poor people. We continue to encourage multilateral donors to focus their support on the needs of the poorest to help achieve this.

  DFID's Civil Society Challenge Fund is supporting a cross regional programme of assistance for banana workers in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras. This project is managed by the UK based NGO 'Banana Link' and aims to secure and maintain the freedom of plantation workers to organise themselves into independent trade unions and to participate in free collective bargaining.

  The British embassy monitors the compliance of Ecuador to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights legislation to which Ecuador is a signatory. The UK Government are committed to helping eliminate child labour globally, particularly the worst forms such as child slavery, and all forms of abusive or exploitative child labour. The Government strongly supports the International Labour Organisation's work to fight child labour and the UK has ratified both of the ILO Child Labour Conventions.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions he has had with the Coalition Authority regarding the role of women in the Interim Iraqi Administration; and when these discussions took place. [118477]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Through the UK's Special Representative for Iraq, we are working closely with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and Iraqis to ensure that women play a full and equal role in the Iraqi Interim Administration.

  The UK's Special Representative, John Sawers, has consistently emphasised the importance of women being an integral part of Iraq's political process.

  A gender expert from the Women and Equality Unit has been seconded to the CPA and she is working with other secondees and Iraqi women to help facilitate women's involvement in the political process in Baghdad.

  John Sawers and Ambassador Bremer, the US civilian administrator of Iraq, met women on 25 May in Baghdad to listen to their views and concerns, as well as to discuss ways to ensure their full involvement in the reconstruction process.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what guidelines have been issued to the Coalition Authority concerning the appointment of women to the Interim Iraqi Administration; and what role the Department will have in the appointment of delegates to the Interim Iraqi Administration. [118478]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.
  467W
  No decisions have yet been taken as to the composition of any Iraqi Interim Administration. Consistent with UNSCR 1483, Iraqis, with the help of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the UN Special Representative, will establish interim bodies, and work towards the formation of a fully representative new Iraqi government.

  We believe it is important for women to be represented in those interim bodies. Through the Office of the UK Special Representative to Iraq, we are working towards this aim, in conjunction with the CPA and Iraqi groups. A gender expert from the Women and Equality Unit has been seconded to the CPA and is working with other secondees and Iraqi women to help facilitate women's involvement in the political process M Baghdad.

  Marie Stopes International
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures the Department takes to ensure that advice given by departmentally funded Marie Stopes websites is legal. [119496]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports a number of Marie Stopes International (MSI) projects in developing countries, but this has not included specific funding for MSI's website. The Charity Commissioners are responsible for ensuring that charities operate within the relevant rules and laws that govern their activities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [118589]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: Separately identifiable costs apportioned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for Afghanistan over the last three years are: 2000–01: £0.67 million, 2001–02: £1.77 million, 2002–03: £9.5 million. The forecast cost for 2003–04 is £22 million.

  These costs include:

  a. staff and administration costs in UK and Afghanistan (£256,000, £1.1 million, £2.5 million over the past three years and £4.3 million forecast for 2003–04);

  b. capital costs in Kabul: (£0, £650,000, £500,000 over the past three years and £2.8 million forecast for 2003–04. The 2003–04 forecast includes the cost of the new Embassy)

  c. Afghanistan assistance programmes: (£418,000, £310,000, £6.5 million over the past three years and £15 million forecast for 2003–04).

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the objectives of Government policy are towards Afghanistan. [120502]
  468W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The objective of British Government policy in Afghanistan is a stable and secure Afghanistan restored to its rightful place in the community of nations and enjoying mature relations with its neighbours. It should have a self-sustaining economy; strong institutions; and a broad-based, multiethnic regime committed to:

  eradicating terrorism

  eliminating opium production;

  reducing poverty;

  respecting human rights, especially those of women and minority groups; and

  honouring Afghanistan's other international obligations.

  Burma
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the EU plans to take regarding the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma; and if the matter will be referred to the UN Security Council. [119476]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are in regular contact with EU partners and are in discussion about what further steps we will take if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses.

  The EU has already decided that the strengthened measures of the Common Position will now be implemented. The Common Position contains: an arms embargo; a ban on defence links; a ban on high-level bilateral government visits; a ban on non-humanitarian aid; a ban on the supply of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism; an asset freeze and visa ban on regime members, the military and security forces and others who actively frustrate the process of national reconciliation.

  Whether the matter is to be referred to the UNSC is currently under discussion.

  China
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with China. [120504]

  Mr. Rammell
  We currently enjoy very good relations with China. These have been built on regular high level visits in both directions, as well as lower level exchanges on many different issues. We look forward to building relations with the new leadership.

  As part of our efforts to step up our dialogue with China on major international issues the Chinese Foreign Minister, Li Zhaoxing, will visit the UK next week for talks with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Government Ministers.

  We have welcomed China's support in the fight against terrorism. The strength of our relationship allows us to raise directly with the Chinese Government our concerns about human rights in China which we do on a regular basis.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what
  469W
  assessment he has made of the stability and security situation in the Presevo Valley in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement; [120117]

  (2) what (a) peacekeeping forces and (b) recognised NGOs are present in Presevo in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement; [120118]

  (3) what proportion of people of the Moslem faith who fled the Presevo Valley he estimates have returned to their homes; [120119]

  (4) when a representative of the UK embassy in Belgrade last visited the Presevo Valley; [120120]

  (5) what reports he has received from (a) the UK Mission in Belgrade and (b) peacekeeping forces and NGOs, as to whether residential properties in Lagja Skemdevbeg district of Presevo in the former Yugoslavia are (i) destroyed and (ii) occupied by others than the original, legitimate tenants and owners; and if he will make a statement. [120121]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: In recent years, the Presevo Valley in the south of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) has experienced clashes between the Serbian security forces and armed extremist elements from the local ethnic Albanian community. The security situation has now improved following a peace settlement in May 2001, and a political process which has incorporated the Albanian minority more fully into local government.

  Tensions re-emerged in February this year when there were renewed attacks on Serbian security forces from ethnic Albanian extremists, largely based in eastern Kosovo. With the support of the international community, the Serbian authorities brought the situation under control. There remains an increased security forces presence in the region but the situation is currently calm and stable, with only occasional isolated incidents.

  Progress on refugee returns to southern Serbia has been good. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) estimates that 90 per cent. of ethnic Albanian internally displaced persons (IDPs) or refugees from Presevo have returned, 66 per cent. from Bujanovic district, and 70 per cent. from Medvedja district. The principal obstacle to further returns is the poor economic situation in the region. We have received no reports of destruction or illegal occupation of properties in any area of the PresevoValley.

  The Serb authorities, through the Serbian Government's Co-ordinating Body for Southern Serbia (SGCB), and the International Community continue in their efforts to consolidate the rule of law and multiethnic democracy in the region. There are no international peacekeeping forces in southern Serbia itself. KFOR maintains a presence in Kosovo and in Macedonia, which borders with the Presevo Valley.

  United Nations agencies, the OSCE and the European Union Monitoring Mission operate in southern Serbia, as well as a large number of NGOs. These include:American Refugee Committee (ARC); Development Alternatives Inc (DAI); International Rescue Committee (IRC); Medecins du Monde (MDM); Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF); Belgian Red
  470W
  Cross; International Organisation for Migration (IOM); United Methodist Committee of Relief (UMCOR); OXFAM; Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI); CARE; CHF International; Action contre le Faim (ACF).

  The UK continues to take a close interest in the democratic development and the security situation in southern Serbia. We have contributed financial assistance to projects aimed at stabilising the region, including the OSCE's Multi-Ethnic Policing programme. The last visit by officials from the British Embassy in Belgrade took place on 19–20 March 2003. We look forward to seeing progress in tackling the economic problems of the region, and in integrating ethnic Albanians more closely into the local state structures, both of which will help to stabilise the region further.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from British officials who have visited Guantanamo Bay about the health and welfare of the UK citizens detained there by the US. [119904]

  Mr. Mullin
  British officials visited the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay for a fifth time in April. As part of their visit they checked on the welfare of the detainees, who appeared generally to be in sound physical health. The physical conditions of their detention appear to be broadly satisfactory. However, we have raised any welfare concerns we may have with the US authorities.

  Indonesia
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Indonesian Government about the(a) destruction of churches and (b) killing of civilians in the West Papua regency of Wamena; and if he will make a statement; [119475]

  (2) what reports he has received of the activities of the Laskar Jihad in West Papua; and if he will make a statement on the safety of Christians in that region. [119478]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Embassy in Jakarta is monitoring the situation in Wamena closely and has met NGOs and community leaders from the area. We are aware of reports of civilians being abused and buildings being burned, which the Embassy will raise with the Indonesian Government.

  Laskar Jihad announced that they were disbanding in October 2002. There is conflicting information about whether the group is now present in Papua, and if so in what numbers. The local authorities in Papua are investigating these reports. At the moment we are not aware of any particular threat to Christians in Papua.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in the Indonesian province of Aceh. [119991]
  471W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned about recent reports of human rights abuses in Aceh. During my visit to Indonesia on 3–4 June I stressed to the Indonesian Government the importance of their Armed Forces using proportionate force, respecting human rights and acting in accordance with international law. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a joint press statement with the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, on 20 May calling on the Indonesian Armed Forces to ensure full respect for human rights and to show maximum restraint while they carry out operations in Aceh. We regularly raise with the Indonesian authorities the importance of upholding and promoting human rights and religious freedom throughout thecountry.

  The Indonesian Government have agreed to allow members of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas-HAM) to visit Aceh to investigate any alleged human rights abuses. There have also been two military tribunals at which military personnel have been sentenced to imprisonment for abusing civilians. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Indonesian Government's special autonomy law for West Papua of January 2002, with special reference to President Megawati's decree of March 2003 splitting the province. [120129]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK, together with EU partners, supports Special Autonomy for Papua. We have encouraged the Indonesian Government fully to implement Special Autonomy as soon as possible.

  Following a successful visit.to Papua by a Scottish Devolution team in October 2001, HMG provided funding for a devolution expert to go to Jayapura and advise the Papuan authorities, academics and civil society on drafting the legislation required for Special Autonomy. He has been in Papua since September 2002 and will leave in September 2003.

  President Megawati issued Presidential Instruction 01/2003 in January 2003, which says that Papua should be split into three provinces. It is not clear how this Instruction relates to the Special Autonomy package of 1 January 2002, but the Indonesian Government said in February 2003 that the Instruction and Special Autonomy do not contradict each other and that both can be implemented. We are seeking further clarification on this from the Indonesian Government.

  United Nations Charter
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his policy is on application of Article 16 of the Rome Statute; and if he will make a statement; [116910]

  (2) what action the Security Council took, in passing Resolution 1422, to determine whether there was a threat to international peace and security that justified taking powers under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;[116913]
  472W
  (3) what threat to international peace and security existed when he invoked Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and supported Resolution 1422 of the Security Council. [116911]

  Mr. Rammell
  Article 16 of the Rome Statute provides for the deferral of investigations or prosecutions by the International Criminal Court when the UN Security Council determines that such action would not be in the interests of international peace and security. On such occasions Security Council members, including the United Kingdom, would consult and act collectively.

  Security Council Resolution 1422 was adopted by unanimity under Chapter VII after intensive consultations within the Security Council. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his press release of 13 July 2002, the Security Council acted to ensure that the International Criminal Court was not undermined; to ensure that UN operations, in Bosnia and elsewhere, were able to continue and to ensure that the US would remain engaged in providing personnel and support to peacekeeping operations around the world. In short, to protect the Court and preserve peacekeeping.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken in Iraq to ensure that(a) individuals are subject to justice before the law and (b) a programme for justice has been implemented that incorporates a method of partnership, such as mixed tribunals. [118972]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Coalition Forces continue to maintain basic law and order and, accordingly, continue to arrest and detain individuals suspected of criminal activity.

  Judges, police and prosecutors are being called back to work and it is expected that local courts will take on increasing numbers of cases in the coming weeks.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority is undertaking an assessment of the capacity and needs of the Iraqi justice sector, through analysis of the situation on the ground and listening to the wishes of the Iraqi people. The results and recommendations of this exercise will result in key capacity building measures.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that(a) no Iraqi civilians are expelled from Iraq without tribunal and (b) no Iraqi citizen in exile is forcibly returned to Iraq from the UK. [118974]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  International law prohibits the expulsion of Iraqi nationals from Iraq except in limited circumstances for security or imperative military reasons. There are no plans to expel Iraqi nationals from Iraq and, in any event, the UK will continue to act in accordance with its international legal obligations.

  The UK and other EU member states are working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish an international framework for safe and managed returns to Iraq. We support the UNHCR's aim to put in place a voluntary repatriation programme for Iraqis as soon as possible. We are not

  473W
  currently enforcing the return of failed Iraqi asylum seekers, although we will review this when we consider it appropriate.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that Iraqis charged with human rights violations under the Geneva Convention are(a) given legal representation, (b) protected from coercion, torture and ill treatment and (c) have the legal right to appeal against their detention. [118980]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Individuals who are detained by Coalition Forces will be treated in accordance with our international legal obligations.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority is currently undertaking an assessment of the capacity and needs of the Iraqi justice sector. The recommendations of this exercise will result in key capacity building measures.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure the implementation of UN Resolution 57/232 to deploy human rights monitors in Iraq. [118981]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime brought to an end a long period of violations of the Iraqi people's human rights. As requested in UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the UN Secretary-General has appointed a Special Representative whose responsibilities include promoting the protection of human rights.

  The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) is taking this forward and has requested an initial US$1.5 million for the provision of Human Rights Officers. The UK has agreed to allocate £400,000 (US$650,000) towards the UNHCR's request. Our allocation will fund sixty percent of the immediate start-up costs of deploying Human Rights Officers and supporting their work.

  North Korea
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the objectives are of Government policy towards North Korea. [120500]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK maintains a policy of engagement with North Korea in order to encourage it to become a responsible member of the international community. We use our regular opportunities for direct dialogue with the North Korean Government to urge it to end missile exports, respect the integrity of the international non-proliferation regime, address the serious concerns about its human rights record, and commit to a multilateral dialogue to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's strategy for sustainable development will be published; and how he will take forward the actions outlined in it. [120050]
  474W
  Mr. Straw
  The FCO has incorporated its work on sustainable development into its overall strategy. This is reflected in the FCO Business Plan 2003–6, which has been recently published. This sets out the Public Service Agreements and the plans to deliver them. Our policy work on sustainable development is spearheaded by PSA 7 to "make globalisation work for sustainable development in the UK and internationally, particularly Africa". The FCO also has a programme to improve the sustainable development of its estate, which is available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).

  The FCO is currently reviewing its overall strategy. In this process it is examining the development of a related sustainable development strategy.

  Timber
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department's procurement policy includes measures relating to timber used on and in the construction of Foreign and Commonwealth building projects; and if he will make a statement. [120053]

  Mr. Straw
  Our procurement policy is that timber must be obtained from legal and sustainable sources. Detailed guidance has been issued to departments responsible for major construction projects. We are considering the practicalities of extending this guidance to cover minor building works which our Posts overseas fund from their devolved budgets.

  Consular General (United States)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the difference was between the amount the Estates Department in Croydon gave on the value of the Consul General's apartment in New York and the amount it was sold for. [120282]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: The decision in principle to replace the Consul General's previous residence with a more modern apartment was taken in July 2001. At that time the valuation of the property was US$15 million, although brokers advised that a price of US$17 million was a possibility.

  We concluded negotiations for the new residence in November 2001. Advice from brokers before the former residence went on the market in January 2002 provided sale price estimates ranging between US$15.5 and US$20 million.

  I am withholding details of the provisionally agreed sale price for the former residence, under exemption 7 (a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as the information is commercially sensitive. Once the sale is completed, I will be in a position to answer as to the sale price.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department received for the sale of the Consul General's apartment in New York. [120283]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: A sale has been agreed subject to contract and subject also to the approval of the purchaser by the managing board of the cooperative of apartment owners in the block. I am

  475W
  withholding details of the provisionally agreed price under exemption 7 (a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as the matter is commercially sensitive. Once the sale is completed, I will be in a position to answer as to the sale price.

  Uzbekistan
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Uzbekistan. [119989]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are deeply concerned by human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. We recognise that the Uzbek Government has taken some limited action to address the situation, including inviting the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture to visit Uzbekistan in December 2002. However, the Uzbek authorities need to do much more. We would like to see greater recognition of independent human rights groups, media organisations, religious groups, and political parties, as well as reform of the criminal justice system.

  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mike O'Brien), raised human rights with the Uzbek Foreign Minister on 9 June. In her opening speech at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's Annual Meeting, the then International Development Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), urged President Karimov to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur forthwith. We shall continue to press for tangible improvements in Uzbekistan's human rights record, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners.

HEALTH

  Care Homes
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect of transitional housing benefit on registration of care homes with the Care Commission. [119349]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Transitional Housing Benefit was replaced by Supporting People Grant (SPG) from April 2003. Registration of an establishment as a care home would mean that residents could not claim SPG. Whether an establishment falls within the definition of a care home is a matter for the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). Statutory guidance was issued to the NCSC in August on how to distinguish care homes from supported housing of various kinds. Providers have a right of appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal against the NCSC's decisions.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the nursing and residential homes for the elderly that(a) charge residents local authority rates and (b) charge higher rates than the local authority rates in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire. [120098]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on charges for specific nursing and residential homes for older people are not collected centrally. The Department of Health has no 476W
  information available that suggests that the proportion of nursing and residential homes that only charge residents local authority rates, and charge higher rates than the local authority rates, are any different in Shropshire than in the West Midlands region or any immediate neighbouring councils.

  Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in establishing a national screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm; and if he will make a statement; [118932]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the relative average cost per patient of (a) screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and (b) surgery on a patient suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysm; [118933]

  (3) when he plans to refer the issue of a national screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE); what plans his Department has to prepare for the introduction of a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm ahead of any decision by NICE; and if he will make a statement. [118934]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. It is currently considering the resource costs and workforce implications of implementing a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm following publication of a multi-centre study funded by the Medical Research Council last year. Until these recommendations are received, screening should not be started.

  There are no plans at present to refer this topic to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Adverse Drug Events
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse drug events were reported in each year since 1998. [119963]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to medicines are collated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme.

  The table shows details of the number of reports of suspected adverse drug reactions received through the Yellow Card Scheme since 1998. Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions occurring in the United Kingdom are received from health professionals on a voluntary basis and from pharmaceutical companies on a statutory basis. Reports of suspected adverse drug reaction occurring outwith the UK are received from pharmaceutical companies on a statutory basis. The figures provided relate to the number of reports received. Some reports may contain more than one reaction.

  477W

  Number of UK reports received

  Number of foreign reports received

  Total number of reports received

  1998

  18,057

  28,046

  46,103

  1999

  18,483

  28,339

  46,822

  2000

  33,139

  32,067

  65,206

  2001

  21,465

  39,990

  61,455

  2002

  16,278

  44,758

  61,036

  2003

  16,725

  111,710

  118.435

  1 2003 figures are reports received until end May.

  It is important to note that a report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine.

  Advocacy Groups
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that there is a national network of advocacy groups to speak on behalf of vulnerable people; and if he will make a statement. [119245]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government's long-term aim is to have a range of independent advocacy services available in each area so that people with learning disabilities can choose the one which best meets their needs. The funding schemes being operated by the British Institute of Learning Disabilities and Values Into Action are intended to work towards this. Under these schemes we have already allocated approximately £3 million to advocacy schemes across the country.

  The Department is funding, to the value of £90,000 over three years, United Kingdom Advocacy Network (UKAN) to promote free and independent advocacy for every mental health service user; to keep user groups and advocacy projects in touch with each other, to promote the involvement of users in planning and running mental health services and to develop standards in independent advocacy, whereby they are establishing programmes of regional training courses for advocates. UKAN also employs a worker to work specifically on advocacy issues affecting black and minority ethnic groups.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has(a) issued and (b) plans to issue to (i) social services departments and (ii) others on the most appropriate way of funding advocacy groups; and if he will make a statement; [119246]

  (2) what guidance he has given to primary care trusts and NHS trusts about (a) the role of advocacy groups and (b) the most appropriate way of funding them. [119247]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In the year 2000, the Government published the 'No Secrets' guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. This guidance, issued to local authorities and others, includes a paragraph (6.32) on the role of advocates, which says:"In some cases, it will be necessary to appoint an independent advocate to represent the interests of those subject to abuse. In such cases, all agencies should set out how the services of advocates can be accessed, and the role they should take."
  The guidance, issued to local authorities and others, in relation to 'Valuing People' in August 2001, says that development of and support for advocacy services are a priority in Valuing People. Learning disability
  478W
  partnership boards should collate information about the strengths and weaknesses of advocacy services in their area and use this material as the basis for making recommendations about projects to be paid for out of the Development Fund and mainstream funds.

  In addition, the Department funded the publication in 2001 of Deciding Together, which provides advice on how organisations can better involve people with learning disabilities in decision making that affects their lives, including a chapter on independent advocacy.

  The Adoption and Children Act 2002 places a new duty on councils with social service responsibilities, to arrange advocacy services for looked after children and care leavers who make a complaint under sections 26 and 24D of the Children Act. Draft regulations and guidance will be issued for consultation over the summer.

  Listening to children underpins the Quality Protects programme and a special grant is available to all councils, to develop independent advocacy services. There has been considerable growth in such services since the start of the programme in 1999.

  At the request of the Department of Health, Durham University undertook a study of current mental health advocacy services to assist the Department in developing this new specialist advocacy service. Its report contains a number of recommendations for good practice. We will now be working with existing advocacy service providers, people with mental illness and other stakeholders to ensure that we develop an effective advocacy service.

  No specific guidance has been provided to the National Health Service on advocacy groups. However, as part of the new patient advice and liaison service, available now in most trusts, patients can be sign-posted to local known specialist advocacy groups where they exist. In the area of supporting patients with complaints about NHS services, it is intended to provide an independent complaints advocacy service across the country from 1 September.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of deaths brought forward arising from nitrogen dioxide emissions from aircraft. [120381]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: The Department has not estimated the number of deaths brought forward as a direct result of nitrogen dioxide emissions from aircraft. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants concluded in 1998' that the evidence did not support quantification of deaths brought forward by nitrogen dioxide.
  1Department of Health Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom. The Stationery Office London 1998.

  Alcohol Dependency
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues
  479W
  on after-care support, with particular reference to (a) housing, (b) education and (c) employment for those treated for alcohol dependency; [119905]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the drinks industry on the labelling of alcoholic drinks (a) to indicate alcohol units and (b) with health warnings; [119908]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that those with alcohol dependency who are receiving treatment (a) receive medical intervention and (b) have the causes of their dependency addressed.; [119944]

  (4) whether it is his policy that the maximum target waiting time for those with alcohol dependency should be no longer than three weeks from time of referral to receipt for treatment; [119945]

  (5) what steps he will take to ensure that accessible and suitable treatment services for alcohol dependency are provided to everyone who needs them; [119946]

  (6) whether it is his policy to designate the tackling of alcohol dependency as having the same priority as addressing drug abuse. [119947]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, in close collaboration with other Government Departments, including the Department of Health, is currently developing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy, which will sit alongside the national drugs strategy. The Strategy Unit is due to publish an interim analysis of the harms associated with alcohol misuse in the summer. The final report, which will set out the cross-Governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy, is planned for publication in the autumn.

  As part of this project the Strategy Unit and the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), have had on-going discussions with all relevant stakeholders, including the alcoholic drinks industry. There is currently no specific maximum waiting time target for treatment for those with alcohol dependency. However the final report will consider a wide variety of issues around treatment and support for those dependent on alcohol, and will then move to consider specific policy issues, including unit and warning labelling.

  Provision of appropriate health service provision is the responsibility of local commissioners of services based on assessment of need. There is a wide range of services available for those with alcohol problems requiring treatment. Medical management is available in primary and secondary care. Specialist services provide a range of psychotherapeutic interventions focusing on alcohol use and the wider contributory factors to development of dependence.

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the Department and its agencies, with the(a) dates and (b) costs of their acquisition. [118835]
  480W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Secretary of State for Health sold Wingrove Nurses Home, Newcastle, to Angel Heights Ltd. which is believed to be part of the Angel Group. The property was sold on the open market for £710,102 on 21 February 2000.

  Information on any properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts is not collected centrally.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children's hospices there are; what central Government funding is available for hospices; and what moneys are ring-fenced; [119563]

  (2) what the responsibilities are of primary care trusts toward children's hospices; what the role of the Department is in the allocation of funding; and whether there are established minimum levels of funding that must be provided to primary care trusts for children's hospices. [119565]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are currently 28 children's hospices in England, with another 11 at various stages of planning. Government funding for children's hospices is available from primary care trusts (PCTs), which are responsible for deciding which health services the local population requires and ensuring the provision of these services. The money is not ring-fenced. In addition, £48 million has been made available by the New Opportunities Fund for their children's palliative care grant programme, including hospice provision for England, which is ring-fenced.

  PCTs receive a baseline funding allocation from the Department of Health. There are no minimum levels for funding hospices. It is for individual PCTs to decide the level of funding they allocate to children's palliative care services, including services provided by children's hospices. The Department has issued guidance on provision and the options available to meet demand—"Evaluation of the Pilot Project Programme for Children with Life Threatening Illness"—and is currently considering further guidance under the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, which will be published next year.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection the power to publish performance indicators. [119206]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under the powers in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, currently before Parliament, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will publish the performance ratings for National Health Service bodies in 2004. It will also be required to devise and publish the criteria upon which the award of the rating is based.

  CHAI will also be given the function of publishing national performance data on the provision of healthcare by NHS bodies.
  481W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on why, under Clause 100 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection have a duty to keep only the Secretary of State informed about the provision, availability and quality of health services. [120280]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: Clause 100 (general functions of CHAI) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill amends the Care Standards Act 2000 by inserting a new section 5A, so that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will keep the Secretary of State informed about the provision, availability and quality of independent health care in England.

  Subsection (3) of the new section provides for CHAI to make information about independent health services available to the public. CHAI will also, at clause 121, be placed under a duty to lay before Parliament an annual report of the way in which it has exercised its functions during the year.

  Community Equipment Services
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the establishment of a single integrated community equipment service to assist disabled and elderly people to remain in their own homes. [120093]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Of the 150 areas in England where there are expected to be integrated community equipment services, 111, or 74 per cent., are indicating currently that they will achieve local integration by the target date of April 2004. The integrating community equipment services team is supporting the remainder to achieve integration as soon as possible. Removal of the power of councils to charge for community equipment, which came into effect 9 June 2003, will further help integration by aligning councils' equipment charging regimes with the national health service.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is made available for community equipment and adaptation services to enable elderly and disabled people to remain in their own homes; and what plans he has to increase this funding. [120094]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Substantial investment has been made available in baseline funding to social services and to the national health service for the modernisation and integration of community equipment services each year since 2001. The intention of this funding was to improve the lives of all disabled people needing such equipment as well as to enable elderly and disabled people to remain in their own homes. Of the community equipment funding made available in 2001 to 2004, only £105 million for the NHS has been announced. The element within the councils' personal social services allocation was not announced, following normal practice.

  In addition, to help services achieve extended targets for community equipment, councils with social services
  482W
  responsibilities are now receiving a ring-fenced grant funding for community equipment. For 2003–04, this is £7.6 million. This is ring-fenced for councils that are not three-star or high-performing two-star councils. Details of this grant in future years will not be finalised until the time of the local government settlement.

  Primary care trust and council funding, including the Systems and Access Grant, is set to continue to rise in real terms and will be used at local discretion to invest in community equipment and adaptation services.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether guidance has been issued to local authority social services departments about restrictions that can be placed on the 12 week property disregard, in terms of not paying it in respect of more expensive care homes. [119240]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no restrictions on the 12 week property disregard in respect of more expensive accommodation. The 12 week property disregard is available to all residents with property who entered permanent residential care after 9 April 2001. In respect of more expensive accommodation, residents who have accessed the 12 week disregard or third parties can make up the difference between the resident's contribution and the council's contribution.

  However the council's contribution should be sufficient to meet an individual's assessed needs and may exceed the council's usual cost. The Department has issued guidance to this effect under cover of Local Authority Circular (2001)29.

  Deafness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment he has put into(a) researching deafness and (b) treatments to restore hearing since 1997. [119560]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The estimated expenditure on hearing research through the Medical Research Council for the last five years is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  3.23

  1998–99

  3.49

  1999–2000

  3.34

  2000–01

  4.96

  2001–02

  3.94

  In addition, since 1997, projects relating to hearing impairment totalling £1.87 million have been commissioned through the health technology assessment programme and the national research and development programme for people with physical and complex disabilities. Under the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, a number of universal neonatal hearing screening pilots are in progress, with funding of £94,000.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) are in domiciliary care and (b) have to pay for their domiciliary care. [119719]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2001–02, an estimated 1.4 million adults in England were helped to live independently at home through the provision of a variety of community-based social services. Information on the number of people who have to pay for these services is not centrally available.

  Eye Health
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people with(a) age-related macular degeneration and (b) glaucoma were on the Register of Blind and Partially Sighted People in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 2000; [119703]

  (2) how many people with (a) age-related macular degeneration and (b) glaucoma were newly registered as blind or partially sighted in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 2000. [119704]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Detailed information on the number of people with age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma is not centrally available. Information on the number of people registered as blind or partially sighted is collected every three years from the triennial SSDA902 return. Information on the number of people registered as blind or partially sighted is shown in the tables for the years 1981–82, 1990–91 and 1999–2000.

  Number of people registered as blind or partially sighted, by age

  At 31 March

  All ages

  0–4

  5–17

  18–64

  65–74

  75+

  1999–2000

  306,500

  1,330

  6,800

  55,340

  31,940

  211,070

  1990–91

  229,980

  1,040

  3,670

  44,400

  31,940

  148,940

  1981–82

  169,730

  450

  3,770

  39,190

  28,800

  97,540

  Number of people newly registered during the year as blind or partially sighted, by age

  All ages

  0–4

  5–17

  18–64

  65–74

  75+

  1999–2000

  30,440

  370

  520

  4,070

  4,120

  21,380

  1990–91

  27,270

  280

  350

  3,770

  4,500

  18,370

  1981–82

  21,230

  150

  250

  3,310

  4,280

  13.240

  Note:

  1. Data source: Department of Health SSDA 902 return.

  2. The data on the SSDA902 return is collected every 3 years.

  3. It is possible for a person to be registered as partially sighted and as blind within the same year, in which case they will be counted twice in the table showing new registrations.

  Food Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will re-examine those areas in which the findings of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals are inconsistent with those of other internationally respected bodies. [119832]

  £000

  Net ingredient cost

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  BNF 3.2.1 (Antihistamines)

  40,062.2

  46,987.3

  51,421.2

  56,675.6

  60,720.1

  BNF 12.21 (Drugs used in nasal allergy)

  33,286.3

  34,533.0

  33,889.2

  35,217.1

  37,046.8

  Total

  73,348.6

  81,520.3

  85,310.4

  91,892.7

  97.766.9

  484W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In arriving at its conclusions, the expert group on vitamins and minerals took into account evidence available on a United Kingdom and international basis. The evidence base on issues relating to vitamin and mineral supplements will be monitored closely as it develops further. Independent expert advice will be sought on specific issues where this is appropriate.

  Griffiths Report
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the unedited version of the Griffiths Report. [119061]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The "Report of a Review of the Research Framework of the North Staffordshire Hospitals NHS Trust" was published in full in May 2000. A copy of the final report is available on the internet at: www.doh.gov.uk/wmro/northstaffs.htm

  Under section 2 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the information sought is exempt from being made available. It is not appropriate to make publicly available draft (or "unedited") versions or evidence collected for any report as they are for internal discussion. Furthermore, for legal reasons, drafts have to be shared with people who have contributed to reports for correctness and the final version has to be cleared/approved by solicitors.

  Hayfever
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on(a) the causes of hayfever and (b) the possible links between hayfever and asthma. [119864]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC). In 2001–02, MRC expenditure on its respiratory disorders portfolio was an estimated £11.9 million, which included work on allergies and asthma, but not specifically on hayfever.

  There is no ongoing research in the Department of Health into hayfever, but the Department commissioned a study on air pollution and general practitioner consultations for allergic rhinitis (hayfever) from St. George's Hospital, London, as part of its last air pollution and health research programme. The study (by Hajal et at) was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (volume 153, page 704) in 2001.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on treating hayfever sufferers in each of the last five years. [119866]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not centrally available. The table shows information on the net ingredient costs of products for the treatment of hayfever dispensed in the community in England from 1998 to 2002.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [117561]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information regarding Departmental and agency staff has been placed in the Library.

  The Government publish an annual report of Ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the cost of accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation within the United Kingdom is not held centrally. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  All subsistence expenses for civil servants comply with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Medical Technologies
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that technologies recommended by NICE are available in all areas. [118049]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service bodies are under a statutory obligation to fund treatments recommended in National Institute for Clinical Excellence technology appraisals. We expect primary care trusts (PCTs) to meet their statutory obligations, and strategic health authorities to follow up any allegations of non-compliance. We last reminded PCTs of these obligations in guidance published in January 2003.

  MRI Scans
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average MRI scan waiting times were in England in each of the last 10 years by(a) hospital and (b) region. [119532]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data are not collected centrally on waiting times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for a scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.

  Where a MRI scan forms part of the diagnostic process for a patient urgently referred with suspected cancer, this will be covered by the target of a maximum two months wait from urgent referral to first treatment, which will be in place for all cancers by the end of 2005.

  To increase the capacity of diagnostic services, funding has been made available for the provision of new and replacement scanners. The New Opportunities
  486W
  Fund has provided funding for 57 MRI scanners and the NHS Cancer Plan has provided funding for a further 50 MRI and 50 computed tomography scanners through central purchasing programmes by 2004.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neonatal intensive care cots there were in each neonatal intensive care unit at 31 March 1999. [119657]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Information is not collected for each neonatal intensive care unit. The number of neonatal intensive care cots reported by each national health service trust in March 1999 has been placed in the Library. These figures are not comparable with current data on neonate intensive care cots as some NHS trusts included special care baby unit cots in error.

  Travel Expenses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS travel expense fraud has been identified in each of the last five years. [118641]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The value of travel expense fraud identified in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of cases

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  2

  8,180

  2000–01

  6

  14,664

  2001–02

  7

  14,135

  2002–03

  9

  349,295

  The National Health Service counter fraud service, now the counter fraud and security management service, was formed in 1998, with the overall remit to tackle fraud and corruption within the NHS. It became operational in January 2000. No such figures were collated prior to its existence.

  These figures should be set in the context of increasingly effective counter fraud arrangements in the NHS and an increasing proportion of NHS fraud which is being identified and stopped.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118868]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Cabinet Office has issued guidance for Departments on the handling of ministerial and other correspondence, which emphasises that appropriate arrangements should be in place to ensure that the quality of all replies is high. It has also issued guidance on plain written English.

  Departmental publications are prepared in line with the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  Pain Management
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress being made towards the establishment of a national service framework on the control of pain; [119942]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of people each year who suffer from the symptoms of pain as part of their (a) illness and (b) injury. [119943]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In selecting a topic for and developing and implementing a national service framework (NSF), account is taken of the importance of a health issue in terms of morbidity and mortality, the scope for service improvement and the capacity of the NHS and its partner agencies to implement the framework. Work is in hand on NSFs for renal services, children's services and long term conditions. These new NSFs amount to a significant programme of quality improvement across the NHS and partner agencies. There are no plans to amend the programme at present.

  Pain management is an important component of most patients' care and is provided as part of the patient's overall treatment. Data on the pain patients might experience as a reason for admission is not collected.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in his Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if he will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117621]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is committed to transforming the health and social care system so that it produces faster, fairer services that deliver better health and social care and tackle inequalities. Achieving sustainable improvements in health and services for black and minority ethnic people is an integral and vital aspect of this programme of investment and reform.

  The Department's Race Equality Scheme covers the Department, Executive Agencies and the Directorates of Health and Social Care. Strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, national health service trusts and special health authorities are subject to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and are required to publish a Race Equality Scheme setting out how they intend to promote race equality within their organisation.

  The Department's strategy for meeting the needs of minority ethnic communities is to set action on race equality within the overall framework for planning and delivering the Department's priorities. The Department has a detailed programme of work under way to take forward our race equality commitments and has strengthened the arrangements for supporting and accounting for progress on race equality. A board level equality review programme has recently been carried out to develop a corporate framework for setting priorities and reviewing progress including those made in the Department's Race Equality Scheme.

  On 10 March 2003, the Department published "Inside Out", a report making recommendations for improving mental health services for black and minority ethnic
  488W
  groups. The report was developed with the close involvement of local communities and black and minority ethnic stakeholders and provides part of a race impact assessment on mental health. This has provided the evidence to show that there is impact, which is adverse, disproportionate and unjustifiable in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. The Department will be taking remedial action and will be publishing a remedial action plan for consultation in 2003.

  As required by its employment duties, the Department will be publishing a report later this summer on the ethnic monitoring data collected so far and also has a programme of work under way to put in place the additional monitoring arrangements required.

  Regulatoty Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117783]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Bodies responsible for the regulation of health care professionals are self-funding by means of fees received from registrants. The Department does not collect information on their staffing levels or levels of funding.

  Information on staffing levels and funding for the special health authorities and non-departmental bodies for which the Department is responsible (some of which have regulatory responsibilities) is contained in "Public Bodies", copies of which, dating back to 1982, are available in the Library.

  The only current regulatory body for which the Department is responsible and which is not covered by "Public Bodies" is the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals. The Council was formally established in April 2003, has four staff and will receive funding of £625,000 from the Department in 2003–04.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to NHS trusts and others about de-registering residential homes; and what his policy is on a trust de-registering all of its homes. [119250]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National Health Service trusts have no function in relation to the registration of residential homes. That is a function of the National Care Standards Commission.

  Seroxat
  Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to restrict the availability of Seroxat to(a) children and (b) adults; [119551]

  (2) what advice his Department will issue to GPs regarding the prescription of Seroxat to adults. [119552]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  New data from clinical trials of paroxetine (Seroxat) 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
  489W
  working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The data do not demonstrate efficacy in depressive illness in this age group and show an increase in the risk of 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, the CSM has advised that Seroxat should not be used in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years to treat depressive illness. This advice was communicated to health professionals via the Public Health Link on 10 June 2003 and was placed on the MHRA website, along with information for patients. Revised patient information leaflets containing the new advice are being sent to prescribers and pharmacists.

  Seroxat is not licensed for use in those under 18, but it is used in this age group outside its licensed indications where prescribes 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. 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 attention urgently in the event of such symptoms.

  The CSM formally reviewed the issue of suicidal behaviour with SSRIs most recently in December 2001 and concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to confirm a causal association between SSRIs and suicidal behaviour, although an effect in a small high-risk population could not be ruled out. The CSM has advised that Seroxat is an effective treatment for adults with depressive illness and anxiety disorders and that the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks.

  The expert working group of the CSM will examine urgently what implications, if any, these new findings from clinical trials in children have for the use of Seroxat in adults and for other SSRIs.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to expedite the review of(a) Seroxat and (b) other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; [119777]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the warnings given to (a) prescribers and (b) the public about the (i) side-effects and (ii) withdrawal effects of (A) Seroxat and (B) other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; [119778]

  (3) what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the Yellow Card scheme for reporting adverse side-effects of drugs; [119779]

  (4) if he will withdraw Seroxat from use for new prescribing pending a review of its and other SSRI antidepressants' safety. [119780]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A new expert group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has been convened to further review the safety of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and to ensure the advice in the 490W
  product information for both patients and prescribers is optimal for the safe use of these products. This group has been asked to examine what implications, if any, the CSM's recent advice on the use of Seroxat in children have for the use of Seroxat in adults and for other SSRIs. The timetable for the group's programme of work has been planned with a view to the availability of advice as promptly as possible, commensurate with a full and detailed consideration of the evidence including the experiences of patients. As part of its initial considerations, the group has advised on strengthened advice on side effects and withdrawal reactions for inclusion in the patient information leaflet on Seroxat. Product information for other SSRIs will also be considered.

  The advice of the CSM, most recently in 2001, is that the benefits of Seroxat, when used in adults for licensed indications, outweigh the risks. Regulatory authorities world-wide have also taken a similar position. Depression and anxiety disorders are serious conditions that can cause severe suffering and are associated with an increased risk of suicide. The availability of effective treatments is critically important. In the absence of evidence indicating that the risks of using Seroxat in adults outweigh the benefits, it would be difficult to justify withdrawing the medicine from use.

  The Yellow Card Scheme is recognised to be one of the best in the world in terms of the level of reporting, has a proven track record of identifying new drug safety hazards and enables the monitoring of all medicines, including Seroxat, in clinical use. The effectiveness of the Scheme is under continuous review by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the CSM. From April 2003, the first phase of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions via NHS Direct was introduced. When fully rolled out in England and Wales, this will enable the first hand experiences of patients to be utilised in the identification and assessment of drug safety issues. Other measures to further strengthen the Yellow Card Scheme include a new regional monitoring centre, established in Scotland last year and the inclusion of education on yellow card reporting in the training of nurse prescribers.

  Smoking
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of women aged under 30 who are smokers; what the figure was(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [118803]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The available data are shown in the table.

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among women aged 16 to 29, England, 1992, 1998 and 2001

  Cigarette smoking status

  Current cigarette smoker (Percentage)

  1992

  33

  1998

  35

  2001

  34

  Notes:

  1. Up until 2000, data on smoking prevalence from the General Household Survey were only available every two years.
  491W
  2. Data for 1998 and 2001 were weighted to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups: data for 1992, which were based on unweighted data, are not therefore directly comparable.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2001, published as "Living in Britain: Results from the 2001 General Household Survey". Available from the internet at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib2001/index.html

  Supported Living Schemes
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance the Government has issued about the signing of tenancy agreements for supported living schemes for adults with communication difficulties and other disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [119243]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In August 2002, the Department issued statutory guidance to local councils and the National Care Standards Commission on supported housing and care homes. This included guidance on tenancies, such as taking account of service users' ability to understand the detail of tenancies and communicate their wishes.

  Welsh Patients
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 20, to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and his written answer of 17 June 2003, ref 117280, whether the two sets of figures for the number of Welsh patients treated in English hospitals in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were compiled on the same basis; and if he will make a statement. [120642]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 279W.

  The figure for 2000–01 referred to elective admissions, and the figure for 2001–02 referred to all admissions including emergency.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of Welsh patients treated in English hospitals over the last five years. [120643]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Wednesday 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 279W.

  Over the last five years there has been an increase of over 5 per cent. in the number of admissions of Welsh patients to English hospitals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet Mr. L. K. Advani, the Indian Home Minister. [119508]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I met Mr. L. K. Advani, the Indian Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister on 16 June 2003

  OCTV
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities in the UK have acquired OCTV systems in each of the last five years; what the cost of OCTV is in comparison to CCTV; and whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of OCTV in fighting crime. [119118]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not hold information on the number of Open Circuit Television (OCTV) systems acquired by local authorities.

  The cost comparison between an OCTV system and a conventional Close Circuit Television (CCTV) system is not straightforward owing to the differing natures of the two systems and reasons for their use. An OCTV system comprising of a Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) camera and computerised monitoring station will cost in the order of £12,000 (+ VAT and delivery etc.). A typical single camera CCTV system will cost anything between £8,000 and £30,000 to purchase and install. On running costs, the OCTV system will incur mobile telephone call charges plus any standing charges. The CCTV system will possibly incur leasing fees for the transmission network.

  To help ensure maximum impact and sustainability of CCTV, a £1.5 million Home Office funded national evaluation programme is being carried out by the Scarman Centre, University of Leicester, on 15 approved CCTV Initiative schemes. However, no assessment has been made of the effectiveness of OCTV in fighting crime.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Government Consultations
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for Women what action she has taken to encourage ministerial colleagues to include women's organisations in their consultation process relating to the work of their departments. [115845]

  Ms Hewitt
  As Minister for Women, I take every opportunity to encourage my ministerial colleagues to include women in their departmental consultations. This follows guidelines issued by the Cabinet Office and by the Women and Equality Unit. The Women's National Commission (WNC), works with Government departments to ensure that there is an active dialogue with women during the course of consultations in policy-making.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accident Group
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had about safeguarding the interests of clients of the Accident Group(a) whose claims have not been resolved and (b) whose claims have been resolved but in respect of which no payment has been made. [120231]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Where claims had not been processed prior to the company entering into Administration the clients are able to instruct other parties to pursue the
  493W
  claim. In cases where a claim had been agreed, or legal proceedings had been successful, the solicitors acting in the matter should receive the amount of the compensation and will be able to pass this on to the client. The Administrators are not aware of any specific cases where The Accident Group is holding compensation payments.

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the bodies investigating irregularities within the Accident Group; and if she will make a statement. [120232]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The joint Administrators of The Accident Group will in due course file a report on the conduct of the directors of the company under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act. Although officials from the Insolvency Service have had discussions with the Administrators' staff the conduct of the administration is a matter for the joint administrators and the court.

  Developing Countries
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to ensure that British companies investing in developing countries will(a) be there as the result of invitations by people in the developing countries, (b) give employment to local people, (c) pay reasonable rates to those people and not exploit them and (d) not compete with existing practices in a way that undermines people's livelihoods. [120403]

  Ms Hewitt
  In terms of encouraging and monitoring standards of good conduct by British companies in overseas markets, the Government attach considerable importance to the various voluntary multilateral initiatives that promote the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) such as the Global Reporting Initiative, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the United Nations Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

  In terms of the issues raised above, the Guidelines are particularly relevant. These address, in specific sections, areas of business responsibility and good practice that include such subjects as general policies, employment

  ECGD Claims Payments 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Sterling equivalent

  Country

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grand total

  Algeria

  23,693,674

  3,049,252

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26,742,926

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,167,570

  3,489,194

  4,656,764

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,634,019

  14,038,784

  15,672,803

  Brazil

  367,750

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  367,750

  Cameroon

  563,890

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  563,890

  Cote D'Ivoire

  154,917

  6,549,089

  3,251,266

  3,486,080

  3,651,528

  3,475,657

  20,568,536

  Croatia

  —

  —

  —

  201,998

  —

  —

  201,998

  Denmark

  1,638,109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,638,109

  Dominica

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,181,816

  1,181,816

  Egypt

  10,273,471

  1,812,134

  24,117

  842,350

  —

  —

  12,952,072

  El Salvador

  —

  —

  —

  1,816,204

  600,952

  2,417,156

  Ethiopia

  1,283,544

  1,140,067

  883,181

  810,691

  116,763

  —

  4,234,245

  France

  —

  —

  —

  —

  179,170

  —

  179,170

  Ghana

  33,109

  2,344,492

  3,872,028

  16,433,380

  32,745,333

  32,320,082

  87,748,425

  India

  583,249

  551,519

  5,210,740

  997,900

  478,168

  5,997,566

  13,819,143

  Indonesia

  —

  42,106,060

  202,431,361

  229,424,698

  171,380,663

  148,618,662

  793,961,445

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  37,717

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37,717

  Iraq

  4,629,181

  —

  —

  —

  —

  440,515

  5,069,696

  Israel

  2,166,773

  261,260

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,428,033

  Jordan

  31,576,047

  15,484,576

  3,417,986

  1,976,252

  951,045

  1,128,840

  54,534,746

  494W
  and industrial relations, consumer interests and competition. The Government, by means of the UK National Contact Point, encourage strongly companies' involvement in and adherence to the Guidelines; which are supported by the business community and trade union federations.

  The Government expect companies operating in the UK and UK companies investing overseas, to act in accordance with the principles set out in the Guidelines and to perform to at least the standards they suggest.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that international trade works in the interests of both developing and developed countries. [120404]

  Ms Hewitt
  The World Bank estimates that eliminating all barriers to trade in goods could generate an extra US$250 billion to US$620 billion in global income, up to half of which would go to developing countries. In terms of poverty reduction, this could lift over 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

  This is why the Government are ambitious about pursuing the development agenda for the current round of trade talks launched at the fourth WTO ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar in November 2001.

  I am working closely with Cabinet colleagues, as well as within the EU and internationally, to secure a successful outcome to the fifth WTO ministerial in Cancun, Mexico this September. We are committed to making sure that the Doha round delivers real benefits for the world's poor.

  ECGD
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the payments made by the ECGD on contracts with a value in excess of £500,000 in each year since 1997, broken down by country. [119836]

  Ms Hewitt
  This question cannot be answered except at disproportionate cost. However, for each of the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03 I have provided a list showing the total value of ECGD claims by each of the defaulting buyers' host countries.

  Figures for 2002–03 are provisional.
  495W

  ECGD Claims Payments 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Sterling equivalent

  Country

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grand total

  Kazakhstan

  —

  —

  88,608

  —

  —

  —

  88,608

  Kenya

  48,059

  14,522

  1,462,896

  8,554,364

  1,259,150

  2,908

  11,341,898

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  9,278

  —

  —

  26,784

  36,061

  Malawi

  788,474

  -6,203

  273,809

  —

  —

  —

  1,056,080

  Mexico

  4,917,756

  4,891,427

  4,007,375

  4,389,409

  4,618,098

  12,998,408

  35,822,474

  Myanmar

  1,462,325

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,462,325

  Nigeria

  3,161,017

  2,975,110

  1,491,592

  —

  —

  —

  7,627,719

  Pakistan

  —

  132,431

  1,330,604

  911,345

  865,767

  3,212,818

  6,452,965

  Papua New Guinea

  —

  —

  281,264

  —

  —

  —

  281,264

  Philippines

  —

  4,938,200

  14,950,920

  —

  —

  —

  19,889,121

  Russian Federation

  51,338,444

  44,356,694

  38,542,408

  2,813,649

  20,350

  —

  137,071,545

  Seychelles

  —

  805,748

  3,890

  597,703

  1,228,176

  193,601

  2,829,118

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,873,183

  12,458,353

  14,331,536

  Taiwan

  281,219

  256,764

  235,545

  —

  —

  —

  773,528

  Thailand

  0

  —

  1,362,912

  —

  —

  —

  1,362,912

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  354,684

  678,794

  1,033,478

  Turkmenistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,730,917

  797

  1,731,714

  USSR

  14,012,568

  10,538,118

  9,610,478

  2,708,565

  29,923

  —

  36,899,651

  Zaire

  2,599,918

  1,220,560

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,820,479

  Zimbabwe

  24,783

  202,558

  2,066,681

  23,854,103

  23,851,577

  20,584,967

  70,584,667

  Grand total

  155,635,994

  143,624,378

  294,808,938

  298,002,487

  249,952,289

  261,449,499

  1,403,473,584

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the reinsurance contracts underwritten by ECGD including in each case(a) the reinsured party, (b) the underlying insured party and risk covered, (c) the cover provided and (d) the amounts paid in respect of these contracts, for each year since 1997. [119852]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the start of 1997, ECGD has provided reinsurance to other Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) under Co-operation Agreements on 21 occasions in respect of medium/long-term business.

  (a) Reinsured ECA

  (b) Underlying insured party

  Buyer type

  Market

  (d) Claims paid (£)

  Guarantee date

  Coface (France)

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  Corporate

  Singapore

  0

  1997

  Coface (France)

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  Public

  Taiwan

  0

  1997

  Coface (France)

  MBDA UK Ltd.

  Sovereign

  Kuwait

  0

  1999

  Hermes (Germany)

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Corporate

  Brazil

  0

  2001

  OND (Belgium)

  Kier Construction Ltd.

  Corporate

  India

  0

  2000

  Hermes (Germany)

  Matcon Ltd.

  Corporate

  Croatia

  0

  1998

  Coface (France)

  Cooper Rolls Ltd.

  Corporate

  United Arab Emirates

  0

  2000

  Hermes (Germany)

  Powergen UK Plc

  Sovereign

  Mexico

  0

  1999

  Hermes (Germany)

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Sovereign

  Croatia

  0

  1999

  Coface (France)

  Trane (United Kingdom) Ltd.

  Corporate

  Turkey

  0

  1999

  Coface (France)

  Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  Corporate

  Algeria

  0

  2001

  Coface (France)

  Alstom Power Plants Ltd.

  Sovereign

  Turkey

  0

  2001

  Hermes (Germany)

  Motherwell Bridge Engineering Ltd.

  Corporate

  Dominican Republic

  0

  2000

  Sace (Italy)

  Saipem UK Ltd.

  Corporate

  Russian Federation

  0

  2001

  Oekb (Austria)

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Corporate

  Brazil

  0

  2001

  Sace (Italy)

  Skanska Construction UK Ltd.

  Sovereign

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  0

  2001

  Sace (Italy)

  Shell research Ltd.

  Public

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  0

  2002

  Hermes (Germany)

  Traffic Safety Systems Ltd.

  Sovereign

  Romania

  0

  2002

  Export-Import Bank of the United States

  Rolls-Royce Plc

  Corporate

  Luxembourg

  0

  2002

  Export-Import Bank of the United States

  Rolls-Royce Plc

  Corporate

  Israel

  0

  2002

  Coface (France)

  MBDA UK Ltd.

  Sovereign

  United Arab Emirates

  0

  2002

  (a) Reinsured short-term insurer

  (b) Underlying insured party

  Buyer type

  Market

  (d) Claims paid (£)

  Guarantee date

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  Marconi Corporation Plc

  Corporate

  Germany

  0

  1998

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  Royal Ordnance Plc

  Sovereign

  Singapore

  0

  1998

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  BAE Systems (Defence Systems) Ltd.

  Public

  United Arab Emirates

  0

  1997

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd.

  Corporate

  Canada

  0

  1998

  496W
  Under the terms of the privatisation of its short-term underwriting business in 1991, ECGD has provided reinsurance in respect of short-term business underwritten by UK NCM (Gerling) Credit Insurance Ltd.. on four occasions.

  In respect of all 25 cases the cover provided has been reinsurance of all risks covered. The information requested on all cases is provided in the following two tables:

  Electronics Industry
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 326W, on the electronics industry, if she will make a statement on how the £100 million per annum to improve the skills base for electronics is to be spent. [120928]

  Mr. Timms
  By 2005–06 the Government will be investing an extra £100 million per annum to:

  increase the minimum PhD stipend to £12,000

  increase funds for PhD training

  provide 1,000 new academic fellowships over five years

  increase post-doctoral training

  increase post-doctoral research pay by around £4,000

  This investment will create a stronger science base and a pool of highly talented people with skills in engineering, science and technology to help drive innovation and support the UK's productivity and competitiveness, including the electronics industry.

  Equal Pay
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on 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. [117430]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI HQ, DTI Agencies and DTI NDPBs have all completed equal pay reviews. The majority, including DTI HQ, have focused on identifying any gender pay gaps that might exist but a number of the Agencies and NDPBs for which I have responsibility have additionally examined factors such as ethnicity, disability and age.

  It is my intention to place copies of the action plans for DTI HQ and DTI Agencies in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been created by foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom in the last(a) year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years. [120292]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for 2002–03 are currently being finalised and will be published on 9 July when Invest-UK announces its annual results. Copies of the report will be placed in the House of Common Library.

  Invest-UK recorded 107,706 jobs created by foreign owned companies between 1997 and 2002.

  Invest-UK recorded 182,819 jobs created by foreign owned companies between 1992 and 2002.

  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. There is no requirement to notify Invest-UK of such decisions, so these figures include those projects only where Invest-UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.
  498W
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many manufacturing jobs have been created in the United Kingdom as a consequence of foreign direct investment in the last five years. [120294]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of manufacturing jobs created by inward investment in the UK that Invest-UK has recorded was 97,974 between 1997 and 2002.

  Figures for 2002–03 are currently being finalised and will be published on 9 July when Invest-UK announces its annual results. Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. There is no requirement to notify Invest-UK of such decisions, so these figures include those projects only where Invest-UK and its regional partners were involved, or which have come to their notice.

  GATS Negotiations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the GATS negotiations and (b) the advantages of full trade liberalisation as a means to achieving development goals. [119588]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 June 2003]: The Government are working to ensure that GATS offers real benefits both to the UK, as the world's second largest exporter of services, and to developing country members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We believe that the progressive, properly managed, liberalisation of services can stimulate economic growth and help reduce poverty. The World Bank estimates that a liberalising trade round could bring 300 million people out of poverty by 2015. Developing countries could increase their annual income by up to $60 billion for a relatively modest degree of services liberalisation. This is greater than total annual aid flows to developing countries ($50 billion).

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the amount spent by(a) her 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 she will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [117566]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government publishes an annual report of ministerial travel overseas, which provides figures for the total cost of ministerial travel including accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation in the UK is not held centrally. All ministerial travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  So far as staff are concerned, my Department has devolved to local management the authorisation of staff travel claims, subject to checking procedures. Travel and subsistence expenditure, including on accommodation, for DTI HQ (excluding British Trade International and the DTI Agencies) amounted to

  499W
  £8,061,894 in 2002–03, but the Department does not record centrally expenditure specifically on hotel accommodation, in the UK or otherwise, incurred by staff in HQ or the agencies, or the non-departmental public bodies which DTI sponsors. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Inward Investment Companies
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inward investment companies have located in the United Kingdom(a) in the past year, (b) in the past five years and (c) in the past 10 years. [120285]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for 2002–03 are currently being finalised and will be published on 9 July when Invest-UK announces its annual results. Copies of the report will be placed in the House of Common Library.

  Invest-UK recorded 1,548 new inward investment projects between 1997 and 2002.

  Invest-UK recorded 2,188 new inward investment projects between 1992 and 2002.

  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. There is no requirement to notify Invest-UK of such decisions, so these figures include those projects where only Invest-UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to improve the UK's trading relationship with Iraq. [119316]

  Ms Hewitt
  British Trade International has set up an Industry Working Group, which will act as a channel of communication to industry in our work to help companies access opportunities in Iraq in the immediate future. We have increased the number of staff working on Iraq in the BTI HQ in London. We are planning to attach three UK-based commercial staff to the British Office in Baghdad as soon as the situation permits, in order to re-establish our trading relationship with Iraq.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with its US counterparts to secure a role for UK companies in the reconstruction of Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [119512]

  Ms Hewitt
  We expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of Iraq. In the short-term US funding is likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies. Full details of the US contracts are available on US Government websites.

  Andrew Natsios of US AID has confirmed to me that UK companies will be allowed and indeed encouraged to bid for US funded sub-contracts. My right hon. and noble Friend, the then Minister for Trade visited Washington on 15 and 16 May 2003 when she held talks with US AID, the State Department and, the US Army Corps of Engineers on redevelopment work in Iraq. We
  500W
  have also held a joint seminar with the US authorities in London on 23 May 2003. This demonstrates that US is interested in ensuring that UK companies are involved.

  Jewellery (Manufacture and Sales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of(a) manufacturing and (b) consumer spending on jewellery in (i) the UK and (ii) the EU was in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement on her analysis of the trends emerging. [114860]

  Ms Hewitt
  Official figures for the UK are shown in the following table. Manufacturers' sales do not include jewellery made by retail jewellers. The figures available for consumer spending do not distinguish between jewellery and watches and clocks. Equivalent figures are not available for the EU.

  UK manufacturers' sales1

  Consumer spending2

  Jewellery

  Watches and clocks

  Jewellery, watches and clocks (£ million)

  1997

  599

  87

  3,295

  1998

  571

  86

  3,320

  1999

  597

  91

  3,398

  2000

  629

  72

  3,479

  2001

  518

  59

  3,452

  2001

  —

  —

  3,497

  1 Product Sales and Trade (Prodcom) reports PRA 36220 Jewellery and Related Articles, PRA 36610 Imitation Jewellery and PRA 33500 Watches and Clocks

  2 Consumer Trends—Household Final Consumption Expenditure

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Ministerial Conference (Cancun)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) UK and (b) EU priorities for the Fifth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Cancun in September are. [119004]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: The mid-Round Ministerial Conference in Cancun is our main opportunity to provide increased political momentum towards a successful outcome to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) by the current target of 1 January 2005.

  The UK and EU priority for Cancun is to seek an outcome which keeps all aspects of the DDA negotiations on track and within the single undertaking.

  As part of the DDA we are determined to reform agricultural trade, as agreed at Doha, by substantially improving market access, substantially reducing trade distorting domestic farm support and reducing, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies, which do so much harm to developing countries.

  On market access for non-agricultural goods we will be seeking significantly improved access market by tackling high tariffs, tariff peaks, tariff escalation and non-tariff barriers, in order to significantly increase trading opportunities for all WTO members, including between developing countries.

  We are hopeful that the services negotiations will bring considerable market opportunities for business as well as benefits to consumers world-wide. However, we

  501W
  are not seeking general deregulation or privatisation of sectors where principles of public interest are at stake, such as healthcare, education and the provision of water.

  We are committed to finding solutions to justified developing countries' concerns about implementation of existing WTO agreements, to their proposals for specific actions for Special and Differential Treatment and to providing trade-related assistance to help their participation in WTO negotiations, to implement the results of the DDA, and to build up their trade capacity.

  We believe that launching negotiations on the "Singapore Issues" (investment, competition, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation) at Cancun will help provide predictability, transparency, secure market access gains, and level a playing field for all WTO members.

  In addition, we strongly welcome G8 leaders' commitment to securing a resolution to the issue of access to affordable medicines for developing countries, before Cancun.

  Performing Rights Royalties
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on performing rights royalties; and if she will review the operation of the system. [118988]

  Ms Hewitt
  Hon. Members do, from time to time, forward their constituents' letters to me about performing rights royalties, but I have not recently received any direct representations on this subject. Copyright law that underpins these royalties is largely dictated by international and European law, but we are always open to any suggestions about how the system might be improved within those constraints.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many grants for research into rheumatoid arthritis were issued by the Medical Research Council in each of the last five years. [118453]

  Ms Hewitt
  The spend figures on Arthritis and Rheumatism for the last five financial years, together with the number of projects in each financial year are as follows:

  Financial year

  Estimated spend (£ million)

  Number of projects1

  1997–982

  5.7

  85

  1998–992

  5.1

  68

  1999–2000

  4.8

  40

  2000–01

  3.9

  42

  2001–02

  4.2

  43

  1 Projects: this includes grants, units and fellowships

  2 Since 1999–2000, MRC has prepared a breakdown of research expenditure into 12 disease-specific research divisions, one of these being Arthritis and Rheumatism. Before then, the breakdown was less detailed. Therefore the above figures for 1997–78 and 1998–99 are not directly comparable to the figures for the later three years. In order to produce these figures retrospectively MRC used the broader definition of the subject area which was in use at that time. Thus the higher numbers may simply reflect that change in definition.

  502W
  The data for 2002–03 is still being collated and final figures will be available in the autumn.

  TransTec
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the report of the investigation authorised under section 432(2) into TransTec plc. [117750]

  Ms Hewitt
  The inspectors have submitted their final report and issues surrounding publication are currently being considered.

  University Challenge Fund
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many academies have been sponsored to move into industry with the help of the University Challenge Fund; how many businesses have been(a) supported and (b) started up with help from the University Challenge Fund; how many of the businesses and projects supported have subsequently failed; and if she will make a statement. [119642]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have taken the hon. Member to mean academics rather than academies. University Challenge is not designed to sponsor academics to move into industry, nor does it support established businesses. In their first three years of operation, the 15 Seed Funds established in 1999 have assisted the creation of 159 spinout companies. It is too early to assess the long-term survival rates of these companies, but an evaluation of the University Challenge Scheme is expected to begin in mid-autumn.

  Vulnerable Borrowers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and if she will make a statement on measures aimed at protecting vulnerable borrowers. [120634]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was launched by my predecessor in July 2001 with the publication of a consultation document "Tackling the loan sharks—and more!" A summary of responses was published in February 2002 and a progress report was published in August 2002.

  There has been further consultation on five key areas for reform:
  Increasing or removing the £25,000 financial limit in the Consumer Credit Act and reviewing the status of some exempt;
  Making the regulations on early settlement fair and equitable to both lenders and borrowers;
  Enabling lenders and consumers to be able to enter into and conclude credit agreements by electronic means;
  Reform of the consumer credit licensing regime; and
  Reform of the protections offered to consumers in respect of extortionate credit;

  Further consultation papers will focus on:
  Simplifying the consumer credit advertising regulations; and
  The form and content of credit agreements;

  I intend to complete an implementation plan later this year and implementation will begin in 2004.
  503W
  The consultation on making the extortionate credit provisions within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 more effective closed on 6 June 2003. The responses to this consultation are currently being analysed. Once this analysis is complete I will publish details of the measures I intend to take to protect vulnerable borrowers from exploitation.

  In addition a National Debt Helpline pilot was launched in March 2002 to give consumers free, easy access to debt advice and where appropriate help them to draw up debt repayment plans to manage their debts. This project is funded jointly by the Government and the credit and finance industry.

  The pilot aims to test how effectively consumer debt problems can be resolved by a national telephone advice and to establish the strength of the case for a national free money advice service. Since 1 March 2002 the National Debtline has helped 29,412 people with debt problems. They deal with 700 calls per week, providing a wide range of advice including on income maximisation, bankruptcy and debt management schemes to a wide variety of people from various social and economic groups.

  World Trade Organisation
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on consultations between her Department and campaigners for fair trade before the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun. [120156]

  Ms Hewitt
  I meet regularly with representatives from civil society to discuss the Government's international trade policy. I last met with representatives from the Trade Justice Movement on 21 May to discuss how we can ensure that this is a true development round.

  Campaigners for fairer trade help to raise the profile of trade and development issues. It is important that the Government and campaigners for trade justice continue to work together to ensure that the Doha Development Agenda becomes a reality.

  A representative from Action Aid will be part of the official UK delegation to the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun and, as I recently announced to the House, I have accepted an invitation from Christian Aid to visit Guatemala prior to the Cancun meeting.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bereavement Benefit
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to revise the operation of bereavement benefit, in respect of the rule regarding the awarding of this benefit to a widower after the payment by his spouse of the married women's reduced rate of national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [120085]

  Maria Eagle
  The bereavement benefit scheme introduced much needed reform to the support available in bereavement and provides cover for both spouses in 504W
  the event of either's premature death, based on the qualifying national insurance contribution record of the deceased person.

  Some married women made an informed choice to pay a reduced rate of national insurance contributions, in return for which they receive reduced benefit entitlements. This applies to bereavement benefits and we have no plans to change this.

  Carers
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many carers over 65 years of age have(a) claimed and (b) received carers allowance since 28 October 2002. [115902]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table and relates to the period 28 October 2002 to 31 December 2002. The majority of carers aged 65 and over who qualify for carer's allowance also receive a state pension of an equal or higher amount. In these circumstances, the overlapping benefits rules preclude the payment of carer's allowance. However, people affected in this way can, if they are on a low income, qualify for the carer premium payable with income related benefits.

  Number

  Claims

  9,950

  Entitled

  7,615

  In payment

  325

  Notes.

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures refer to the number of people making a claim and each person may have made more than one claim. Figures relate to people aged 65 and over; State Pension age is 60 for women and 65 for men.

  3. Figures exclude advance claims made prior to 28 October 2002.

  Source:

  100 per cent data from the CA Computer System (CACS) supplied by Information and Analysis Directorate. Figures are at 31 December 2002.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what provision he is making to advertise entitlement to council tax benefit. [118131]

  Maria Eagle
  Council tax benefit is administered by over 400 local authorities, each of which is required by legislation to take appropriate steps to ensure that people with a potential entitlement to council tax benefit are made aware of the help available.

  Information is also contained in leaflet GL17 'Help with your Council Tax Benefit' as well as various other information leaflets and posters produced by the Department. Leaflets can be obtained from local Jobcentre Plus, Pension Service and Social Security offices as well as a number of other outlets including doctors' surgeries, post offices, chemists and supermarkets.

  In addition, information about council tax benefit can be accessed on the Department's website at www.dwp.gov.uk.

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the outcome was of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 2–3 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [117558]

  Maria Eagle
  My hon. Friend, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health (David Lammy), represented the UK for the Health element of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 2 June.

  The main health business of this Council related to the Safety of Tissues and Cells Directive. The Council reached political agreement on a text that did not include any of the amendments, proposed by the European Parliament at its first reading, to which the UK was strongly opposed. The UK voted in support of the Council text.

  The Council adopted a proposal which will enable member states to sign the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The UK voted in favour of this proposal.

  Member states also reached political agreement on two elements of the Pharmaceuticals Review. These address changes to the human medicines directive, and to the Regulation that established the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (the EMEA) and a Community marketing authorisation procedure for certain human and veterinary medicines. The UK voted in favour of the Council text overall. A progress report was received on the veterinary medicines directive on which discussions are not as far advanced.

  The Council adopted Council Conclusions on combating Stigma in relation to Mental Illness, the product of a Conference, which took place in Athens under the Greek Presidency. The UK voted in favour of adopting these Conclusions.

  The Commission updated the Council on activities in the area of joint activity on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), including the announcement of funding into diagnostics research. They also gave an update on the High Level process of reflection on patient mobility and health care development, indicating that the second Ministerial plenary session would take place in July.

  Under any other business the Commission updated the Council on the programme of co-operation on bioterrorism and health security. The Commission also presented a proposed Recommendation on Cancer Screening. Voting was not required on either of these items. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Smith) represented the UK together with my hon. Friend, then Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson), at the Employment and Social Policy part of the ESPHCA on 3 June in Luxembourg.

  The Council agreed a general approach to the 2003 Employment Guidelines. The EP will now be consulted as directed by the Treaty and the Guidelines will be adopted at a future Council as an A point. The UK are
  506W
  content with the simplified guidelines which are more focused on the employment targets set at Lisbon in 2000 and are geared more towards outcomes. Council also agreed the Recommendations on member states employment policies, the second part of the Employment package.

  There was a lengthy discussion on the proposed Directive on Temporary Agency workers which was originally tabled for political agreement. The Council was unable to reach agreement on the proposal and the Presidency remitted further negotiations to the Italian Presidency, recalling that the Brussels Spring Council urged agreement on the directive by December 2003. The UK maintained its position that it could back a directive that supported agency workers without putting their jobs at risk. Any directive must reflect the realities of our labour market.

  Council agreed the rest of the items on the agenda with little or no discussion. Council reached political agreement on a regulation on the European Cooperative Statute and a parallel directive on employee involvement.

  Council also reached political agreement on a Decision setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work. The UK and Denmark made a written declaration, to be included in the minutes of the Council, regretting the use of Article 202 as the legal base for this Decision.

  Council adopted two Resolutions without discussion: one Resolution on building social and human capital in the knowledge society; and a second on promoting the employment and social integration of people with disabilities.

  Council also agreed a general approach on the three chapters of a Regulation to replace Regulation 1408/71, the co-ordination of member states' social security systems, that have been discussed under the Greek Presidency. The chapters concerned cover invalidity benefits, pensions and special non-contributory benefits. Work will continue under the Italian Presidency with a view to completing the simplification of this regulation by December 2003, as requested by the European Council at Barcelona in 2002.

  The Council approved, without debate, the Social Protection Committee's plans to carry out themed studies on pensions issues.

  Under the Council's new rules of procedure, both the Commission and the Presidency presented Any Other Business items as written information. There was no discussion of these points.

  No votes were taken in this part of the Council.

  Pensioners (Benefit Payments)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's estimate was of the total number of residents eligible for a state pension and of these(a) the number who claimed a state pension, (b) the number who applied for minimum income guarantee support, (c) the number refused MIG support and (d) the number in receipt of disability assistance in each of the last five years. [118233]
  507W
  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available for the number of minimum income guarantee (MIG) applications made each year or the number refused. Information is also not available on the number of resident people who are either eligible for, or have claimed state pension. Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  Total number of State Pension recipients in GB

  Total number of people over state pension age receiving sickness/disability benefit in GB

  Total number of MIG recipients in GB

  1998

  10,036,300

  Not available

  1,640,900

  1999

  10,131,700

  2,381,000

  1,625,500

  2000

  10,185,400

  2,470,000

  1,675,200

  2001

  10,256,100

  2,501,000

  1,741,300

  2002

  10,310,900

  2,555,000

  1,767,500

  Note:

  Sickness/disability benefits include incapacity benefit, severe disablement Allowance, disability living allowance, attendance allowance and income support with a disability premium.

  Source:

  Pension Strategy Computer System 5 per cent. sample

  Client Group Analysis of the population over State Pension Age

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries November 1997-November 2002

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programme of activities is planned for the British Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [120047]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) is due to deploy to Mazar-e Sharif next month when it will begin its tasks of spreading the influence of the Afghan Transitional Authority, stimulating Security Sector Reform (SSR) and facilitating reconstruction. These aims will be achieved through liaison with local leaders, monitoring and assessment of local conditions and progress with SSR. The PRT will engage closely with Non-Governmental Organizations and international agencies.

  Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of vehicles to be procured under the(a) FRES, (b) FCLV, (c) Warrior MLI and (d) Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle programmes. [119494]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decisions have yet been made regarding the quantities of vehicles that might be acquired under any of these programmes. These determinations are normally made as part of the main investment approval for a project.

  Army Uniforms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hats available to the Guards Regiment have been made from real fur; from which 508W
  animals they have been derived; and how many animals he estimates would have been killed to provide the fur used. [117835]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only hat available to the Guards Regiments made from real fur is the ceremonial bearskin cap, which is made from the fur of the Black Bear. The Regiment currently holds 2,258 of these caps. It is not possible to accurately estimate the number of pelts used, as the number required for each cap varies; one bear pelt can make on average between one and two caps. A total of 1,396 caps have been procured over the last 10 years (1993 to 2002). Since 2001, a refurbishment programme has been in place designed to ensure that we reduce the requirement for new caps to a minimum. A total of 329 caps have been refurbished since this programme began.

  Boscombe Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military, (b) Civil Service and (c) civilian contractor or other personnel are employed at the National Flight Testing Centre at Boscombe Down. [118736]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence aircraft test and evaluation site at Boscombe Down is operated by QinetiQ plc. MOD and QinetiQ records show that the numbers of personnel employed at the Boscombe Down site as at 11 June 2003 were as follows.

  Number

  Military

  408

  Civil Servants

  102

  QinetiQ personnel

  1,343

  Other contractors

  770

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military and security assistance for Colombia is provided by the Government(a) bilaterally and (b) multilaterally; and what conditions and restrictions are placed on this aid. [120173]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: We do from time to time provide military and security advice and assistance to Colombia. The nature of this advice and assistance is confidential between Governments and I am withholding the details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information whose disclosure would be harmful to national security, defence or international relations.

  C130K Fleet
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated run on costs are for the(a) C130K and (b) C17 aircraft; and what additional structural work will be needed on the C130K fleet to keep the aircraft operational until their out of service date. [117498]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of maintaining the C130K fleet is estimated at around £30 million per year (covering maintenance and support, but not the cost of aircrew,
  509W
  fuel, etc.). Based on current plans, it is expected that these aircraft will be withdrawn from service around the end of this decade. To ensure that the fleet remains operational up to this point, it is expected that modifications will be required on most of the fleet to maintain structural integrity of the aircraft. A more substantial work package, including outer wing replacement, may be required for several C130K aircraft that have undertaken more demanding flying tasks during recent operations.

  We currently operate four C-17 aircraft obtained under lease until 2008. If we exercise the option to extend the lease on all four to 2010, the additional costs are estimated at around £130 million in total. This sum includes the cost of the lease extension and in-service costs for the two-year period 2008–10.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the(a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) approved cost of the assessment phase and (d) cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate are for the (i) Future Joint Combat Aircraft, (ii) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, (iii) in Transit Visibility, (iv) Indirect Fire Precision Attack, (v) Inner London Barracks, (vi) Integrated Ground Based Air Defence Phase 1, (vii) Light Forces Anti-tank Guided Weapon and (viii) Microwave Landing System programmes; [119595]

  (2) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) approved cost of the assessment phase and (d) cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate are for the (i) Mine Detection and Neutralisation, (ii) Northwood refurbishment, (iii) Precision Guided Bomb, (iv) Project Allenby/Connaught, (v) Project Aquatrine (provision of water and sewerage services) —Packages B and C, (vi) Project Falcon—Land Formation Communication System, (vii) Project PICASSO (imagery and geospatial intelligence production system) and (viii) Sender: Unmanned Air Vehicle programmes; [119596]

  (3) what the (a) approved cost of the assessment phase, (b) actual cost of assessment phase and (c) most likely cost of demonstration and manufacture phase was at (i) initial gate and (ii) main gate for (i) Project Aquatrine (provision of water and sewerage services)—Package A, (ii) Typhoon International Weapon System Support System, (iii) Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapons, (iv) Scotland Regional Prime Contract, (v) Neptune regeneration project (HMNB Clyde Accommodation), (vi) SSN Berthing and (vii) Defence High Frequency Communications Service; [119624]

  (4) what the (a) approved cost of the assessment phase, (b) actual cost of assessment phase and (c) most likely cost of demonstration and manufacture phase was at (i) initial gate and (ii) main gate for (A) Heavy Equipment Transporter, (B) Astute Class Training Services, (C) Surface Ship Torpedo Defence, (D) Tornado GR4 Upgraded Main Computer Programme, (E) Armed Forces Pay and Administration Agency, (F) Generic Helicopter Health and Usage Monitoring System, (G) Battlegroup Thermal Imaging and (H) Wheeled Tanker; [119628]
  510W
  (5) what the (a) approved cost of the assessment phase, (b) actual cost of assessment phase and (c) most likely cost of demonstration and manufacture phase was at (i) initial gate and (ii) main gate for (A) BOWMAN Radio, (B) P2P (Purchase to Payment), (C) Support Vehicles, (D) Skynet 5, (E) Next Generation Light Anti-armour Weapon, (F) Field Electrical Power Supplies, (G) Single Living Accommodation and (H) Digitization of the Land Battlefield; [119629]

  (6) what (a) the date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval is for (i) Project Aquatrine (provision of water and sewerage services)—Package A, (ii) Typhoon International Weapon System Support System, (iii) Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (iv) Scotland Regional Prime Contract, (v) Neptune regeneration project (HMNB Clyde Accommodation), (vi) SSN Berthing and (vii) Defence High Frequency Communications Service; [119630]

  (7) what the (a) approved cost of the assessment phase, (b) actual cost of assessment phase and (c) most likely cost of demonstration and manufacture phase was at (i) initial gate and (ii) main gate for (A) Colchester Garrison, (B) Main Building Refurbishment, (C) SA80 Upgrade, (D) Survey Vessels, (E) Defence Housing Executive PFI Housing Project, (F) Defence Electronic Commerce Service, (G) White Fleet PFI and (H) Roll-On Roll-Off Ferries; [119631]

  (8) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) approved cost of the assessment phase and (d) cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate are for the (i) Sonar and Signature Improvement, (ii) Soothsayer: Electronic Warfare, (iii) Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft—Search and Rescue, (iv) Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft, (v) Temporary Deployable Accommodation, (vi) Tri-Service Airfield Support Services Project, (vii) Tubed Artillery Conventional Ammunition System, (viii) UK Cooperative Engagement Capability and (x) UK Military Flying Training System programmes; [119632]

  (9) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) date of main gate approval are for the (i) Colchester Garrison, (ii) Main Building Refurbishment, (iii) SA80 Upgrade, (iv) Survey Vessels, (v) Defence Housing Executive PFI Housing Project, (vi) Defence Electronic Commerce Service, (vii) White Fleet PFI and (viii) Roll-On Roll-Off Ferries programmes; [119633]

  (10) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) approval cost of the assessment phase, and (d) cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate are for the (i) Armoured Vehicles Training Service, (ii) Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter, (iii) Battlegroup Thermal Imaging, (iv) C Vehicles, (v) Combined Aerial Targets Service, (vi) Counter Anti-Radiation Missile Suite, (vii) Cyprus Accommodation and (viii) Defence Estates Regional Prime Contracting programmes; [119634]

  (11) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval, (c) approval cost of the assessment phase, and (d) cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at initial gate are for

  511W
  the (i) Defence Housing Executive Management Information System, (ii) Defence Housing Executive Prime Contract+, (iii) Defence Information Infrastructure, (iv) Defence Logistics Organisation Information Strategy Programme, (v) Defence Medical Information Capability Programme, (vi) Defence Training Review, (vii) Future Command and Liaison Vehicles and (viii) Future Integrated Soldier Technology programmes; [119635]

  (12) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval are for the (i) Heavy Equipment Transporter, (ii) Astute Class Training Services, (iii) Surface Ship Torpedo Defence, (iv) Tornado GR4 Upgraded Main Computer, (v) Armed Forces Pay and Administration Agency, (vi) Generic Helicopter Health and Usage Monitoring System, (vii) Battlegroup Thermal Imaging and (viii) Wheeled Tanker programmes; [119636]

  (13) what the (a) date of initial gate approval, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval are for the (i) BOWMAN Radio, (ii) P2P (Purchase to Payment), (iii) Support Vehicles, (iv) Skynet 5, (v) Next Generation Light Anti-armour Weapon, (vi) Field Electrical Power Supplies, (viii) Single Living Accommodation and (viii) Digitization of the Land Battlefield programmes. [119637]

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

  Defence Equipment Sales
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) requests have been received by DESO from UK companies for special commissions to be paid on sale of defence equipment since 1990 and (b) special commissions DESO has approved since 1990; and if he will list (i) the countries in which these special commissions were to be paid and (ii) the amount to be paid; [108991]

  (2) how many (a) requests have been received by DESO from UK companies for special commissions to be paid on sale of defence equipment since 1990 and (b)

  Hansard reference

  Project

  Date contract let

  Current forecast ISD

  Current forecast cost (£ billion)

  Estimated ISD at time contract let

  Estimated cost at time contract let (£ billion)

  112060

  LFATGWS

  2003

  2006

  0.340

  2006

  0.340

  112060

  MRA4

  1996

  2009

  13.4

  2003

  2.9

  112060

  A400M

  2003

  2011

  2.4

  2011

  2.4

  112060

  Asraam

  1992

  2002

  0.860

  21998

  0.870

  amended 1999

  2001

  110347

  Meteor Bvraam

  2002

  2012

  1.4

  2012

  1.4

  110351

  Swiftsure and Trafalgar Update

  Eight contracts noviated to one in 1997–98

  2004

  0.730

  2002

  0.620

  110351

  Astute

  1997 (3 boats)

  2008

  3.6

  2005

  2.7

  110345

  Bowman3

  2001,

  2004

  2.0

  2004

  1.9

  extended 2002

  2004

  2.1

  110352

  Watchkeeper4

  Contract not yet let

  2006

  0.860

  n/a

  n/a

  110346

  Typhoon5

  1998

  2003

  19.7

  2002

  19.1

  1 This cost is subject to contract negotiations which are scheduled to be completed in the summer.

  2 The Asraam ISD was re-approved in 1999, to 2001.

  3 The Bowman costs refer to the design and manufacture phase only.

  4 Cost and ISD are indicative only at this pre Main Gate point.

  5 'Date contract let' relates to award of the Overarching Production Investment and Production Contract and the order for Tranche 1 aircraft in 1998.

  512W
  special commissions that DESO has approved since 1990; and if he will list (i) the countries in which these special commissions were to be paid and (ii) the amount to be paid; [108991]

  (3) in what year the requirement was introduced for UK companies to seek permission from DESO in order to make special commissions on defence equipment sales. [108990]

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

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the expected(a) cost and (b) commissioning date is of the Meteor BVRAAM missile; and what estimates were made when the contract was let; [110347]

  (2) what the expected (a) cost and (b) commissioning date are of the Swiftsure, Astute and Trafalgar submarines; and what estimates were made when the contracts were let; [110351]

  (3) what the current expected (a) cost and (b) commissioning date is of the Bowman Communication System; and what estimates were made when the contract was let; [110345]

  (4) what the (a) cost and (b) expected commissioning date are of Watchkeeper; and what estimates were made when the contract was let; [110352]

  (5) what the expected (a) cost and (b) commissioning date is of the Eurofighter; and what estimates were made when the contract was let; [110346]

  (6) if he will make a statement in relation to the (a) cost and (b) expected commissioning date of the (i) light forces anti-tank guided weapon system, (ii) Nimrod MR A4 aircraft, (iii) A 400M aircraft and (iv) the ASRAAM missile; and what estimates of both were made when the contracts were let. [112060]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposed ESDP operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo will be flagged under the EU flag; whether armed forces personnel will wear EU insignia on their uniforms; and if he will make a statement. [119856]

  Mr. Ingram
  The forces participating in the operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo will be under the political control and strategic direction of the EU Council of Ministers. This is exercised through the Political and Security Committee which is comprised of representatives of member states. We expect that personnel and equipment participating in the operation will carry some form of identifying EU insignia, as is the case for the EU-led operation in Macedonia. This follows the example of NATO operations where participating forces are expected to wear NATO insignia.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the(a) military criteria and (b) benchmarks for success for the ESDP operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [119857]

  Mr. Ingram
  In response to a request from the UN Secretary General, the EU decided on 5 June to lead a multinational force to Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo under ESDP. UNSCR 1484 gives a limited and specific mandate which expires on 1 September 2003. The mandate authorises an Interim Multinational Force to:Contribute to stabilising the town of Bunia and improving the humanitarian situation there;
  Secure the airport, thereby facilitating the arrival of additional forces by the UN.

  The military are tailoring an interim force to meet this short-term, focussed mandate. The success of the operation will be measured against the mandate.

  Desert Combat Clothing
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether orders of desert combat clothing have been found to be sub-standard. [119198]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, we have had no reports through the official defect reporting system of any sub-standard items of desert combat clothing.

  However, a small number of desert boots supplied by a contractor were found to be sub-standard and were rejected on inspection at the depot. They were not issued to troops.

  Desert Terrains
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of(a) tanks and (b) engineering works project-related vehicles working within desert terrains. [118411]

  Mr. Ingram
  An assessment is made during the acquisition process of the performance of all new equipment (including main battle tanks and armoured engineer vehicles) in those environments in which they are expected to operate. This is supplemented by 514W
  experience from major exercises and operations. Post-operational reporting will provide analysis and assessment of the performance of equipment deployed on operations in Iraq. Further assessment would be undertaken if changes to defence planning assumptions subsequently affected the environments in which it was planned to operate this equipment.

  Early Leavers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 303W, on early leavers, what research his Department has commissioned on changes in the number of naval personnel leaving the Service by premature voluntary retirement between 2000–01 and 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [120321]

  Mr. Caplin
  The increase in the number of premature voluntary retirements in 2001–02 is primarily due to a reduction in the notice period for ratings from 18 to 12 months in that year, and is not the subject of any further specific investigation. However, reducing the outflow of personnel from the Naval Service is a key strategic objective of the Navy Board which is being implemented through a Retention Campaign, including initiatives on terms and conditions of service, rebalancing lives, remuneration and career management.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been allocated by his Department for the Eurofighter Typhoon; how much he expects this programme to cost; and when he will make a full financial commitment. [119185]

  Mr. Ingram
  Funding is allocated for in-year expenditure only. Provision for future years' expenditure is made in the annually revised Equipment Plan. In the case of Typhoon, the allocation for equipment acquisition for 2003–2004 is £1,158 million. We currently estimate that the total procurement cost of Typhoon will be £19.7 billion. Typhoon is planned to be procured in three tranches. The first tranche is already on order and in production. We plan to place orders for the second and third tranches of aircraft in 2003 and 2007 respectively.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Secondary Care Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119286]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Secondary Care Agency was disbanded on 31 March 2003 and its functions were subsumed by the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency and the Defence Medical Services Department. The Agency employed an average of 2,282 military and civilian people between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 of which 11 were employed in Scotland. This compares with 2,317 in the preceding financial year of which 10 were employed in Scotland. The personnel costs of the Agency for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 are subject to the outcome of routine
  515W
  audit by the National Audit Office and will form part of the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which is expected to be published in July and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The Agency's personnel costs in the financial year ending 31 March 2002 were £87.73 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the National Codification Bureau; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119288]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 January 2003 there were 95 people in post working for the United Kingdom National Codification Bureau (UKNCB), all of which are employed in Glasgow. The total annual personnel costs of UKNCB as at 1 January 2003 were approximately £2.6 million. For the comparable 12 month period as at 1 January 2002 there were 99 people in post employed by UKNCB, all in Scotland. The comparable annual personnel costs of the Agency as at 1 January 2002 were £2.3 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Directorate General Commercial Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119289]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Director General Commercial is the Professional Head of the Ministry of Defence's Commercial Function. He is professionally responsible for all commercial posts throughout the MOD, some 1,900 staff in total. Approximately 150 of these are based in Scotland. These staff figures are unchanged from 2002. The Director General Commercial Organisation is a term used to describe collectively the commercial staff within the MOD. It is neither an agency, nor a budgetary element within the Department. The costs of commercial staff are borne by their parent Top Level Budget organisations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Disposal Services Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119292]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to page 36 of the Disposal Services Agency (DSA)'s Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02, which was laid before the House on 19 July 2002. For Financial Year 2002–03 the personnel costs are approximately £3 million, subject to audit. Of the 87 personnel employed in 2003, three personnel are employed in Scotland, the same number as last year.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Bills Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119293]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Bills Agency do not employ any staff in Scotland. The forecast costs and the average number of whole-time equivalent people employed (including Agency senior managers) was as follows:516W

  Forecast

  Full-time equivalents

  Personnel costs (£000)

  2003–04

  572

  11,991

  2002–03

  591

  11,572

  The Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 is expected to be published before the summer recess. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the appeal in the case of Mr. Shaun Rusling, and its implications for other Service personnel suffering illnesses due to mobilisation for or action in the 1991 Gulf War. [120495]

  Mr. Caplin
  The High Court judgment of 13 June 2003 against the Ministry of Defence, as appellant, rested on a number of considerations. A key consideration was that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was entitled to find, in Mr. Rusling's case, that the Ministry of Defence had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that disablement due to 'Gulf War Syndrome', which he claimed in 1994, was neither attributable nor aggravated by his Service in the armed forces. The High Court made it clear that it was not in a position to express any views on whether, according to current medical research, 'Gulf War Syndrome' was or was not a 'single disease entity', and the judge confirmed that the court had not expressed any such view in its judgment. The court confirmed that all other cases would have to be decided on their own facts.

  We would not expect the level of Mr. Rusling's war pension to be affected by this judgment as the disablement that he describes as 'Gulf War Syndrome' is already being fully compensated for in his war pension award, using the World Health Organisation's International Classification of diseases, 10th edition, (ICD10) category, "Signs, Symptoms and Ill-Defined Conditions".

  Of those veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict who have already claimed for conditions they attribute to their Service in the armed forces, many have already received a war pension. These awards have been based on consideration on whether there was evidence of disablement and whether this was attributable to Service. Where these have been satisfied, an award has been made. Similarly, therefore, the eligibility for an award and its level has not been affected by the issue of whether or not there was a single disease entity, 'Gulf War Syndrome'.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what object HMS Tireless recently hit while sailing in the Arctic; and if he will make a statement. [118359]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 June 2003]: HMS Tireless suffered some external damage as a result of contact with a free-floating object. It is unfortunate that both surface vessels and submarines occasionally suffer damage from hitting free-floating objects such as large timbers or containers which have fallen from ships.
  517W
  Publication of information on the precise nature of the free-floating object could provide an indication of the location of a submarine at the time of the contact. I am, therefore, withholding information on the precise category of free-floating object, in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to national security.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ALARM missiles were fired by(a) Tornado F3 and (b) Tornado GR4 during Operation Telic. [115323]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces fired in the region of 45 ALARM missiles during Operation Telic. All were fired by Tornado GR4 aircraft.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been allocated by his Department for the Joint Strike Fighter; how much he expects this programme to cost; and when he expects to make a full financial commitment. [119186]

  Mr. Ingram
  Funding is allocated for in-year expenditure only. Provision for future years' expenditure is made in the annually revised Equipment Plan. In the case of Joint Strike Fighter, the allocation for equipment procurement for 2003–2004 is £138 million. We currently anticipate that the procurement cost of the Joint Strike Fighter programme will be up to £10 billion dependent on the number of aircraft acquired and how they are supported. Full financial commitment is not anticipated before 2006.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the minimum number of joint strike fighter ASTOVL variants below which purchase by the UK would no longer be financially viable. [119493]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Our current planning assumption is to acquire up to 150 short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the joint strike fighter (JSF) to meet our future joint combat aircraft (FJCA) requirement. But no decision has yet been taken and final numbers will depend on the outcome of on-going work to confirm future United Kingdom fast jet requirements. The estimated cost of acquiring 150 STOVL JSF is taken into account in the Department's forward resource plans.

  Medical Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Storm Shadow missiles were used during the Iraq conflict; and if he will make a statement on its operational effectiveness. [111814]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Storm Shadow missiles were fired by Tornado bombers during Operation Telic. [115324]

  Mr. Ingram
  27 Storm Shadow Missiles were used during recent operations in Iraq and are considered to have performed highly effectively.
  518W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) precision and (b) non-precision bombs were used by British forces during operations in Iraq. [113244]

  Mr. Ingram
  British Forces used in the region of 780 precision bombs and in the region of 140 non-precision bombs during operations in Iraq.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of available stocks of(a) precision guided munitions and (b) non-precision guided munitions were used during the Iraq conflict. [113263]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what stocks of(a) solid propellant, (b) other fuel, including unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine, (c) oxidiser and (d) other related materials capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (i) no greater than 150km and (ii) greater than 150km have (A) been captured by and (B) fallen into the possession of coalition forces in Iraq; [114923]

  (2) what transporter-erector-launchers, other mobile launchers, fixed launchers, support vehicles or other related equipment capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have (i) been captured by and (ii) fallen into the possession of Coalition forces in Iraq; [114931]

  (3) what stocks of warheads, airframes, engine components or guidance and control components capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles with the capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have been identified as having been destroyed (i) by Coalition forces and (ii) other causes during the recent conflict; [114929]

  (4) what (a) drawings, (b) technical, research, production, testing, administrative or other documentation, (c) computer diskettes, (d) video tapes or other data storage media, (e) training aids and (f) remnants of tested or destroyed items have been (i) identified by the Coalition as related to Iraqi short or medium range missile programmes and (ii) seized; [114933]

  (5) what stocks of warheads, airframes, engine components or guidance and control components capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have (i) been captured and (ii) fallen into the possession of Coalition forces in Iraq; [114930]

  (6) how many short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have (i) been captured by and (ii) fallen into the possession of Coalition forces on Iraq; [114926]

  (7) how many short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have been identified

  519W
  as having been destroyed, prior to launch, (i) by Coalition forces and (ii) by other causes during the recent conflict in the Gulf; [114928]

  (8) what stocks of (a) solid propellant, (b) other fuel (including unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine), (c) oxidiser and (d) other related materials capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (i) no greater than 150km and (ii) greater than 150km have been identified as having been destroyed (A) by Coalition forces and (B) other causes during the recent conflict; [114924]

  (9) what transporter-erector-lauchers, other mobile launchers, fixed launchers, support vehicles or other related equipment capable of use with short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges (a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have been identified as having been destroyed by (i) Coalition forces and (ii) other causes during the recent conflict in Iraq. [114932]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition forces are currently conducting investigations into Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. One aim of these investigations will be to account for Iraq's illegal weapons programmes, including ballistic missiles with proscribed ranges and associated materials, and their final dispositions. We are confident that further evidence of Iraq's illegal weapons programmes, including ballistic missiles with proscribed ranges, will be uncovered. At the appropriate time, we will make the evidence public.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) secondments and (b) advisers have been attached to his forces in Iraq to assist with or advise on United States peace keeping operations; and if he will make a statement. [116233]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: There are some 40 military and civilian personnel attached to United States forces in order to assist or advise them with peace keeping operations. Some 15 more military personnel will be arriving in Baghdad between 15 and 25 June 2003.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the targets hit by each of the Cruise missiles fired by HMS Turbulent during the invasion of Iraq; and if he will place in the Library the full battle damage assessment assembled for each Cruise missile fired from the submarine. [117626]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy for Iraq. [118778]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are contributing to current discussions on how the Coalition Provisional Authority should approach Security Sector Reform in Iraq, including the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former members of Iraq's armed forces back into Iraqi society.

  Military Flying Training System
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been allocated by his Department for the Military Flying Training System programme; how much he expects this programme to cost; and when he expects to be able to make a full financial commitment. [119184]

  Mr. Ingram
  Funding is allocated for in-year expenditure only. Provision for future years' expenditure is made in the annually revised Equipment Plan. In the case of the United Kingdom Military Flying Training System, the allocation for equipment acquisition for 2003–04 is £9.5 million. The total estimated cost of the programme is some £12.5 billion. The MFTS programme is currently in its assessment phase. Subject to the necessary Main Gate approval, the project is currently planned to proceed to its next phase in 2006. Full financial commitment will not be made until after Main Gate approval.

  Missile Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Active Layered Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence study relating to Missile Defence has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [119502]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main body of work to inform the NATO Active Layered Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) Feasibility Study has been completed. The NATO authorities are currently compiling a report that will he made available to member nations in due course. The report will form part of a continuing process whose aim is the production of a NATO Staff Requirement for ALTBMD. We currently expect this requirement to be finalised in 2004.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 57WS, on missile defence, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Government's support for the US missile defence system with the UK's commitments under Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty. [120323]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom involvement in cooperative work with the United States on missile defence, including the use of RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes, is entirely compatible with the UK's commitments under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The US missile defence system is not a nuclear weapon system.

  The UK is wholly committed to its obligations under the NPT, including Article VI. I set out the progress the UK has made in fulfilling its NPT obligations on nuclear disarmament in my answer of 12 June 2003, Official Report, columns 1018–19W to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 57WS, on missile defence, whether missiles will be sited in the UK as part of the US missile defence system; and if he will make a statement. [120324]
  521W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have taken no decision about the acquisition or deployment of a missile defence system. The United States has not made any request to site interceptor missiles in the United Kingdom as part of its missile defence system.

  NATO
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the objectives are of Government policy towards NATO. [120501]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO remains the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's defence policy. Our strong support for the alliance is based on the collective defence it provides and its continuing contribution to a stable and secure European continent. The decisions taken at the Prague Summit on NATO enlargement, capabilities and the transformation agenda successfully reaffirmed the alliance as the key security and defence organisation. At Foreign and Defence Ministers meetings earlier this month, agreement on the NATO Response Force and the new Command Arrangements underlined allies' determination to deliver the capabilities needed to ensure NATO's relevance in today's security environment.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the effect on UK collaboration with the US nuclear weapons programme will be of US plans to resume underground nuclear weapons tests. [119078]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am not aware that the United States has any plans to resume nuclear-weapon-test-explosions.

  Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 21 January 2003,Official Report, column 209W, and his answer of 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 299W, on pilots, what factors have brought about the change in numbers in that period; and if he will make a statement. [120322]

  Mr. Caplin
  The increase in the strength of pilots for the Sea Harrier fleet was due to the graduation of three pilots from the Sea Harrier Operational Flying Training (SHAR OFT) course and one pilot, previously listed as very seriously injured, now being included in the trained strength.

  The decrease in the strength of pilots for the frontline Harrier GR7 fleet was due to Officers being posted to Qualified Weapons Instructor Courses (QWIC); or to be Qualified Flying Instructors, training students for the frontline. Postings, promotions and retirement from Service are also factors. Three RAF officers will be returning from the QWIC on 20 June 2003, and a further three RAF officers will graduate from training in July 2003.

  Balanced against the influx of RN Harrier pilots to join the Joint Force Harrier and routine postings out, it is expected that the strength will match the requirement in July 2003.
  522W
  Such fluctuations should be expected as part of the dynamic personnel management process.

  President Bush
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs associated with the recent visit of President Bush to Northern Ireland were to his Department. [120363]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no additional costs to the Ministry of Defence regarding the recent visit of the President of the United States of America to Northern Ireland. Fuel and other items used by the visitors were either paid for at the time of the visit or are being recovered from the United States Air Force.

  Schools Funding
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he assists in the funding of schools attended by children of Service personnel(a) on an annual basis and (b) to help with financial shortfalls caused by falling school rolls arising from delays in transferring regiments; and if he will make a statement. [120354]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am aware that changes to unit deployments in the hon. Member's constituency, especially those connected with operations in Iraq, have affected school numbers and funding. Our local schools liaison officer recently attended a meeting of headteachers to explain the reasons for these changes. Funding for schools is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills and Devolved Administrations. However, we aim to maintain close liaison with local education authorities and schools to help resolve problems and give early notification to assist in planning. I regret that it was not possible on this occasion to give the customary advance notice.

  Service Manning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 454W, on service manning targets, if he will list the (a) spending targets and (b) spending estimates for the current financial year on (i) personnel and (ii) manpower overheads in each of the Services; and if he will make a statement. [119449]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: The Department does not have spending targets for personnel or manpower overheads (but spending plans which form part of the Main Supply Estimates each year). At this early stage of the financial year, spending estimates for the year will be the same as the plans.

  The estimated costs of employing Service personnel for 2003–04 are shown in the table.

  Spending plans—Service personnel

  (£ million)

  Navy

  1.607

  Army

  4,181

  RAF

  2,029

  We do not collect centrally the costs of manpower overheads for Service personnel. The costs of recruiting

  523W
  and training Service personnel are lodged with the military manpower Top Level Budgets. Their net resource costs for 2003-04 are as follows:

  Spending plans—military manpower TLBs

  (£ million)

  Navy

  694

  Army

  1,681

  RAF

  1.018

  Spending plans for Service personnel and associated overheads are at a level consistent with enabling the manning targets set out in the current Public Service Agreement to be met.

  Special Commissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) how many(a) requests have been received by DESO from UK companies for special commissions to be paid on sale of defence equipment since 1990 and (b) special commissions that DESO has approved since 1990; and if he will list (i) the countries in which these special commissions were to be paid and (ii) the amount to be paid; [108991]

  (2) in which year the requirement was introduced for UK companies to seek permission from DESO in order to make special commissions on defence equipment sales. [108990]

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

  Strategic Lift Capability
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government will make assessment of(a) the risks of relying on the ready availability of civilian strategic lift assets and (b) the possibility of arrangements with civilian suppliers to guarantee strategic lift capacity during times of crisis; and if he will make a statement. [110556]

  Mr. Ingram
  Strategic air and sealift capability is examined annually by the Department as part of a wider assessment of logistic capabilities. This represents a thorough risk assessment process. The current assessment confirms the benefits of recent major investments in both C-17 aircraft and RoRo shipping, both of which provided strategic lift in support of operations in Iraq.

  To supplement military lift capability, the Department also has enabling contracts in place with commercial brokers for airlift charter that can be activated at very short notice, as and when required. These arrangements proved to be highly effective during operations in Iraq. Contracts for strategic sealift can also be activated rapidly.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those at present in receipt of pensions under the war pensions scheme would, if their 524W
  claim had been presented under the proposed change in burden of proof, have had their claim rejected; and if he will make a statement. [119997]

  Mr. Caplin
  We have not reviewed the cases of all those currently in receipt of a War Pension to assess how their claims would have been decided under the proposals for the new scheme. A key consideration in Ministers' final decision on the new proposals will be whether the proposed scheme arrangements could be expected to deliver fair decisions in terms of providing proper compensation for those whose illness or injury has been caused or significantly aggravated by their Service.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with his reviews of the(a) war and (b) armed forces pensions scheme with particular reference to the burden of proof. [120001]

  Mr. Caplin
  Ministers are currently considering the recommendations arising from the reviews of armed forces pension and compensation arrangements. We are aware of the concerns of ex-Service groups with regard to the standard of proof for determining compensation claims and will take these fully into account in reaching final decisions.

  Warship Support Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Warship Support Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119298]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at May 2003, the latest date for which detailed figures are readily available, there were 7,611 people working for the Warship Support Agency, of whom 2,259 were employed in Scotland. This compares with 10.307 and 4,263 respectively in May 2002. The reduction in the number of staff employed in the Agency since early 2002 is due largely to the transfer, in late 2002 of some 3,000 civilian posts to the Dockyard owners at Devonport, Portsmouth and Clyde under the Warship Support Modernisation Initiative (WSMI).

  In the answer provided by my predecessor (Dr. Moonie) to the hon. Member on 27 February 2002, Official Report, column 1288W, the Agency personnel cost for financial year 2001–02 was an estimate. The actual cost was £318 million, while the actual cost for financial year 2002–03 was £286 million.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government intend to make changes to the regulations covering new building in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [120311]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to change planning regulations that would specifically affect new building development in areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). A review of statutory permitted development rights for minor
  525W
  development, to determine whether these rights are still appropriate, including in areas such as AONBs is currently being conducted. A research report will be published shortly. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consider its conclusions carefully and any proposed changes to existing rights will be subject to public consultation.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also reviewing national Planning Policy Guidance for the Countryside (PPG7), which includes policies on new development in AONBs, with the aim of replacing this document with a more concise and up-to-date Planning Policy Statement (PPS) for rural areas. A draft of the new PPS will be issued soon for public consultation.

  Boiler Maintenance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for further regulation of household boilers; and if he will(a) encourage and (b) require annual maintenance checks, including a search for sources of carbon monoxide. [120926]

  Phil Hope
  Amendments to the Building Regulations that came into effect on 1 April 2002 significantly improved the requirements for the safe accommodation and energy efficiency of new and replacement domestic boilers. We announced in the Energy White Paper (EWP) that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will raise the energy performance standard even further to the level of the most efficient types of condensing boilers, and that we aim to bring the next major review of the Building Regulations into effect in 2005.

  The Government are well aware of the hazards associated with combustion appliances and encourage periodic maintenance checks. It is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's view that the frequency of inspections should be determined by appliance manufacturers having regard to the type of fuel used. Guidance and encouragement supporting this position is conveyed in:
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaflet, "Solid Fuel, Wood and Oil Burning Appliances: Get Them Checked, Sweep Your Chimneys and be Safe". This warns of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and encourages appropriate maintenance for solid fuel and oil appliances which includes checking for gas tightness; and
  the HSE leaflet, "Get Them Checked—Keep Them Safe". This provides similar advice for gas users.
  The Energy Saving Trust (EST) advises on annual servicing of domestic boilers and safety awareness through its network of Energy Efficiency Advice Centres (EEACs).

  In addition to this general guidance and encouragement, the increased risks to health and safety in rented accommodation are addressed through the requirement in the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations for annual checks. Advice to landlords is available from Letlink.

  These sources can be accessed on the internet at the following addresses and copies are available in the library of the House: www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/ pdf/ca rbonm. pdf, www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg238.pdf, www.saveenergy.co.uk/about/energyeff.cfm, and www.letlink.co.uk/Facts/Lfacts7.htm

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost to local authorities was of collecting and enforcing the council tax in England for each financial year since 1991–92. [119994]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Council tax collection costs as reported by local authorities are tabled as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  347.3

  1994–95

  410.6

  1995–96

  352.0

  1996–97

  333.4

  1997–98

  321.0

  1998–99

  315.2

  1999–2000

  309.6

  2000–01

  301.5

  2001–02

  301.5

  2002–031

  318.4

  1 Budgeted figures.

  Note:

  Council tax did not exist before 1993–94.

  Source:

  RO6 forms 1993–94 to 2001–02 and RA form 2002–03.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve them. [119948]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's targets for improving energy efficiency and the ways in which we intend to achieve them are set out in Chapter 3 of the Energy White Paper, published on 24 February this year. We propose action to tighten Building Regulations with the aim of bringing forward the next revision of the Building Regulations in 2005. This will raise building fabric and services standards and enable developers to take the benefits of using low carbon solutions such as solar water heating and photovoltaics in overall building solutions. We will also encourage greater energy efficiency in homes through the decent homes target to ensure that all social housing is made decent by 2010 and through our delivery of the Sustainable Communities Action Plan.

  Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated, on the supply of affordable housing in the south-east; and if he will make a statement. [120315]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned or evaluated any research on the supply of affordable housing in the south-east.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he next plans to revise(a) Circular 6/98, (b) the definition of affordable housing and (c) the size thresholds which trigger affordable housing planning gains from developers; and if he will make a statement; [120317]
  527W
  (2) when he plans to issue revised good practice to local authorities on planning obligations, with a view to increasing the amount of affordable housing provision in the south-east. [120318]

  Keith Hill
  "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. The update will be supported by practice advice. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to issue a consultation document on planning obligations in the near future. Following the consultation, it is intended that a policy document on planning obligations to replace Circular 1/97 will be published.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) improvements in pedestrian and cycling facilities, (b) traffic reduction and calming measures and (c) other local transport schemes which have been pursued as part of (i) Local Strategic Partnerships, (ii) the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and (iii) the New Deal for Communities projects, including in each case details of (A) expenditure allocated by his Department and (B) the total cost of the project, broken down by region. [119135]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (2001) sets out the vision of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for narrowing the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest of the country on the key domains of crime, health, education and skills, worklessness, and housing and the physical environment.

  An important element in delivering the strategy is the introduction of floor targets under SR2000. These are National Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets that set a floor or minimum standard so that Whitehall Departments are judged for the first time on the areas they are doing worse rather than on the national average. Under SR2002, Department for Transport (DfT) have signed up to a PSA target on road safety with a floor component:
  Reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in Great Britain in road accidents by 40 per cent., and the number of children killed or seriously injured by 50 per cent., by 2010 compared with the average for 1994–98, tackling the significantly higher incidence in disadvantaged communities.
  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit has been working closely with the DIT on its proposals for tackling road accident casualties in deprived areas. DfT is targeting £17.6 million to those deprived areas with a high number of child pedestrian casualties. Several of these are in Greater Manchester and around. Local authorities will be expected to draw up local strategies to tackle the problem and obtain results in three years. Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and the police will have a stake locally. In these areas, LSPs will play a key role in drawing together all the key agencies from both from the public and voluntary, community and business sectors to deliver decisions and actions that join up
  528W
  partners' activities. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) could be used to support some of the less 'roads' oriented work.

  NRF and LSPs

  The Spending Review 2000 made available £900 million for NRF (£200 million in 2001–02, £300 million in 2002–03 and £400 million in 2003–04), and an additional £975 million was made available as part of the Spending Review 2002 (£450 million in 2004–05 and £525 million in 2005–06).

  NRF can be spent in any way that tackles deprivation in the most deprived neighbourhoods, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to floor targets and to local targets set out in the Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (LNRS) agreed by each of the 87 LSPs (Kerrier and Penwith work together as the west Cornwall LSP). NRF spending plans are therefore determined locally, and the NRF can be used to support not only local authority services, but also those of other organisations, including other members of the LSP. NRF is used primarily to facilitate the bending of mainstream resources to tackle deprivation in the most deprived areas.

  Various innovative local transport schemes have been pursued across England as part of the NRF:
  from a total NRF allocation of £722,708 for 2002–03, Ashfield local authority has spent £87,220 on access to services and facilities improvement. Two buses have been acquired to link isolated parts of the district council;
  in the north-east, Stockton-on-Tees local authority, from a total NRF allocation of £2,889,153 for 2002–03, has an estimated spend of £28,877 towards an initiative in the Queens Park ward, which has provided greater access for the disabled and disadvantaged through alternatives to public transport. In Wear Valley, £34,000 has been spent on demand responsive community transport for health;
  in the north-west, Wirral local authority has spent £110,000 from a total NRF allocation of £3,806,394 for 2002–03 on a Heritage Skills and Community Transport programme, creating a base for social enterprise that will provide training in construction, driving and mechanical skills for people from priority areas; and
  Islington local authority in London, from a total NRF allocation of £4,702,515 for 2002–03, has spent £42,500 providing safe, accessible and sustainable transport linking people to services.

  Some LSPs have identified access and transport related priority themes when developing their Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies (LNRS). For example:
  Hackney LNRS has a transport Action Plan to:
  combat congestion on local roads to reduce pollution and minimise accidents;
  make streets healthy and safe for pedestrians and cyclists to enable them to travel easily around the borough; and
  combat social exclusion by enhancing public transport provision and opportunities and ensuring transport is strategically linked to regeneration and employment.

  Bolton LNRS—The LSP has been responsible for negotiating an LPSA to reduce the numbers killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents (excluding motorway network).
  529W
  Derby LNRS—has a physical environment cross-cutting theme which seeks to address traffic and transport, urban design and neighbourhood character, open space and recreation, land uses and development sites, environmental improvements.

  Easington LNRS—as part of their environmental strategic priority theme, seeks:

  increased use of public transport;

  increased visitor numbers to the coast;

  re-establishment of rail station facilities;

  number of linked bus services established;

  increased number of routes established;

  increase in per cent. of children walking to school; and

  reduction in traffic congestion around schools.

  New Deal for Communities

  New Deal for Communities (NDC) supports inclusive neighbourhood partnerships, which identify the priority needs of their area and develop appropriate regeneration strategies. We do not hold data centrally about how much NDC funding is allocated to transport projects in each region.

  The specific problems of each NDC neighbourhood are unique, but each NDC partnership looks for outcomes that make a real impact on the people living in their neighbourhood, by tackling five key themes: poor job prospects; high levels of crime; educational under-achievement; poor health; and problems with housing and the physical environment.

  As each NDC neighbourhood has different needs, some but not all NDC Partnerships have specific transport projects. One example of such a project is the Shoreditch NDC Partnership, which launched a project called the Shoreditch Hoppa, which is a new local bus serving the NDC neighbourhood. This project has been so successful that it has been mainstreamed by Transport for London.

  Rural Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the proportion of affordable homes were in rural areas in each year since 1990. [117989]

  Keith Hill
  Registered social landlord and local authority dwellings built in England each year since 1990 are in the following table:

  Registered social landlord and local authority dwellings as percentage of all new dwellings built

  1990

  17

  1991

  15

  1992

  17

  1993

  21

  530W

  Registered social landlord and local authority dwellings as percentage of all new dwellings built

  1994

  21

  1995

  20

  1996

  19

  1997

  14

  1998

  14

  1999

  13

  2000

  13

  2001

  12

  2002

  10

  St. Phillips Place, Birmingham
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what purpose his Department has agreed to take a lease of 5 St. Phillip's Place, Birmingham. [118207]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no agreement in place for lease of 5 St. Phillips Place.

  World Summit
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113879]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to promoting the achievement of sustainable development in the UK, in support of the WSSD commitments, through a range of policies and programmes. We have published the Sustainable Communities Plan, held an 'Urban Summit' and will be holding a 'Better Buildings' Summit later this year. All of these have sustainable development at their core. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Delivery Agreements relating to sustainable communities, sustainable regional economic growth, the provision of decent housing and action to promote neighbourhood renewal and reduce social exclusion, are all in support of successive sustainable development aims and commitments. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports the Government's aim of sustainable development in specific areas, for example, promoting energy efficiency in buildings as part of the Government's Energy White Paper and in areas set out in the Memorandum submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee.

  We cannot at this stage pre-empt the arrangements for the 2004 Spending Review, though we will continue to ensure that sustainable development is at the heart of the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Home Office White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain", contained a commitment to review the Working Holidaymaker Scheme. The main aims behind the review were to make the scheme more inclusive of the whole Commonwealth, to remove unnecessary employment restrictions and to reduce abuse of the scheme.

  Removing employment restrictions will enable less affluent applicants to prove more easily to entry clearance officers their ability to support themselves without recourse to public funds. This change would also help to alleviate acute recruitment difficulties in certain sectors of the UK economy. Many working holidaymakers are highly skilled and it is sensible to make maximum use of their skills to boost the productivity of the UK workforce. I therefore propose to remove all current employment restrictions on the scheme and allow working holidaymakers to take employment in any field.

  The Immigration Rules do not presently permit switching from the scheme into work permit employment. Permitting switching would benefit UK businesses, as they would be able to recruit skilled Commonwealth nationals quickly. It would also offer a legal route for working holidaymakers who want to stay in the UK at the end of their visa to extend their stay here, discouraging illegal working. It is not logical to force talented working holidaymakers to return home simply to apply for a work permit. I therefore propose to amend the Immigration Rules to allow working holidaymakers to switch into work permit employment. Working holidaymakers who want to switch will still have to meet the same work permit requirements as they would if they were applying for a work permit from abroad and, in addition, must have spent 12 months in the UK as a working holidaymaker.

  The current scheme is for Commonwealth citizens only and I propose that it continue as a Commonwealth-only scheme. Some responses during the consultation process called for a global scheme. By significantly increasing the numbers entering the UK, a global scheme would add to the economic benefits to the UK from the existing scheme. However, the increase in numbers on a global scheme might necessitate the imposition of a quota, which would adversely affect access to the scheme for Commonwealth citizens. In order to increase access to the scheme I propose that the maximum age criterion be increased from 27 to 30 years of age to permit those who have studied in tertiary education to apply.
  22WS
  The review also considered whether the existing duration of stay granted was appropriate for a youth exchange scheme. We have concluded that two years is a sufficient period of time for a working holiday in the UK and therefore do not propose to change the maximum length of stay of the current scheme, nor to allow individuals to obtain a second working holiday visa.

  Additionally, the review considered issues relating specifically to gap year entrants, who enter the United Kingdom to take placements in schools during the year between the end of their secondary education and the start of tertiary education. Some of these entrants have been entering on a concessionary basis under the working holidaymaker provisions; others under the concession for voluntary workers. Concerns had been expressed that neither of these categories met the specific needs of that type of entrant. Under the amended provisions of the working holidaymaker scheme, Commonwealth nationals who wish to spend a gap year in the United Kingdom, and who meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules relating to working holidaymakers, will be able to spend a full year working in the United Kingdom in any form of employment and then return home. If they do so, however, they will not be able to spend a second year in the category, as the provisions permit only one entry in the category.

  In the light of the cultural value of gap year placements in the United Kingdom, I have decided that it is desirable to create separate provision to enable gap year entrants of all nationalities to enter the United Kingdom for a period of one year and take paid employment in schools. Work will now begin on preparing the necessary changes to the Immigration Rules.

  Those already in the UK as working holidaymakers will be allowed to benefit from the proposed changes to the scheme with immediate effect. The changes will become effective for all new applicants from 25 August 2003.

  Commission for Racial Equality Annual Report
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Commission for Racial Equality's Annual Report 2002 is published today.

  Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Strategic Road Network (England)
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  The strategic road network managed by the Highways Agency is part of the backbone of this country, carrying about third of all road traffic in England, and two thirds of all freight traffic. Many people and businesses depend on it.

  This strategic road network is amongst the safest in Europe. But there is a need to strengthen the way those roads are managed, to maintain traffic flow and

  23WS
  maximise use of the available road space, to deal with unplanned incidents such as vehicle accidents, breakdowns and spillages and to provide better information to motorists about traffic conditions.

  Under the present arrangements, this will place an increasing burden on the police. The Government do not believe that is sustainable. Network management is a core responsibility of the Highways Agency, but it is not a police function, and asking the police service to do more in this area can only detract from their core tasks of security, tackling crime and ensuring public safety and public order

  For that reason, the Government have charged the Highways Agency to develop its role as a network operator for the strategic road network. To support that, the Agency has undertaken, in partnership with the Association of Chief Police Officers, a review of both organisations' roles and responsibilities for management and operation of the strategic road network.

  I am today publishing the report of that review. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The review concluded that responsibility for a number of tasks associated with the management of the strategic road network should be transferred from the police to the Highways Agency. These include a range of supporting and ancillary tasks associated with effective road management and keeping traffic flowing, such as abnormal load route planning, setting message signs and signals, answering emergency roadside telephones and dealing with the traffic consequences of an incident. The intention is to increase the total level of resources being applied, and to enable the Agency and the police to focus their efforts in support of their core roles.

  The Government have endorsed this report and have instructed the Highways Agency to increase the priority they give to network management and to develop measures to deliver progressive and demonstrable benefits over the next two years. The Association of Chief Police Officers has also strongly endorsed the report.

  The Government attach a high priority to seeing the conclusions of this review implemented quickly and effectively. A joint Agency and police implementation team has already been established and an implementation programme developed. The Agency will also work closely with key motorists' organisations such as the AA and RAC, and the freight haulage and vehicle recovery organisations. The Highways Agency will:
  Establish a network of regional control centres, operated jointly by the Agency and the police, to monitor the motorway network and co-ordinate action when an incident occurs. These are currently being developed and the first, covering the motorways around Birmingham, is expected to come on-stream in Spring 2004. This will streamline and simplify current arrangements where each police force in England has its own control centre, with varying degrees of joint working with the Highways Agency and local authorities.
  Recruit, train and deploy a uniformed motorway patrol service, operating round the clock, with powers to take action and a focus on taking whatever steps are necessary—as soon as possible—to get traffic flowing.
  24WS
  The Agency's traffic officers will work in close
  co-operation with the police, roadside assistance and recovery organisations, the Agency's maintenance contractors and other organisations to ensure that equipment to carry out essential repairs and remove damaged vehicles is summoned quickly, that local diversion routes are opened up quickly and that timely and accurate information is relayed to motorists about the situation. The police will remain in overall control of dealing with the management and investigation of accidents, and they will continue to be responsible for enforcement of road traffic offences.

  The Agency estimates that it will be able in the first two years to reduce the delays caused by incidents on motorways by up to 5 per cent. This initiative represents an addition to the Highways Agency's Business Plan for 2003–04, which the Agency will fund from within agreed spending plans.

  Although much of this work can be developed within the existing legislative framework, there is a need to provide the Agency with traffic management powers to enable them to fully develop their role. There is an existing model for this—the powers granted to the operator of the Dartford River crossing that have operated successfully for many years. I have instructed the Agency to prepare the necessary legislation, which I intend to introduce when Parliamentary time permits.

  I believe that this initiative will improve the service provided to motorists and will make an important contribution alongside other initiatives to tackling congestion on the strategic road network.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill 2003
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Two New Clauses to block potential tax avoidance, amending Schedule 29 of the Finance Act 2002 and section 102 Finance Act 1986 respectively, are to be introduced at Report Stage of the Finance Bill. The changes will have immediate effect.

  CORPORATION TAX

  The amendments to be introduced counter tax avoidance schemes by companies attempting to exploit a perceived mismatch between the definition of a related party in the new intangibles rules, introduced in Schedule 29 of Finance Act 2002, and the definition of a group for capital gains tax purposes. These schemes aim to bring assets existing before 1 April 2002 into the new regime.

  INHERITANCE TAX (IHT)

  There are special IHT rules to prevent tax avoidance through gifts where the donor does not truly give up the gifted assets. The proposed changes tighten up these rules following the Court of Appeal's decision in the recent case of "Eversden", so that in future gifts into trust may be chargeable even though the trust initially gives an interest in possession to the donor's spouse. The new provisions will apply to gifts made on or after today.
  25WS
  Clauses to give effect to these proposals are being tabled today. Further details (including the text of the clauses and explanatory notes to them) are given in an Inland Revenue news release issued today.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  London Wholesale Markets
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  In its special report on the Covent Garden Market Authority of March 2001 the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture recommended that the Government, together with the Greater London Authority and the Corporation of London instigate an independent review to take a rapid, rational and strategic view of the provision of wholesale markets in London. In June last year, jointly with the Corporation of London, we commissioned Mr Nicholas Saphir to undertake this review and his report was published on 22 November. This statement puts on record the Government's response to the main recommendations of the report.

  THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT

  The report concluded that markets perform an important but reduced function in the distribution of perishable foods. In order to meet the changing needs of the market, and especially of the catering supply trade, the existing markets should be consolidated to provide three composite markets each providing facilities for the sale of fruit and vegetables, meat and fish, so allowing catering customers to meet all their needs in one market. New Covent Garden Market at Nine Elms should provide a particular service to the central London catering trade and should develop its facilities accordingly. The other two consolidated markets should be New Spitalfields Market in East London and Western International Market, near Heathrow.

  There should be no central planning, management or liaison body for London markets but legislation which restrains trade and limits competition between markets should be removed. This would allow the markets to compete with each other and so generate an efficient response to the needs of the market.

  CONSULTATION

  The Government have undertaken a public consultation on these recommendations and have published a summary of the responses they received. We have considered these responses and taken forward discussions with a number of interested parties including the Greater London Authority and the London Borough of Wandsworth. Useful discussion has taken place with the Corporation of London before, during and following the preparation of the Saphir report. However, despite agreement on much of the analysis there is no consensus on a single way forward. The Corporation's proposal to develop a single composite market at New Spitalfields, serving central London, is a significant departure from the recommendations of the report.
  26WS
  THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

  We welcome and generally agree with the analysis offered by the report. We accept in particular the view that the London markets should be allowed to develop in competition with each other to provide services which are well adapted to the present and future needs of the Capital and especially of its catering trade. We recognise that some of the legislation which governs the markets may inhibit such development and are sympathetic to the view that such legislation should be amended or repealed as the opportunity arises. Within the existing framework of law we believe that markets should be given as much freedom as possible to meet the needs of their customers and to take initiatives to broaden their role as resources allow.

  At the same time, we recognise the important role played by markets in the economies of the parts of London in which they are situated. This is also recognised in the Mayor of London's draft London plan. The existence of the markets and their impact on the local economy and environment will need to be taken into account in wider decisions on economic and town and country planning, traffic management and other issues.

  FUTURE ACTION

  In further discussions about the markets, DEFRA will be guided by the following considerations:
  The London markets should be allowed to develop to meet the needs of their customers and tenants without undue intervention from Government. Together with the Corporation of London we have taken an important first step in setting out the way forward by commissioning the Saphir Report. Whilst we agree with the conclusion of the report that there is no need for central direction we greatly welcome the interest of the Greater London Authority in undertaking further studies on the options for the markets in London's future economic development and the impact of these on planning, transport and other issues. It is for the market owners to plan for the future of each market in consultation with the relevant local authorities, the Greater London Authority, the London Development Agency and other stakeholders. We are ready to play our part as consultees in this process.
  It is for the owners of the markets to determine the scope for future investment and development in response to market stimuli. Market owners will need to make provision for such investment from the earnings of the markets or from other sources to which they have access.
  In relation to New Covent Garden Market, in which DEFRA has a direct interest, it remains the Government's policy to disengage as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. In so doing, however, we shall aim to secure arrangements which will maintain the Market as a going concern which can both accommodate the businesses which are established there and allow it to develop as a consolidated market as envisaged by the Saphir Report.
  We see no need for DEFRA to exercise any direct control over the use of the market premises at Nine Elms. Where the legislation governing New Covent Garden Market requires the Secretary of State to grant permission for new forms of trading we propose normally to grant such permission, subject to consideration of the circumstances of each case.
  To that end DEFRA Ministers have already indicated that they are minded to approve any application to allow trading in meat and fish at New Covent Garden Market subject to consideration of the circumstances of each case; we see no reason now that consultation on the Saphir

  27WS
  Report has finished to further delay that decision. This is in the knowledge that the Corporation of London, or its tenants at other London Wholesale Markets, may seek to challenge the legal validity of such a decision (based on the medieval restriction of trade to six and two third miles from a chartered London market). This may therefore be a matter on which the Courts will be called upon to decide.
  We have no proposals at present to amend the legislation governing markets generally or to promote amendments to the legislation governing specific London markets (which would need to come from the relevant market owners)
  As far as New Covent Garden Market is concerned, we would need agreement in principle on the future ownership and management of the market as a basis for any legislation to remove or modify the present responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Covent Garden Market Authority.
  Centrally to the future of the market, we are ready to consider proposals from any source for the future development of New Covent Garden Market and its site, which provide for the continuation of market activity on the site. Proposals for the injection of private finance into the site have been and will be welcome.

  This statement is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application relating to the future development of any London wholesale market.

DEFENCE

  NATO Command Structures
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  At the NATO Ministerial meeting in Brussels on 12–13 June 2003, new command arrangements for the Alliance were agreed.

  The new NATO Command Structure will be leaner, more flexible, more efficient, and better able to conduct future military operations. At the strategic level, there will be one command with operational responsibilities, Allied Command Operations, and a new functional command, Allied Command Transformation, to take responsibility for promoting and overseeing the continuing transformation of Alliance forces and capabilities. Below the strategic level, the structure will
  28WS
  be significantly streamlined, with a reduction in the number of headquarters, from over 20 to 14. A number of countries within the Alliance will be affected by the change.

  For the United Kingdom, the number of NATO headquarters will reduce. We will retain the major maritime Headquarters at Northwood, HQ Navnorth which will subsume the task of RHQ Eastlant (also currently in Northwood). The NATO element of Combined Air Operations Centre 9 (CAOC) at RAF High Wycombe will close.

  RHQ Eastlant in Northwood has 230 Service personnel of which 106 are UK nationals. There are 24 civilian personnel Decisions on any transitional arrangements, including what tasks might be subsumed into HQ Navnorth and the timing of any changes, are still under consideration.

  The NATO CAOC at RAF High Wycombe is manned by some 94 Service personnel of which 46 are UK nationals. There are no civilians. Decisions on the transitional arrangements and the timing have not yet been taken. It is anticipated that the multinational element of the CAOC would return to their home countries. The total number of personnel at High Wycombe is over 2100.

  These changes will help to achieve a more streamlined overall NATO Command Structure, thereby enabling the Alliance to operate more efficiently and effectively, and taken together with the work on the NATO Response Force, should provide the Alliance with a real improvement in future capability.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Ms. Cryer).

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

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2003
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st May be approved [18th Report .from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2003 laid before the House on 1st May 2003 be approved. Section 16(5)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 provides for the Secretary of State to specify by order the meaning of the terms "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions". The Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 was made in June 1991 to define those terms. The 1991 order was amended by the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 1995. This draft order further amends the 1991 order. It is being laid before the House under Section 16(7) of the Broadcasting Act, which requires a draft to be laid and approved by a resolution of each House. I am satisfied that this draft order is compatible with convention rights.
The effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is to require the BBC. the Channel 3 companies, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to ensure that in each year not less than 25 per cent of the total amount of time allocated to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes is allocated to the broadcasting of a range and diversity of independent productions. Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996 applies a similar 10 per cent independent productions requirement to licensed digital programme services. Among other things, these requirements are intended to implement the council directive of 3rd October 1989 which makes provision as to the proportion of a broadcaster's programmes which are to consist of works created by producers who are independent of broadcasters.
Independent producers help to promote innovation and creativity within the UK programme supply market. It is widely considered that the independent productions quota has been working well providing competition and a stimulus for originality which has benefited programme supply in the UK. However, a number of issues relating to the detailed operation of the quota have been identified and the amendments made in this order are designed to deal with those issues.
I shall explain briefly each of the amendments in turn. As regards change of ownership, the aim of the independent productions quota is threefold: to promote cultural diversity and to open up the
1060
production system to new energies and voices; to stimulate the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, promoting creativity and fostering new talent; and to tackle vertical integration within the UK programme supply market. However, under current provisions, restrictions on share ownership of a producer by a broadcaster or an associated company apply where there is no impact on the UK programme supply market because the broadcaster does not aim any of its services at the United Kingdom.
This order means that, rather than applying to broadcasters generally, the existing restrictions on share ownership of a producer will apply only in respect of any broadcaster who provides a television service intended for reception in any area in the United Kingdom—whether or not that service is also intended for reception elsewhere. Therefore where a producer is more than 25 per cent owned by a broadcaster, provided that broadcaster does not aim any of its services at the UK, that producer will qualify as an independent producer.
The second change affects the treatment of producers who lose their independent status. Currently, in order to qualify as an independent production the producer must be independent when the relevant programme is "made". The date on which a programme is considered to be made has been interpreted as the time of transmission. Therefore, even though a broadcaster may have commissioned a programme in good faith from an independent producer, if that producer subsequently loses his independent status before the programme is made, it does not qualify as an independent production. That has caused a number of problems for broadcasters.
By allowing a producer to qualify as independent on the date on which he was commissioned to make a programme, this order will allow him to continue to be so regarded as independent even were his status to change before the programme is transmitted. This is subject to the conditions that the relevant broadcaster must have commissioned the producer in good faith in the expectation that he would be an independent producer when the programme was made and that the programme was made within two years of the date on which it was commissioned.
The final change made by the order is a technical one. Uncertainty has been expressed as to the scope of the duties to monitor the broadcasting of independent productions by the Office of Fair Trading in respect of the BBC's digital programme services and those of the Independent Television Commission in respect of other digital programme services licensed under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996. This order makes it explicit that the definitions prescribed by the principal order apply to digital programme services. In our view, that includes the BBC's digital channels.
The Secretary of State is required to carry out a formal consultation under the Broadcasting Act 1990. The BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority and the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—PACT, the trade association—were consulted during the preparation of this instrument.

1061
As the House is all too well aware, the Communications Bill is currently progressing through Parliament. The policy on independent productions was outlined at an early stage in the communications White Paper. It evolved following consultations on that White Paper and on the draft Communications Bill published last summer. In particular, major changes were made following the review by the Independent Television Commission of programme supply market, published in November last year.
Noble Lords will recall that the Secretary of State asked the ITC to carry out this review in response to concerns expressed during the consultation on the draft Communications Bill, in particular by the joint committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, about the overall economic health of the UK programme supply market and the position of independent producers within it.
The ITC report welcomed the Government's proposals,
"to permit qualification for the quota to apply to broadcasters without a UK channel presence, and to producers who are independent' at the point of commission, rather than time of transmission".
These are the two main concepts contained in the order. I think it safe to say that the issues have been thoroughly considered and, accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, as the Minister has said, this order has been drafted to reflect the recommendations made in the ITC programme supply review and consequently to amend the definition of "independent producer" in accordance with the review's recommendations. While we welcome the extension of that definition, we do not believe that this order is the correct mechanism through which these changes should be implemented. The Broadcasting Act requires that the terms "independent productions" and "qualifying programmes" are defined by order. The meaning of the terms was first specified in the initial 1991 order, which was subsequently amended in 1995. The order laid before the House today further amends the 1991 order.
It is not clear why the Government have chosen to amend the existing Broadcasting Act rather than introduce a relevant provision into the Communications Bill, which contains the requirements for the programming quotas for independent production. I would welcome further clarification on this issue.
The order amends the current definition of who may be regarded as an "independent producer" for the purposes of Article 3 of the original order in two ways. The limits on share ownership in Article 3(4) of the 1991 order will now apply only with respect to UK broadcasters. The effect of the order will be to apply a
1062
restriction to UK producers and not to other European producers. This indicates that the Government believe that it is acceptable to own a television channel or, for that matter, a number of television channels in other European countries and qualify as an independent producer, but if a producer owns a channel in the UK, it will be prohibited for quota inclusion.
The order therefore allows Endemol, for example, which has significant broadcasting interests in Europe, to be classed as an independent producer. However, the order still prevents Fremantle, formerly Pearson, from being regarded as an independent for the purpose of the quota because its parent company, RTL, owns 65 per cent of Channel 5. Fremantle provides less than a fifth of Channel 5's programming and will be significantly affected by being classed as a non-qualifying independent. Does that really make sense?
The Government have conferred powers on Ofcom through the provisions of the Communications Bill to ensure that the programming quota is adhered to. We believe that the independent producers not falling within the definition of "qualifying independents", as specified by the order, will suffer considerably as licensed public service channels will have to take account of whether the programmes that they commission fall within the quota requirement. The consequent effect will be to damage the non-qualifying independents and therefore distort the market for independent programme commissioning. We think it would be prudent to review programme commissioning from non-qualifying independents in addition to qualifying independents to ascertain how this independent production quota is impacting on the sector.
The second modification inserts two new sections into the 1991 order and relates to the status of the independent producer. We support the proposal that an independent producer's status at the time a programme is commissioned will dictate whether the quota will be met. In a constantly evolving industry such as independent production, this clarification of the producer's status will provide the necessary certainty needed within the sector.
I hope that the Minister will rethink the order and its consequent effect on programme commissioning. We wish to encourage growth and innovation and not to punish the large independents for their success. An alternative definition of independent producers would be preferable. We believe the proper mechanism for achieving that would be through the Communications Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely clear explanation of what is involved in this order. Independent television producers with a protected quota are a healthy and creative feature of the broadcasting landscape, and have been so for a long time now.
As the Minister said, the order makes three changes. One is technical and relates to digital technology. The second also reflects the fast-changing landscape. It

1063
ensures that independent programmes are defined as "independent" at the time they are commissioned and completed rather than at the time of transmission, when ownership may have changed in these fast-moving times. That seems sensible to noble Lords on these Benches.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has already made clear, it is the third change that raises more difficult issues. It deals in effect with the special case of Endemol, a brilliant and, it must be said, essentially British independent programme-making company, but now financially owned by a Spanish broadcaster that does not broadcast in Britain. In our view and as the Government appear to believe, it is a deserving special case, but it is clear from the remarks made by the noble Baroness that special cases make dubious law. This needs to be looked at very carefully indeed. Certainly it is to be hoped that this precedent does not create difficulties for our own system from other continental European broadcasting organisations. The Government and the new Ofcom will need to keep a vigilant eye on the situation.
One of the difficulties is that all this will lead inevitably to claims for quasi-independent status for other broadcasting organisations in the United Kingdom, including quasi-independent status for small ITV regional companies. At the Committee stage of the Communications Bill I expressed a nostalgic and romantic affection for small ITV companies such as Grampian and Border. In the light of what the Minister has said, I should like to make it clear that the definition of independent status is one thing—it is a vital element in the whole system of an independent production quota—and the spread of regional programme production centres is a separate matter which is equally important for the health of the British broadcasting industry.
My honourable colleague in another place, Nick Harvey, put the matter succinctly. I am happy to rest on his remarks. He said:
"An independent production house should be just that. It should be independent of the broadcasting industry, and the programme supply industry and the broadcasting industry should be kept apart".—[Official Report, Commons, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19/5/03; col. 016.]
I endorse that view.
In the days, long ago, when I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the original impulse behind the independent quota was to stop the abuses of vertical integration in both ITV and the BBC which produced some of the most ludicrous and wasteful restrictive practices in the history of the British trade union movement. It is that historical background which creates a difficulty for some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the more domestic aspects and implications of the order.
In our view, it will remain an important responsibility of Ofcom to preserve, on the one hand, the purity of the independent system—it is better to keep that absolutely clear cut—and, on the other hand, to promote vigorously regional distribution of television programme-making, both among the
1064
independents that enjoy the protection of the quota and the BBC and ITV. Ofcom will need continually to remind broadcasters and programme makers that the real broadcasting regions in the UK lie a long way beyond the M25.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords. I shall be brief because I do not wish to impede the smooth progress of the order. I know that the Minister will reflect on today's brief debate when we come to the Communications Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that it would be highly appropriate for the Government to produce an amendment to the Communications Bill. Frankly, if they do not do so, other people will. I am sure that a government amendment would be much better drafted than anything I, for a start, could attempt.
I disagree mildly with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. He suggested that we should not import this principle domestically. In my view, if you accept the logic of article 3(a) of the draft order—that is, that a production house owned by a foreign broadcaster is not interfering with UK broadcasting—the same logic would apply to an ITV company acting as an independent producer for the BBC.
There is a very simple definition of independence. You are an independent producer where you are not able to influence the placing of the contract for the making of the programme. It is as simple as that and I commend the definition to the Government. I hope that they will bring forward an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I expected, given that our minds are honed to these issues because of the passage of the Communications Bill, we have had a short and precise debate. I have heard the representations that have been made and I have noted the indications that the Communications Bill may give rise to further discussions on this subject. So be it.
Let me reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and perhaps persuade my noble friend on the matter. The advantage of the order as opposed to the Bill is that it gives greater flexibility in rapidly changing times. This is the second order related to this issue since the Broadcasting Act 1991. Noble Lords will have noticed that, by a happy coincidence, another Communications Bill is passing through the House at the present time and that it would have been 10 years since change had been affected. Most of us will recognise that the process of change is accelerating all the time and that we need an order on these issues to give us the necessary flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances. Although I have not the slightest doubt about the merits of the debates and the amendments to the Bill—they help in establishing accurately the basis of the legislative framework—changes of a more limited nature enshrined in orders will increase flexibility.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of the definition of independent productions and referred to Fremantle in particular. We do not see the order as the end of the story. The issue is still very much at the centre of our desire to maintain and continue to develop a healthy

1065
vibrant programme supply market where the contributions of all creators are recognised and rewarded.
As will be recognised from our deliberations on the Bill—which we will happily continue next week—we see a very important role for Ofcom and its annual factual and statistical report in considering aspects of the programming quota for independent productions. So, through the framework of the Bill and the envisaged role of Ofcom, we are also engaged in a careful evaluation of the quotas and how they are working. Combined with the flexibility contained in the orders derivative from the legislation—assuming that the Bill is enacted—we shall have a framework for addressing these issues. We recognise that, wherever the line is drawn, there will be compelling arguments on just the other side of that line. The noble Baroness made a forceful point in that regard.
I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in support of crucial aspects of the order. The issue is not only about Endemol, although the noble Lord is right to identify that as the issue that came most sharply into focus in establishing the independent quota when it was taken over by a foreign company. It should be established that where the parent company is not broadcasting into the UK and not in any way, shape or form affecting UK transmissions, the issue of ownership is quite different and it would be appropriate to regard companies such as Endemol as independent.
That then raises the next question in regard to where the line is to be drawn: why are not other independent television companies regarded as sufficiently independent to be considered as independent producers for the quota? Our anxiety is obvious. The problem with a definition that would allow a regional ITV company producing a programme for the BBC—and allow the BBC to produce programmes for ITV—to count as independent cannot be squared with the broad objectives that underpin the whole concept of the independent quota—which is how we in this country, with our resources, increase competition, multiply the sources of supply and stimulate creativity and new talent.
I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to deny the role of the BBC or the independent television companies in terms of fulfilling criteria on creativity and talent, but the independent quota is designed to assist fresh sources of supply to be generated. The moment one translates the international position into the British one, the big broadcasters could effectively be competing in the quota area by their offshoots, defined as independent. That is our reservation.
The order contains merits which I think are recognised on all sides of the House. But circumstances are rapidly changing. This is an exceedingly exciting industry to regulate. It is enormously important to our nation. We know the significant role that television plays in our national life. I identify the order as having the merits of addressing particular issues at this time which need the case made out for them while pursuing a course in
1066
which we recognise, in our discussions on the Communications Bill, that we need to retain areas of flexibility for considering the very powerful arguments of where our lines are defined. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Devolution
11.32 a.m.
Lord Norton of Louthrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution on Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom (2nd Report. HL Paper 28).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to move this Motion. The Constitution Committee was established by your Lordships' House in February 2001. It has been a very busy committee but this is the first report that it has recommended for debate. Because of the debate's change of date, a number of members are not able to be present and have asked me to convey their apologies.
Our inquiry was a major undertaking. It was made possible by the commitment and expertise of members of the committee, to whom I pay tribute—it is a splendid committee to chair—as well as by the exceptional efficiency of our then Clerk, Andrew Mackersie, and our specialist adviser, Alan Trench, whose knowledge and understanding of the subject were invaluable to us.
Let me begin by explaining what we do not cover in the report. We are not concerned with the principle of devolution. We have taken devolution as a fact. Nor are we concerned with the internal operation of the devolved administrations. That is not a matter for us. Our focus is inter-institutional relationships in a United Kingdom context. Given that, we necessarily concentrate on institutions that have been brought into existence. We do not have a separate institution, or institutions, for England, so we have not explored the English dimension.
I turn to our findings and recommendations. Our principal findings are summarised in the conclusion on page 51. First, each devolution settlement is different. We should speak of devolution settlements rather than refer to a generic devolution settlement. That may appear an obvious point, but it deserves stressing. Secondly, devolution has bedded in with remarkably few problems. However, problems attach to each finding. The differences in the arrangements for the devolved bodies have given rise to complaints. The commission under the noble Lord, Lord Richard, whom I am delighted to see in his place, is presently considering the workings of devolved arrangements in Wales. There are, of course, pressures for the English question to be addressed.
It is, however, on the second finding that I wish to concentrate. Crucial to devolution bedding in smoothly has been the good will on the part of those responsible for inter-institutional relationships. This

1067
good will can be attributed to the dominance of one party in the administrations in Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff; to the fact that many of those involved in establishing the new structures had shared experiences as MPs at Westminster and therefore not only understood the processes of British government but knew personally those involved; and to the professionalism of the Civil Service. The good will has facilitated a high level of informality in the contact that takes place. Issues are resolved on the basis of personal contact and without the need for a great many formal meetings.
The problem we identified is prospective rather than immediate. Conditions will change and, in some respects, are changing. One cannot proceed on the basis that one party will always dominate the administrations in Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay. The number of Ministers in the devolved administrations with experience of Westminster is diminishing. We now have a Scottish First Minister who has not been a Member of another place; few of his Ministers have been MPs. In the Welsh Assembly government, only the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has sat at Westminster. Although one retains the high level of professionalism of the Civil Service, one cannot proceed on the basis that the good will that underpins relations and gives rise to a high level of informality will continue.
Given that, we believe that preparations need to be made for the time when there will be administrations in place of different political persuasions. In particular, we see the need for relations to be put on a more formal basis, and on a more transparent basis. One of the problems of informality is that little is open and recorded.
We stress in the report that it is important not to wait. We think it prudent to anticipate and to start taking action now. For that reason, we recommend that further use should be made of the formal mechanisms for intergovernmental relations. These encompass regular meetings of the formal Joint Ministerial Council, the regular updating of concordats and a strengthening of the devolution unit in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In order to achieve greater transparency, we want more put into the public domain about meetings of the JMCs and also more information supplied about the funding arrangements. It is not always clear, for example, what increases in funding devolved administrations are entitled to under the Barnett formula. We would also like to see a dispute resolution procedure introduced to deal with disputes arising outside the scope of the Barnett formula.
There are also changes that we recommend to the arrangements made within UK government for dealing with inter-institutional arrangements. Again, we believe it important to look at the process as a dynamic one, rather than taking a single snapshot approach. The roles of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales were important in delivering the devolution settlements and enabling the devolved arrangements to bed in. but our report said that we
1068
were sceptical about the value of the political role of the Secretaries of State. In each case the Secretary of State is not accountable to Parliament for what the devolved administration does, has no financial responsibility for how the devolved administration spends its funds and has little direct involvement in policy-making. The relationship that does exist is primarily between the devolved administration and the relevant UK government department.
Although some important roles remain, we were not convinced that they need to be fulfilled by three Secretaries of State. We therefore recommended that the Government consider the appointment of one Minister with responsibility for intergovernmental relations overall, possibly supported by Ministers of State to deal with particular policy sectors or devolved areas.
We also recommended merging the devolution and English regions team, located in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and those parts of the Scotland and Wales offices dealing with intergovernmental relations to create a single group of officials able to deal with the full range of intergovernmental issues. For rather obvious reasons, I shall return to those proposals.
Let me mention briefly other recommendations embodied in the report. We were struck by the fact that although intergovernmental relations are well developed, interparliamentary relations are not, and, furthermore, there is little scope for systematic scrutiny of intergovernmental relations. We recommend that a review of intergovernmental relations be conducted at least once every Parliament—or at least once every five years. We consider that this would be best undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
We also believe that steps need to be taken to improve the process of dealing with Westminster legislation affecting Wales. We want to see greater consistency in how legislation affecting Wales is dealt with, and consideration given to how Members of the National Assembly can have a greater input into our deliberations. We also raise concerns about the use of Sewel Motions in Scotland and the fact that they are brought forward as the product of agreements between executives rather than between parliaments. That is something we think should be corrected. As part of our inquiry, we considered what lessons may be learned from the experience of Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont. The use of a business committee is something worthy of further consideration.
That is a brief introduction to our report. I turn to the Government's response and the recent announcements about the structure of government for dealing with devolution. The Government's response—published as Command 5780—is, in the committee's view, disappointing. Whereas the main message of our report is that, while devolution has bedded in, one has to anticipate what is likely to happen in the future, the Government's response essentially takes the line that things are fine as they are.

1069
The response comments on our specific recommendations but fails to engage with the reasoning that led to the recommendations. Although the response states that the Government will review certain practices in the light of our report, its basic point is that there is,
"no overriding need to make greater use of the formal mechanisms for managing relations".
The Government believe that the current machinery has shown itself well able to maintain effective and constructive relationships between the administrations and that informal contact contributes to that success. At paragraph 2 we are told:
"The evidence to date supports this conclusion, as the Government has had productive working relationships not only with the coalition administrations in Scotland and Wales but also with the Northern Ireland Executive, which consisted of Ministers from parties which are not represented elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
That last part is the crucial observation. The parties in Northern Ireland are not competitor parties to those in Westminster. That is why they are able to co-operate as they do. One is not dealing with one's political opponents in the way that one would be if other parties gained control in Scotland or Wales.
There is no need for me to go through each of the Government's points in detail. If your Lordships read the response, you will see that the message is the same: there is no acceptance of the need for change, though occasionally there is the statement that the matter will be kept under review. That creates a worrying state of affairs. It is not sufficient to leave things as they are. I reiterate our point that it is important not to wait.
I turn to our recommendation about the posts of Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. The government response, published in March, said that the Prime Minister had,
"no plans to merge either the roles of the territorial Secretaries of State or their Departments".
On Thursday of last week, the Downing Street press notice announced that,
"there is no longer a requirement for full-time Cabinet ministers and freestanding departments to conduct the remaining Scottish and Welsh business within Parliament and Government".
The Scotland and Wales offices are to be located in the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. We have since had the letter from the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues explaining the new structure.
It follows from our report that we welcome the locating of the devolution team from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the new department, along with the officials responsible for intergovernmental relations in the Scotland and Wales offices. We look forward to having details of the resources that will be made available to them and the structure of accountability. The change itself makes sense, for the reasons that we give in our report. Indeed, it appears that the new structure follows our recommendations in most respects but one—retaining the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
1070
The government response to our report lists the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State, but on any reading of those responsibilities it is not clear why they could not be filled by a single Secretary of State. The Downing Street statement concedes that they are not full-time posts. That is reflected in the appointments made. Why, then, retain them in addition to the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Why not follow the committee's recommendation and, in effect, do away with the posts, with Ministers of State responsible, if necessary, for each of the devolved areas? That would make for a more coherent, and integrated, structure.
I believe that the committee's report and the accompanying evidence volume—the two should be taken together as they comprise the source volume on inter-institutional relationships—provide important contributions to understanding how devolution is bedding in and the challenges that it faces. We believe that our report makes a constructive contribution to the debate. Now that we have the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, I hope that he will be able to offer a fresh response. In the absence of the Secretary of State, we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, detailing the contribution that he believes the new department can make to inter-institutional relations in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution on Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom (2nd Report, HL Paper 28).—(Lord Norton of Louth.)
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I start by thanking the Chairman for chairing this very interesting session of the Constitution Committee. I should also like to thank our Clerk and our adviser, Alan Trench.
Examination into aspects of the progress of devolution by the Constitution Committee provided the opportunity not only to consider the subject in the title of the report, but to consider the devolution settlements more widely. It is important to read the report as a whole, together with the substantial and informed evidence that was presented to the committee.
As the report states in paragraph 6, devolution is now treated as a settled part of the UK's constitutional arrangements, as reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Polling evidence produced by the Electoral Commission towards the end of last year confirms that, indicating that there was greater trust in the devolved bodies to act in the best interests of Scotland and Wales than there was confidence in the UK Parliament. That is not a surprising fact, as decision-making is brought closer to the people, which is what devolution is about.
Support for devolution has risen in both Scotland and Wales since the referendums were held. That support was echoed by all those who gave evidence, irrespective of political persuasion. As the noble Lord

1071
said, the committee was therefore right not to get into an argument about the concept of devolution but to concentrate on its implications on a more day-to-day and practical level.
I intend to concentrate my remarks on Scotland and Wales. I do not intend to discuss the Barnett formula—which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, did not discuss either—over which we spent interminable hours. However, I reiterate the words of the report that the committee did not have a neat ready-made alternative to Barnett. There may be a time when a review is necessary, and thought needs to be given over a period of time to how we should replace Barnett, appreciating the complexity of a needs assessment process. We should also appreciate that my noble friend Lord Richard's commission is considering the issue.
I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on commenting on the new ministerial arrangements, except to say that it is clear that there is no longer the requirement for a full-time Secretary of State in both those areas. Instead, I want to put on record a bit of the background to the devolution legislation.
Paragraph 7 of the report refers to the question of asymmetry, and the consequent fundamental differences between the settlements for Scotland and Wales. Certainly, at the beginning of our deliberations there was concern about the possible effects of those differing settlements, which one interviewee referred to as a haphazard system. That negative attitude was wrong. Differing societies do not fit into nice neat little boxes.
Account has to be taken that the history, dynamics, local needs and local circumstances of Scotland and Wales are quite different. Scotland has always seen itself as a sovereign nation; the Treaty of Union in 1707 was seen as a marriage of convenience between two sovereign nations. It was asserted by one witness that devolution works well in Scotland, because it has always been part of Scotland's agenda.
The committee was reminded by the interesting and informative memorandum of Professor McCrone, professor of sociology at the University of Edinburgh, that the Scottish Parliament simply provided direct democratic accountability over the extensive apparatus of government that already existed. The situation in Wales could not have been more different. Mr John Osmond, director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, referred to the Scottish Parliament as being the keystone in an arch of an already existing institutional structure, while the National Assembly for Wales, rather than being the keystone to the arch, had to set about building that arch. The institutions as in Scotland did not exist; rather the Welsh identity is built around a sense of locality, language and culture.
Wales has also historically been much more closely integrated with England, and its systems reflect that closeness, the Welsh Office being in effect an administrative arm of Whitehall departments in Wales. Scotland had been planning for its Parliament through its convention for about 10 years. Wales went
1072
into devolution comparatively unprepared, so started from a lower baseline. A crucial difference is that Wales did not have a distinct Welsh legal system. Therefore, I marginally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, because I think there was a logic for the differing administrative and legislative arrangements and for the differing devolution settlements.
The consequences of those very different backgrounds are that the Scotland Act defines all matters which are reserved, while the Government of Wales Act defines those matters which are devolved—basically, the Assembly taking on the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales. Crucially, paragraph 11 of the report reminds us that although all the devolution arrangements differ, they are against the fundamental background and position that the UK Parliament at Westminster retains its sovereignty and continues to be able to legislate throughout the United Kingdom. However, during passage of the Scotland Bill, it was laid down that by convention Westminster would not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel convention, much talked about during our weeks in Scotland, was born on that occasion. The Scottish Parliament agreed to more than 40 Sewel Motions, I believe, during its first Session. So the legislative pattern as it affects Scotland is reasonably clear cut and understood.
However, it was pointed out to us that that was not necessarily the case in Wales. Mr John Osmond took us through what he described as a very complex formulation. To work out what the powers of the Assembly are means trawling through very many different Acts, the functions being spread over 300 Acts of Parliament and statutes and a transfer of functions order which runs into a massive number of pages. He was also of the view that there was some confusion over the means by which legislation affecting Wales is presented and there was sometimes difficulty in interpreting the legislation as it affects Wales.
However, those were not the views of the leader of the Welsh Assembly, Rhodri Morgan. He stated that experience on the legislative process had so far been reasonably positive, whether it be by a Wales-only Bill, Welsh clauses or a clearly demarcated section on Wales in an England and Wales Bill. He said:
"it is an odd bit of a settlement, when you think about it in theory, but in practice it is not that bad".
I think that we have to bear in mind the difference between theory and practice. Disappointment was expressed all round, however, that in the bid for Bills, Wales has to date been allocated only one Bill each Session. We make recommendations on those issues in the report, in Recommendations 14 and 15, and the issues are also under consideration by the Richard commission.
In welcoming my noble friend the Minister to his new post, may I ask him whether he believes that there is not a need for greater consistency in the way in which legislation in respect of Wales is framed and how

1073
sympathetically the Government would look at a demand for greater legislative powers for the Assembly?
I should like to comment only briefly on the queries around the effectiveness of the inter-institutional relationships as they have already been outlined in detail by the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Norton. We were told by the Ministers we interviewed that the arrangements set out in the memorandum of understanding are robust and flexible and that the informal inter-relationship arrangements were working well and smoothly. Of course we would not dispute that. However, I also appreciate that we cannot always foresee the future. But like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I think that the question still has to be asked. If the waters were to become choppy, would the current arrangements be robust enough? I am sure that all problems ultimately would be resolved, but my concern is that the process would become protracted and that would have serious consequences for the progress of the legislative programme.
Does not my noble friend the Minister believe that one should not wait for a problem, but rather prepare for it and hope that one never has to use that preparation? Perhaps we need to examine the experience of the Canadians, who looked at more formal arrangements which were established pragmatically and over a period of time.
The final point I wish to raise relates to the section of the report—paragraphs 144 and 148, already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Norton—on the lessons for Westminster on practices and procedure. In Scotland, pre-legislative scrutiny is not a matter of determination for each individual Bill but is an established and integral part of legislation. It follows through, I think, their long-term commitment to a civil society. The 17 parliamentary committees hear from civic groups, business interests and other stakeholders. They meet in different locations and so allow different channels to be engaged in the political process and provide, I believe, for greater democracy.
Both Scotland and Wales determine their business arrangements through business committees. Those are formal committees involving all party groups, but are considerably more open than our procedures through the usual channels. The business is more clearly determined in advance while at the same time still allowing for emergency changes to be made to the timetable. The programme of business is seen to be based on consensus and provides for much greater transparency and understanding.
Another feature in both Scotland and Wales is that of greater accessibility for the media and the public. As the report states, the arrangements in Westminster are getting better, but the resources for dissemination of information and for public relations pale beside those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament. Those points may be seen as peripheral to the overall picture and to the volume of the report, but I firmly believe that increasing public engagement with democracy and bringing greater openness and increased participation
1074
of the stakeholders in the process of government could help to overcome the low esteem in which politics and politicians are currently held.
I close with the words of Sir Richard Wilson, Secretary of the Cabinet, in his evidence. He said:
"I think the implementation of devolution policy has been a remarkable success".
11.57 a.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, begin by congratulating the noble Lord. Lord Norton of Louth, on instigating today's debate on the Select Committee's report on devolution. which I read with great interest.
I would not have been taking part in this debate if I had not attended an event in Cardiff last weekend. Before I became a Member of the House, I was able regularly to visit both Scotland and Wales, and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland, as part of my union work. I always enjoyed those occasions. Sadly I am no longer able to participate in them. However, last weekend I took part in a memorial lecture held to remember a dear friend and former union National Executive Committee member, and I had the pleasure of renewing contact with many of my friends and acquaintances in Wales. Your Lordships will realise that, on Friday last, feelings in Wales were running quite high. As an Englishwoman going to Wales I wondered what I was going towards. However, there was the usual Welsh welcome.
There was confusion about the proposal relating to the Wales Office and in particular to the position, or non-position, of the Secretary of State for Wales. Of course there had been conflicting reports. The first reports appeared to say that the Wales Office had been subsumed under the new constitution department. which was to be headed by our new Lord Chancellor, and that there was no longer a post of Secretary of State for Wales. By the time I arrived in Wales, thank goodness, the second round of reports and the Secretary of State himself. Peter Hain, had made it clear that the position had not been abolished and that, indeed, he was exceedingly alive and well in his post. Yesterday I was greatly pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell the House that he could confirm that he could not override the wishes of the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and that there were no plans to change devolutionary powers.
At the event in Cardiff. I was pleased to share the platform with a very old friend who is now a member of the National Assembly for Wales. Edwina Hart, who is the Minister for Social Justice, is a strong and extremely competent woman. She gave us a rundown of what the Assembly had achieved in the fields of equality and social justice since its inception—issues close to my heart and to the hearts of many others present today. I cannot today outline all that she said, but she spoke for a considerable time about the issues and the progress which had been made. It made very good listening indeed. She also proudly pointed out

1075
that the Assembly for Wales now has gender equality within it, which certainly made me envious. I yearn for the day when we can say the same for another place.
On speaking to friends later in the day, it was obvious that there is a great deal of satisfaction with the way the Assembly is working. Indeed, there is not just satisfaction but great pride in the way it is working. I noticed the difference particularly because I had not visited Wales for a couple of years. I was told that the Members of the Assembly respond more positively and quickly to local issues than Westminster can. I was told that they understand what local issues and wishes are about and why they have come to the forefront, and that they want to make the Assembly a success for the people of Wales. That was not said lightly; it was impressed upon me by a number of those with whom I spoke.
I came away from Wales deeply impressed with how devolution appeared to have empowered the people of Wales in a most tangible way. I also felt that the dynamics within that process in no way diminished their linkage with other parts of the United Kingdom, rather they enhanced that. I always thought that there was a logic in the devolvement of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unlike some, I did not believe that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
My visit to Wales reinforced my feelings about the importance of devolution; hence my short speech this morning. I read the report of the Select Committee, and the Government's response to it, with interest. It struck me as I read it that the recent changes affecting both the Wales Office and the Scotland Office would be welcomed by the committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, confirmed that this morning. It is a move to bring the devolved institutions closer together and yet they retain their voices in the Cabinet, which is very important. In both cases, Scotland and Wales have people who know and understand them to champion their causes.
I have three issues which I should like to raise stemming from the report's recommendations. First, I welcome the assurances which were given yesterday by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the close workings of the devolved administrations would continue. I hope that my noble friend will be able to rebut the suggestions in the Select Committee's report that the Government have been rather too complacent because things are working well.
Secondly, has the Minister any further information about improving Westminster legislation which affects the National Assembly for Wales? For example, in their response the Government stated that they were considering expanding the advice in the devolution guide affecting Wales. My third point was referred to by my noble friend Lady Gould. Does my noble friend agree with the committee that there are lessons that can be learnt from the various devolved assemblies which may benefit our deliberations here in the Houses of Parliament?
1076
I have concentrated my contribution on Wales but I believe devolution settlements generally to be a most positive step forward, and one which is here to stay, as noble Lords have already stated. I have enjoyed taking part in the debate.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, this subject has become more exciting since the Motion was originally tabled. The changes have occurred with which we are all familiar and which other noble Lords have mentioned. That indicates the great importance of devolution. It is a policy that does the Government credit. It is perhaps the boldest and most radical thing that the Government have done in six years along with their other measures of constitutional reform. Curiously enough, there is little discussion of it. Constitutional reform seems to me a kind of elite issue. It is not widely discussed and does not attract large attendances in this House. Therefore, it is valuable that the Select Committee produced the report. It is to its credit and, if I may say so, very much to the credit of our chairman. We are extremely fortunate in having the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as our chairman. He embodies a combination of fine scholarship and good humour, which is greatly to our benefit.
Devolution has been a success. It has made government more democratic and more locally responsive. It takes the Labour Party back to its older roots of local civic accountability and to the message of the ILP, Keir Hardie, George Lansbury and, indeed, the young Aneurin Bevan before the Labour Party embarked upon the bureaucratic centralism of the view that, "the gentleman from Whitehall knows best". Devolution has been a success. It has also been a success for the Conservative Party which resisted it but has found in both Scotland and Wales that it now has a constructive role that it has not had for many, many years; indeed, in the case of Wales, since Mr Gladstone won the election of 1868, which is quite a long time—precipitate reform!
The appendix to the report questions—this is an important point—how popular devolution is and how much interest it attracts. Clearly there is much more to be done. The polls are low. There is a theory that the low polls show that the Assembly and the Parliament are as little regarded as people in Westminster, so it is almost a kind of triumph. But that is a specious argument. Clearly we have to do more to make devolution acceptable. I am sure that in Wales a major problem is that the Assembly does not do enough, and that there would be much more interest in the Assembly if it had more effective powers. One matter that I believe is a very welcome feature of devolution is divergence. That is the whole point. The fact that there are separate policies on the elderly and student fees, and so on, in Scotland, and in Wales on prescription charges, for example, and also on student fees is welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said, forecasts of the break-up of the United Kingdom—what one of our civil servants called "the

1077
nightmare scenario", by which I think he meant an SNP government in Edinburgh—have not been fulfilled.
Our report calls for more coherence, for the Constitution Unit in the secretariat to be strengthened, for the Joint Ministerial Committee to be beefed up and for the Council of the Isles actually to meet now and again. I hope that the new ministry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—perhaps my noble friend the Minister can respond to this point—will help to provide some of that coherence, and put intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom on a new footing and be proactive. I hope that the new ministry will not be merely a co-ordinating, tidying-up ministry but something that will energise and give life, coherence and substance to this whole important process.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, observed, devolution has been a very British development so far. It has all been very informal with lots of good will. We always have good will in Britain, as we know; indeed, we have done over the centuries, except in the seventeenth. The report highlights that informal style. The system works partly due to the highly skilled, highly trained and professional Civil Service and partly, as the noble Lord said, through the political affinity of the various governments. But that can be overdone. We have heard from Rhodri Morgan of the "clear red water" in Cardiff. I assure the House as an historian that the political affinity between Wales and England can be highly exaggerated. But it seems to me that we need more open mechanisms, not merely because of possible points of conflict but to make devolution work. Informality in some ways works against devolution and, as it were, confirms the system that we now have.
I should like to deal with two particular problems, both of which were covered in some measure in the fascinating speech of my noble friend Lady Gould. As regards Secretaries of State, clearly the new moves are a recognition of the fact that the process of reform is still very much under way. Helen Liddell had no real job. That emerged from our report. She had 85 civil servants, compared to 41 in the Wales Office. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me where those 85 people will go. It is not merely a question of under which roof they will operate, but what they will do, and I suppose one might ask whether they are necessary at all.
There is still a job for the Secretary of State for Wales but, in my opinion, as a transitional figure. Whoever he is—it has always been a "he"—it is very odd when he acts as a kind of Janus-faced intermediary between the Welsh Assembly and the Cabinet. He can present the Assembly's views, but also say that he does not agree with them. That seems unsatisfactory.
The Government's response—I agree that it is thin—talks about the Wales Office and the Scotland Office as centres of excellence. I am not quite sure what is implied there. However, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister precisely what will be the status of the new constitutional affairs ministry. What will be
1078
the conduit that transmits proposals or ideas, including even the report of my noble friend Lord Richard when it appears, from Cardiff to Westminster? What will happen if the two conduits disagree, if such a thing is physically possible? What will be the process?
My other point was admirably made by my noble friend Lady Gould. The legislative process of course reflects asymmetry—we understand the reasons for that—but also incoherence and instability in government. I do not wish to say much about Scotland, for the very good reason that I do not know much about it, but I observe that the famous Sewel Motions have been very much used—more so than anticipated. It would be worth exploring whether the excessive use of Sewel Motions does not mitigate against the process and principle of devolution.
The situation in Wales is totally unsatisfactory. I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, headed by John Osmond, and I agree with what that institute says. The Welsh legislative process is all over the place. We sometimes have Welsh Bills; there have been two in four years. There are Welsh provisions dotted about in other Bills, such as the Communications Bill: indeed, one needs an extremely shrewd detector system to find out where the Welsh bits are in that legislation. Incidentally, I think it a great mistake that broadcasting does not come under the Welsh Assembly. Alternately, English Bills have separate Welsh clauses that can be struck down here, quite beyond the control of the elected representatives of Wales. There can also, of course, be extensions to secondary legislation. That is profoundly unstable.
The two Welsh Bills both show some of the problems. The children's Bill was actually rescued in this House after going through the processes of the Home Office, which had weakened the Bill and thereby diminished the original point established by the Welsh Assembly. Why the Welsh health Bill came to this Parliament at all I simply cannot imagine. It was side by side with a UK—England and Wales, at least—health Bill. That illustrates the lack of coherence in the process of Welsh legislation.
The Welsh Assembly has little control over output or outcome. As our admirable constitutional adviser Alan Trench explained the other day, it does not have control of compliance under the proposals made by Professor Rawlings on whether measures purporting to relate to Wales comply. That is a great problem. I am very grateful for the presence of my noble friend Lord Richard, whose commission will report. It has received important proposals from Professor Rawlings about the need for the Welsh Assembly to have primary powers comparable with Scotland. I hope very much that that will be the outcome. I hope that the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be of assistance and not an obstacle to that process.
Like my noble friend Lady Gould, I propose to say very little about the Barnett formula. It is like the Schleswig-Holstein question, of which Palmerston said that the only person who understood it was in a

1079
lunatic asylum. No doubt my noble friend Lord Barnett understands the formula. The main point is a constitutional one, rather than in terms of how the money is allocated—
Lord Acton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but did not Palmerston say that only three people had ever understood that question? One was dead, one was mad, and he himself had forgotten.
Lord Morgan: Yes, my Lords, that is right. In the interests of time, I shall merely say that I am most grateful to my noble friend. To be interrupted by him on history is a privilege.
The main point about the Barnett formula is a constitutional one. As the Government say, it is for the Treasury and the United Kingdom Government to decide the Treasury policy that describes the contours and the processes of the Barnett formula.
Devolution seems to be at the crossroads, more so with the European convention emerging and throwing light on the whole principle of subsidiarity in all the different countries, regions and sub-regions of Europe. One consequence that we do not cover in our report is the need for something to be done about England. It is astonishing that we have these great changes in Wales and Scotland—and, indeed, in Northern Ireland—but that nothing has been done about England. I hope very much that the proposals on regional referendums will promote that. I shall be most grateful if the Minister can explain why regional government does not come under the new constitutional ministry. The regions and the nations should fit together.
In a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, rightly asked what the constitution was for. What is devolution for? Is it: Secretary of State plus, with a few unco-ordinated and unrelated expedients; or is it a move towards a more democratic and pluralist Britain? I hope that new Labour, moving towards the democracy. if not the socialism of democratic socialism, is promoting the latter and that the report will show that the reform process is continuing.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as a non-member of the Select Committee, I am bound to thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and his colleagues on the Select Committee for their educative report. I congratulate the noble Lord on the way he has taken us through the main findings of his committee and given us the benefit of his observations on the Government's response, which I also found somewhat disappointing. It is a splendid report, and I should like to offer one or two comments on it before I come to detailed issues.
The committee has told us that this is the first comprehensive review of the practical working at inter-governmental level of the current devolution settlements since they came into operation in 1999. The evidence that the committee received from very senior politicians and civil servants directly involved in the working of the settlements, and also from highly
1080
respected scholars, is authoritative. I believe that it is the best available evidence. The report has picked up with unerring exactitude the main challenges emerging. It contains findings that require further considerable thought by the Government, and also by all those who have at heart the future of devolved government within the United Kingdom. Therefore, the House was absolutely right to set up a Select Committee on the constitution.
I shall comment on four issues out of very many and I do so as a supporter of devolution. That is the only interest that I have to declare. First, I support the committee's first recommendation that further use should be made of formal structures of inter-governmental relations. That recommendation was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, this morning. Paragraph 25 of the committee's report says,
"we are concerned by the sheer extent of the reliance on goodwill as the basis for intergovernmental within the united Kingdom".
Naturally, everyone welcomes goodwill—goodwill matters—but the committee wisely looked to the future, when the present of level of goodwill in the system may come under great strain or when goodwill will be absent. That could arise when the administrations are run by conflicting political parties in London and Cardiff or London and Edinburgh.
The First Minister of the National Assembly told the committee:
"It is not possible to estimate now how robust the present system would be if you did have a different party in power down here"
—that is, in Cardiff, —
"and Labour in Westminster, or not Labour in Westminster and coalition similar to ours down here. I do not know how that would work, to be honest".
No one quite knows what the future will bring, but it is always relevant to recall Murphy's law—if something can go wrong, one day, it will. Now is the time, therefore—when the relationship between the administrations, so we are told, is cosy and Comfortable—to put it on a more formal basis. Perhaps I may borrow the words of the Select Committee:
"It is important not to wait. We think it prudent to anticipate and to start taking action now'.
That is to be found in paragraph 194, but the same concern emerges in about seven or eight different parts of the report. The Government's statement passes over that precise concern of the committee in silence. I sincerely hope that in the coming weeks, the new department will give fresh consideration to that seriously worrying point.
I turn to the second issue; namely, the role of the Welsh and Scottish Secretaries of State. That issue is now obviously very much alive and has been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and my noble friend Lord Morgan. We are bound to acknowledge that the role of the Welsh and Scottish Secretaries of State has changed almost beyond recognition. Their departments have greatly diminished since the setting up of the National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Sooner or later, changes along the lines of

1081
those announced last week were inevitable. The question is whether the change leads to a need for a further change. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the First Minister of the National Assembly had been consulted about that proposed change and its consequences. I have written to the Secretary of State giving notice that I intended to ask that question.
I believe deeply that the voice of the National Assembly should be an important influence on the decision to make the post of Secretary of State for Wales a part-time post. I base my opinion in particular on the written evidence of the First Minister to the committee. He wrote:
"from the Welsh Assembly Government's perspective, the role of the Secretary of State for Wales remains vital … That is particularly the case on issues relating to primary legislation …At present, it is hard to imagine this aspect of the settlement functioning well without a full-time Secretary of State for Wales".
That quotation comes from page 231 of the evidence in paragraph 8. In that extract, the First Minister was making an extremely important point, but it has not been mentioned in anything that I have seen or read which has been issued by the Government.
If the First Minister's conclusion is right—his words have been approved here today in another context—I believe that the loss of a full-time Secretary of State strengthens immeasurably the case for conferring on the National Assembly the power to enact primary legislation in the devolved fields.
That point leads me to the major issue, which is that of primary legislation for Wales, which was discussed in paragraphs 119 to 124 of the report, and which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, discussed in his excellent contribution. There is widespread criticism that the National Assembly is empowered only to pass subordinate legislation. That criticism is reflected in many scholarly articles, in particular those of Professor Rawlings and Professor Patchett.
It appeared to the Select Committee that in Westminster Bills, which also affect the responsibilities of the Assembly,
"Wales figures in such arrangements largely as an after-thought appended to a process driven by the UK Government's concerns and priorities, rather than those of Wales in general or the National Assembly".
Those words are to be found in paragraph 123 of the report.
In addition, there is the difficulty experienced by the Assembly in obtaining a Wales-only Bill, or Wales-only provisions in an England and Wales Bill. Of the four Wales-only Bills which it requested for the 2000–01 Session, one was accepted. Of the eight requested for the Session 2002–03, one was accepted. To be blunt, that does not seem to be a very good record, although I accept that it is quite impressive compared with the pre-1999 record of the Welsh Office.
Meanwhile, it is not being overlooked in Wales that the Scottish Parliament has passed 62 Public Bills, eight Private Members' Bills and one Private Bill. Of course, some of the Scottish Bills have their roots in Scottish law, but at least some of the rest tackle
1082
problems which in greater or lesser measure are common to the four countries of the UK, but tackle them in a Scottish way.
I am glad that the committee recommended that steps be taken to ensure a greater measure of consistency by Whitehall departments in their approach to primary legislation affecting the responsibilities of the Assembly. The committee has endorsed in particular the general principles advocated by Professor Rawlings as a very useful starting point. That is to be found on page 37 of the report. Of course there may be debate about the details of the Rawlings formula, if I may so describe the principles, but the case for such a formula has surely been made out. That is why I read with gratitude that the Government are not slamming the door on this recommendation.
However, the Rawlings formula is not the end of the story. As my noble friend Lord Morgan mentioned, Professor Rawlings has further pursued his thoughts, and in his written evidence to the commission set up by the Assembly and chaired by my noble friend Lord Richard, he has developed a powerful case for not denying to the National Assembly the primary legislative competence enjoyed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and ultimately the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
While I warmly welcome the Select Committee's endorsement of the Rawlings principles as,
"a very useful starting point'.
its recommendation will have to be looked at afresh in the light of last week's constitutional development and in the light of the report of the Richard Commission when it is to hand.
I was especially glad to note that the side title on page 7 of the report, "Reviewing the Barnett Formula", is immediately followed by a question mark. I am glad that the question mark is in place and that the committee has an open mind on the need for a review.
I conclude by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the members of his committee. The Select Committee is on track to achieve the target suggested by the very respected Oxford scholar, Professor Vernon Bogdanor; that is to say, to establish for itself the authority of a delegated powers committee.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been a short but rich debate, with some outstanding contributions from members of the committee and from two noble Lords who were not members of the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, gave us the benefit of some perceptive direct observation of Welsh institutions in action, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, put questions of wisdom and penetration.
As a member of the committee—I declare an interest as Chairman of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government—it has been a great pleasure to serve

1083
under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who shows in the chair a rare combination of scholarship and effectiveness. I hope that that is not an oxymoron. It has been evidence of the quality of the committee's work that the report has been commended by the House as it has. It was right that we took devolution, in depth, as our first subject. I regret the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom we had understood would reply to this morning's debate, but we are glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in his place.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to pass on to the noble and learned Lord congratulations on his new responsibilities for constitutional affairs. He now has the most gloomily romantic role possible in British public life; he is "the last Lord Chancellor". That sounds like a novel by Edward Bulwer Lytton, or by Disraeli himself. It is not a role in which I readily see the genial and practical figure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but I am getting used to the idea, as I am sure he is. If he is not here today, let us hope that he has gone to Scotland or Wales to pursue government business.
I shall not be as reticent as committee colleagues on the Labour Benches. Unhappily, the Department for Constitutional Affairs over which the Lord Chancellor now presides seems to be a different story. It is uneasily poised between those two stages Karl Marx identified, of tragedy and farce; it is somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It is extraordinarily difficult to conceive it possible to take such an important set of changes and execute them so ineptly, and to the great damage of the cause of constitutional reform.
As today's Financial Times reveals, the new department was cobbled together at the last moment, as an afterthought. It is certainly discourteous to Scotland and Wales; it may also be damaging. I reiterate my question to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin: were the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales consulted by the Government before this announcement? It is alarmingly ill-thought out in detail—and as always, the devil is in the detail—and appears to be the product not so much of joined-up thinking—that much vaunted attribute of the Government—as dismembered improvisation. For those of us—certainly all on these Benches—who support the thrust of the reforms, who are committed to greater separation of powers, who have for years regarded ourselves as close allies in the great causes of devolution and constitutional reform, the coming and going of the past week has been discouraging. I say that plainly to the Minister.
Moving on, it was not the task of our committee to review devolution as a whole. However, I should like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to say a word about where devolution now stands. It seems that devolution at least has not lived up to the fears of those who opposed it so bitterly, and who saw it as the slippery road to independence. The opinion polls in the appendix to the report show, if anything, that the slippery road to independence has become somewhat
1084
firmer as a result of devolution. It is not a ratchet that moves inexorably in one direction, as some of its opponents feared.
It is clear that no political party in Scotland wants a reversal of devolution. It is clear, despite a relentless campaign of hostility by elements of the Scottish press—including, sadly, that once great newspaper. the Scotsman—that the Scottish public have a high level of acceptance of their institution, even if, as the same polls show, it has not lived up to its greatest promises. Nevertheless, the institutions are well on their way. The most interesting thing about them is that, although devolution is demonstrably working. it is working in an untested way. It is untested because of the party alignment of the parties in government in Scotland and Wales—still a coalition in the case of Scotland—and because of the great professionalism of the Civil Service which serves all three Governments.
The noble Lord. Lord Prys-Davies, is right to warn us that this is the time to test the mechanisms, as the committee recommended, to make sure that should the party alignment change and tensions of interest arise, the institutions can continue to work as relatively robustly as they have done so far.
I understand why we all shy away from the Barnett formula; on a Friday morning it is enough to frighten the horses. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there is a first stage to devolution. Although Scotland and Wales have considerable discretion on spending, they do not have any responsibility—save a marginal responsibility in Scotland—for raising revenues. There is no representation without taxation and government becomes real at the point politicians have to consider what taxes they should ask for from citizens to support their purposes. That is not the stage we are at in Scotland and Wales.
It may take some time to reach that stage—some would say that it should be never. However, it will be interesting to know from the Minister, first, whether the Government are reviewing the Barnett formula and by what process and over what time-scale we may hope to hear what "son of Barnett" is. We would like to know, secondly, whether the Government can envisage within the new Department for Constitutional Affairs a way of considering an evolution of the status of government in Scotland and Wales so that it becomes more fully responsible to its citizens in the way I have described.
I have one detailed question in connection with the homogeneity of the Civil Service. Civil servants have a loyalty to the Crown and in that spirit they can deal with governments of different political complexions in an impartial and professional way. To what and how should civil servants in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which is separate, express their loyalty to the settlement? Let us suppose that there were a conflict between the demands of the centre and those of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and the settlements that have established the form of government they have. How would they mediate that? For instance, would it require specific amendments to the Civil Service code in respect of civil servants in Northern Ireland and Scotland?

1085
Finally, I want to move to a topical matter. It was reliably reported on the BBC and in some newspapers today that the colleague of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Leader of another place, who appears to moonlight as a junior Minister responsible for Wales, is to make an interesting speech tonight. It is reported that he is to speak about income tax. I suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having a wretched enough weekend without my dwelling on that. But I want to ask about the constitutional issues which the Leader of another place is intending to raise and whether they are the position of the Government.
It is reported that he will say tonight that his commitment to a second Chamber with a substantial elected element remains undiluted by his translation. Is that the position of the Government as a whole? Members of this House would like to know whether that is the latest word on constitutional thinking.
And what about proportional representation? Your Lordships are well accustomed to hearing that tune from these Benches, but the Leader of another place seems to be in favour of proportional representation. He appears to believe that it is an important part of the Scottish and Welsh settlements. It is clear from our observations that that is part of what makes it work in Scotland and Wales. It has saved the Conservative Party from oblivion in Scotland and Wales, although it seems reluctant to draw the appropriate conclusions from that.
Moreover, it seems to represent a change of mind on PR by the Government as a whole. I understand that Mr Hain will say that it should be introduced for Westminster elections. That is music to the ear of these Benches, but if it is the position of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs—although I shall be most interested to hear what it is, I recognise that the Minister may be slightly on the back foot—can we expect a full Statement from the Government on this interesting development in policy?
12.44 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for bringing this report to your Lordships' House and all noble Lords who have taken part and made for such an erudite and interesting debate. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of the stability of the devolution arrangements.
There is certainly no room for complacency, given that the turnouts in the recent elections to both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament fell below 50 per cent—38 per cent and 49 per cent respectively.
While these declining turnouts will be, in part, a reflection on the performance of the Scottish and Welsh administrations over the past four years, we cannot reject out of hand concern among the public about the devolution settlement itself.
I noted with interest the findings of John Curtice's survey, included in the Select Committee's report at Table 14, of public opinion about devolution. It is
1086
significant that the survey finds that only 35 per cent of Scots believe that the way Britain as a whole is governed has been improved by the creation of the Scottish Parliament, with 54 per cent saying it has made no difference and 8 per cent thinking that it has been made worse.
This debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution is most timely. It is of paramount importance that the roles of the Scottish Parliament and the executive—and their Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts for that matter—are both clearly understood by the electorate and are stable and durable in the long run.
One of my principal concerns is the arrangements for intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom, which are discussed in chapter 1 of the report. During the 1997 devolution referendum debates and subsequent consideration of the Scotland Act in this House and in another place, many concerns were expressed about what would happen in the event of a fundamental disagreement between governments in London and Edinburgh. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made those points.
However, I am happy to concede that, bar one or two skirmishes which are part and parcel of parliamentary and governmental life, significant conflict between the two has not materialised. That is unsurprising. As the report notes, governments of the same political persuasion pursuing broadly similar objectives have been in power in London and Edinburgh since 1999. It is reasonable to expect that that would minimise disagreements.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that personal familiarity among both Ministers and officials between the two governments has also facilitated a relatively smooth operation—a product of the infancy of the arrangements, I suggest.
While this is all well and good, the absence of significant problems does not mean that the concerns are no longer valid. The questions asked are still very pertinent. The Select Committee's report notes:
"we are concerned by the sheer extent of the reliance on goodwill as the basis for intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom. We are also concerned that goodwill has been elevated into a principle of intergovernmental relations: it is used to explain the avoidance of disputes and to justify maintaining the present informality of the system".
Later, having reviewed the use of concordats and the three mechanisms for resolving devolution-related disputes, the report notes:
"We have an unresolved concern that these mechanisms may not prove adequate to the challenges arising from a highly-charged political dispute, especially if the parties are accustomed to informal rather than formal dealings with each other".
Is this another area of government policy where we are left to "hope and pray" for the best in the future? Is it not essential that much greater thought is given to this matter? If and when a serious dispute arises, is it not right that everyone should at least know where they stand and understand the process for resolving the matter? The report acknowledges that steps should be taken to achieve just this in "peacetime" when everyone is friendly and all is peace and quiet.

1087
Perhaps I may paraphrase the committee's recommendations: it urges greater use of the formal mechanisms already in place. It is hard to disagree with that, but I wonder whether it will be sufficient. I cite the issue of concordats as an example. The report recommends that concordats,
"be made for a fixed term only, capable of being varied during that term if necessary but to terminate at the end of that term and be renegotiated. During that term, it would not be open to a party to withdraw from or repudiate a concordat".
That is an eminently sensible proposal and workable when the two governments are in broad agreement and only minor practical issues need to be resolved. However, will the concordats be of any use in the event of serious conflict? On what legal basis are they agreed? Could either side not unilaterally withdraw from a concordat, irrespective of its terms?
I do not wish there to be serious dispute between the two governments, but we must surely have effective conflict resolution mechanisms in place in order to minimise the damage that such disputes could cause.
I do not have time in this relatively brief contribution to detail a comprehensive package of such measures, but I wish to elaborate on one important issue, already touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme; that is, the future role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The recent reshuffle—"shambolic" reshuffle, I might say—has profound implications for the representation of Scottish and Welsh interests in the United Kingdom.
I regret to say that, even now, many details of the new structure are unclear. It appeared initially that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office, along with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, were to be abolished and their functions taken over by the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. Then it appeared that the offices would be under the auspices of the DCA but would survive as separate entities. Now, according to the Government's newly published list, Alistair Darling will be part-time Secretary of State for Transport and part-time Secretary of State for Scotland and Peter Hain will be part-time Leader of the House and part-time Secretary of State for Wales. Anne McGuire will be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Scotland Office and Don Touhig will be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Wales Office.
If the media are to he believed—and they are not always, by any means—the hand of the Scottish First Minister has been strengthened by these changes. With the office of Scottish Secretary very much diminished, direct bilaterals between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government can be expected to increase. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made that point in relation to the Welsh Office; the noble Lord, Lord Holme, certainly did.
There are still, however, many unanswered questions. For example, does the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs have any kind of veto over decisions made by the part-time Scottish and Welsh Secretaries? Who is ultimately responsible for such
1088
important legislative issues as the re-opening of the Scotland Act, which is primarily to amend provisions for the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament?
That confusion, unhelpful as it is, will no doubt be cleared up in the fullness of time. I am more concerned about whether this diminution of Scotland's and Wales's voice in the Government is strategically desirable. It is true that the end of separate Scottish and Welsh offices and Secretaries of State is a proposal that the committee, in its report, urges the Government to consider. Superficially, it may seem both logical and desirable to parcel up into one the offices of the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries and Ministers responsible for devolution in the English regions.
It is also true that in the past my party has considered that approach. On paper, and in the absence of problems, it may seem ideal, but I doubt whether it is as well suited to the dynamics of devolution and the current realities of politics. Certainly, it is clear that the Prime Minister's proclamation last Thursday and his reshuffle were not thought through.
Critically, the devolution model varies considerably in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the English regions. The Scottish Parliament has primary legislative power; the Welsh Assembly does not. The English regional assemblies, should they ever be created, will have different powers again, and what Northern Ireland will end up with remains to be seen. I hope it will be legislative.
The primary role of the Secretary State for Scotland is to be the interface between the Edinburgh and London governments. He or she should be lobbying for Scotland's interests in the United Kingdom.
It was revealed in the recent debate in another place that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales sit on 25 Cabinet committees. Will the fact that there are now only part-time Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales inevitably mean that such representation will be diminished? There are also potential conflicts of interest. When key transport decisions have to be made, will Alistair Darling he acting in the best interests of Scotland or for the transport needs of the UK as a whole? As a Scottish newspaper recently commented:
"Who in the cabinet should lobby the transport secretary over better cross-border rail and air links, or the upgrading of the A l? The Scottish secretary, of course. And what if the transport secretary and the Scottish secretary are the same man? Darling is on to a loser—damned by the Scots if he doesn't give them what they want and damned by the English if he does".
These are important considerations in the day-to-day political issues that arise. I suggest that they are doubly so when strategic issues are being decided.
I turn now to an issue which has been avoided by all other noble Lords. I shall do the same in part. The issue is the Barnett formula. Whatever the future course of the financial relationship between the Scottish and UK governments, is it not the case that Scotland needs a direct voice in the UK Cabinet to

1089
make its case and that that voice should be unfettered by Welsh or English regional interests, which may or may not be consistent with Scotland's?
The Select Committee's report is a most timely and helpful contribution to the ongoing debates about the dynamics of devolution. I have only touched on a few of the areas covered by the report. There has been reference to several others. However, we have also had a considerable amount of repetition, which should help the Minister to answer the key points.
I may not be entirely in agreement with all the committee's recommendations, but, in summary, I believe that the report highlights key areas of concern; principally, that there needs to be more robust liaison arrangements between the Scottish and UK governments and parliaments. We believe the report is a sound basis on which further debate may be founded.
12.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to the debate initiated by the noble Lord today on the report of the Select Committee. It could not be more timely, given both the importance of its contents and the announcement this week of the establishment of a Department for Constitutional Affairs. I have read the committee's report with interest. I acknowledge that it has had—and I trust will continue to have—a valuable and important role in its oversight on constitutional affairs.
I am particularly pleased that the Select Committee emphasised the smooth transition that took place to devolution in 1999 and the successful way in which the first term has gone. That is indeed a tribute to all those involved. But we are talking about a process so far of success.
We also saw the second devolved elections take place on 1st May. I congratulate the incoming administrations in Scotland and Wales. I also take the opportunity to assure the House that the Government will continue to work closely with the devolved administrations to deliver for the people of Scotland and Wales.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his Statement on Wednesday, it is precisely because devolution is operating smoothly that it makes sense to combine the roles of Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales with other Cabinet posts. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales represent Scottish and Welsh interests in Cabinet and account for them in another place. They are assisted by the Scotland and Wales Offices, which continue as distinct entities reporting to those Secretaries of State but located in my department.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is responsible for the overall devolution settlements and overall government policy on devolution, a responsibility previously that of the Deputy Prime Minister—including the Memorandum of Understanding, the Joint Ministerial Committee and
1090
the British-Irish Council. The team of officials responsible for co-ordinating devolution issues has moved from ODPM to the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, acknowledged many of those facts. He acknowledged that the settlement is working well and that there is no present problem. but he and the committee raised the question of whether there will be a problem in future. That is a perfectly proper question. Governments and parliaments should look to the future, rather than simply considering whether things are presently satisfactory. First, having just had elections, and not facing new elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly until 2007, it seems unlikely that there will be an immediate problem. Of course, that does not remove the need to reflect, but one can hardly say that that is something that is about to hit us in the face.
Secondly, I emphasise that there is existing strong formal machinery. The impression has been given that this is all done between chums and that there is no structure or system of government in place to try to ensure that it works. First, there is a Memorandum of Understanding—about which I shall not go into detail. Secondly, and importantly, there are bilateral concordats with the devolved Administrations. Thirdly, there is a Joint Ministerial Committee chaired by the Prime Minister and including the First Ministers of the devolved administrations to oversee the operation of devolution, which meets in both plenary and functional sessions. Taking the two combined, there have been 16 meetings of the JMC in its various guises.
Fourthly, the Government emphasise that we will keep the operation of those liaison arrangements under review. I shall return to that later. Lastly, as has been recognised, we have a common UK Civil Service. I think that all parts of the House share the belief that that is important in making the United Kingdom constitution work in the circumstances. The way in which they have co-operated and continue to co-operate through and between the devolved administrations and central Government is a tribute to civil servants.
I turn to the role of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, also acknowledged—I thank him for this—that there is no sensible case for three separate full-time Secretaries of State. Perhaps with one exception, I have heard no one argue the case for that. Obviously, there was a case for a full-time Secretary of State for Scotland and for Wales before devolution—the UK Parliament was running many matters concerning Wales and Scotland.
There was an arguable case for keeping a full-time Secretary of State for Wales and Scotland during the period of bedding in of the devolved settlement, so that we could monitor how things were going and ensure focused political attention. But there is now hardly an informed or respected commentator who does not recognise that the world has changed since 1999 and

1091
that there therefore is no justification for a full-time Secretary of State for either Wales or Scotland. That leaves only two alternatives.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I about the moonlighting of Secretaries of State? We do not argue for one Secretary of State for Wales and one Secretary of State for Scotland; from these Benches, we say that to have a senior Secretary of State for one of the major departments moonlighting, to use the terminology, as Secretary of State for Wales or Scotland cannot be right.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am no senior wrangler, but it seems to me that there are three options: no Secretary of State for Wales, a full-time one or one who shares some of his responsibilities between Welsh and other issues. There are no more than three options. So one must take the position that there should be a full-time Secretary of State for Wales, even though no one seriously thinks that there is sufficient work for one; or that there is no need at all for a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet, which is not the Government's position; or, logically, that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet who, sensibly, undertakes other functions as well.
I fear that that is the only sane answer to the allegation of what is a rather loose use of the term moonlighting".
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the alternatives, but the burden of our report was that there should be one Secretary of State responsible for the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. He did not address that in his schema of alternatives.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I grant that there is a further option, which is to bundle them all in together and have one Secretary of State. The Government's view is that it is clearly better to have an identifiable Cabinet Minister who is seen to speak for Wales and for Scotland, arguing that case simply and clearly in Cabinet. We have taken a view on that and we think that we are right.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, if the Secretaries of State have to share their functions with other government departments, will they also be answering to Select Committees in respect of Scotland and Wales and taking parliamentary Questions? That all begins to add up to a substantial addition to their current burdens.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there has been no change whatsoever to the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. They still carry the functions that they carried two weeks or so ago. The Government are in a reasonably good position to make an assessment as to the weight of those responsibilities, because they have been carried out during the past few years since the devolution
1092
settlement. We judge that, supported by the two other Ministers for Wales and Scotland in the Commons, there is no problem with my right honourable friends Peter Hain and Alistair Darling carrying out all of those responsibilities, including answering, either themselves or through their relevant junior Ministers, to Select Committees.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about improving the process for legislation affecting Wales and Scotland. That is a correct challenge, to which I shall return in more detail. We have not reached perfection there; there is room for progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, raised the thorny issue of the Barnett formula, to which many members spoke. Is there a better way? One thing about the Barnett formula is that, compared to the distribution settlement for local government, it is relatively simple and clear. It may seem complicated, but it is a masterpiece of clarity and simplicity compared with some of the alternatives. I suspect that that is why the committee, which is not alone in this respect, found it difficult to find something that was a wonderful improvement on it. We have no current plans to change it; on the other hand, one always keeps an open mind on such issues.
The noble Baroness also spoke in some detail about the importance of addressing improvements to the handling of legislation. As I said, we are actively reflecting on that. For example, we are considering how to make more explicit in explanatory memoranda to Bills the exact effect on Wales or the powers of the National Assembly. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee recently made several further suggestions to improve procedure and the Government are considering their response to those recommendations—including on the relevance of the so-called Rawlings principle.
We do not think that there have been significant procedural difficulties in relation to Scotland. Nevertheless, our guidance makes clear that the Scottish Executive must be consulted on all relevant legislative proposals, whether or not the Sewel Convention applies.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but I should like to ask about Wales. It is not simply a matter of procedure. The point is trying to establish or carry into effect the wishes or will of the Welsh Assembly. How can it be satisfactory when it asks the Government for eight Bills and gets none?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think that the influence of the National Assembly for Wales can be measured in terms of the number of Bills that it gets in a parliamentary Session. As has been signalled already, there have been two since the devolution settlement. The Government have passed a considerable number of Bills that have had major implications for Wales. There is an active process, which I indicated earlier, for intergovernmental discussions on those issues.

1093
We are not complacent; we do not believe that necessarily the arrangements are perfect. Let me give a homespun example in how this House scrutinises UK-wide legislation on Scottish issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who appears against me on the other Benches on various Bills, makes powerful contributions about how Scotland would be affected. She constantly raises those issues. That seems extremely important and necessary.
Furthermore, we have also looked to bring key civil servants down from Scotland to discuss with noble Lords from opposite parties how a Bill would affect Scotland—even before we move into Committee—in an attempt to inform our considerations in Committee. That illustrates the need for us to keep an open mind on how we improve the process of UK-wide legislation and how we consult and involve devolved nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, made the general comment that the process has been a success, as most people in the debate said. He gave a rather novel argument as to why it had been a success, saying that Conservatives now have a stronger role in Wales. As a pluralist, I must acknowledge that argument, even though it is slightly against my natural mindset.
As to whether the Joint Ministerial Committee is to be beefed up, in essence, it is government machinery that can be taken up or down according to necessity and demand. I was asked where the civil servants would go. There is a relatively clear answer: politically, civil servants in the Wales Office or the Scotland Office report to the respective Secretaries of State as they have always done. Departmentally, for pay and rations purposes, they are in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We do not want to have to move them between departments every second the Secretary of State might move. Physically, they are in the great historic office buildings that they have occupied for some time—well may that continue.
Noble Lords asked questions about the report of the noble Lord. Lord Richards, on the National Assembly for Wales. If, as we would expect, the National Assembly for Wales refers it to the Government, they will respond as a Government when the Secretary of State speaks. Secretaries of State speak for the Government, not just their department—I do not need to tell the House that. Formally, the Secretary of State for Wales, in that instance, will respond on behalf of the Government.
I must not detain the House for too long. I was slightly saddened by some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised. I cannot believe that he was saying the Government were wrong to indicate that after a proper process of consultation and legislation they would move towards a supreme court, an independent judiciary, at least offering the House of Lords the opportunity to elect its own chairman or, presumably, to oppose stronger arrangements in Government for overviewing constitutional relationships—that will be my department's
1094
responsibility. In a sense, it came down to a presentation issue. If that is it, so be it. But, in essence, I would have hoped—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The sadness is probably more on my side that a set of reforms that we on these Benches support—as I made clear—had not been thought through in detail. They were not simply presented badly but in a process that betrayed that they were more an ad hoc reaction to events than a thought through set of constitutional changes.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord's point. I do not agree with it. Those issues have been argued by many commentators. They are changes that should have been made for many years. I would have hoped that the Government's indication that they will now do so would receive a warm welcome. In response to a further question, we have no current intention to change the Barnett formula.
On civil service loyalty, the Civil Service code was amended in 1999 before devolution took effect to make clear that civil servants in the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales owed their loyalty to the administrations that they served. The Civil Service code also provides that civil servants must comply with the law, as one would expect.
I can confirm that both First Ministers were told in advance about the DCA. Both were happy and are happy with the arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether the arrangements were risky for the future. I have signalled already that formal structures of government are in place that can be expanded or contracted to deal with future events.
It is germane to the establishment of the Department for Constitutional Affairs to say that we now have a department led by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who very much wished to be with you today but is on pressing business in the North. He would like to have responded to the debate in person. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to do so because, working to him, I will have a ministerial responsibility for these issues. I am afraid that noble Lords will not escape from me on these issues today.
I will be pleased to have further discussions, both with the committee and with leading members who have spoken on these issues, if there are any matters of interest or concern to them. That is an offer. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer would also wish to say that he will be most pleased to talk further with the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, at any time that suits it, about issues that concern it now or its future work programme.
I shall conclude on that note. The Government's commitment towards devolution, which was not always universally applauded, but is respected around the House, has succeeded in Scotland and Wales. Nobody ever says that any change you make—at least in our constitution—is rigid and firm for all time.

1095
Devolution seems to us to work, although there is a responsibility to keep matters under review, both in Government and aided by the Select Committee.
As signalled by several speakers, we must learn from different practices of government, politics, consultation and public involvement in the devolved administrations. There are good lessons to be learnt, and I hope that we get guidance on some of them from expert research and advice. The process of pre-legislative scrutiny in Scotland, particularly as it has a unicameral system, must be strong. But it works well, and people in Scotland value that. We should look at the process and listen to it.
I am not convinced at this stage that there is an urgent need to set up new bureaucratic structures. However, there is a responsibility on the Government, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and me to keep under active review, and to monitor, how the devolved relationships are working and, respectively, how they might work in future. I am therefore pleased to take the kernel of the Select Committee's advice, albeit with a slight difference of emphasis on the exact mechanism for responding to that advice. It seems right that the Government should look forward, consider what might happen and put in place suitable contingency arrangements come the day. I am therefore very glad to welcome the report. I look forward to working with the committee on future studies.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to what has been a short but very rich debate. There have been some excellent contributions. 1 echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in commending especially the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which were much appreciated.
The subject of our report is extremely important, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said, it is not widely discussed. It deserves and needs to be discussed. I hope that this debate will contribute significantly to the discussion.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to the debate. He covered a great deal of ground and offered a much more positive response than that of the command paper. I welcome that. The machinery is in place; we are not suggesting new machinery, our concern is that it is working intermittently. At present, with the new structures I am not clear about who controls the switch. I welcome the Minister's offer on his own behalf, and that of the Secretary of State, to assist the committee. There are a number of issues that we would welcome the opportunity to pursue.
I emphasise the point touched on by the Minister and drawn out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. Our recommendations are not simply confined to being directed at Government; we are raising a number of recommendations directed at Parliament. There is a lot that we must consider and that we can learn from devolved bodies. At the same time, we must look at
1096
how our machinery works, particularly in dealing with legislation affecting Wales. I emphasise that a lot is to be done by Parliament and not just by the Government. I reiterate my thanks to those who have taken part. It has been a helpful debate. This is not the end of a process but prompts further discussion and consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUC Report)
1.21 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Scott of Foscote rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (6th Report, HL Paper 48).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I express my gratitude to your Lordships, the so-called "usual channels", who have arranged this debate on the Select Committee's report on the charter. Time and events have overtaken the report, which was published on 3rd February. Its purpose was to discuss the pros and cons of the various alternatives for incorporating a Bill of Rights into the proposed new constitution for the European Union.
We wanted the comments of the Select Committee, and of this House if a debate could have been arranged in time, taken into account both by the Government in deciding what representations they would make in the course of the negotiations, and by the Convention on the Future of Europe, chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and by its working party. Time has moved on. We received the Government's response to the report on 29th May, which was some four months after the report's publication.
In the meantime, a number of conclusions had been reached in the convention and by the convention's working parties. The final text of what the convention proposes for the new constitution, or at least the part of it that incorporates the provisions dealing with the charter, were handed over to me this morning. I doubt whether any other Members of the House, other than the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will have had an opportunity to see the provisions.
The original date proposed for the debate was 10th June, some 10 days ago. However, the noble Baroness was at that time, and for some days thereafter, engaged in negotiating in Brussels the final terms of the provisions that found their way into the Giscard proposals, and so the debate was postponed until today.
The result of that postponement is that, instead of considering the contents of the report and the pros and cons discussed on the alternatives, your Lordships are able in fact to consider the actuality of what is proposed by the convention.
The first issue of note arising out of the report is whether the new constitution should have a Bill of Rights incorporated into it. The question assumes that

1097
there will be a new constitution. We did not go into that assumption in the consideration of the report; we took it as read. It is a safe assumption. The contents of the existing treaties plainly need adjustments to cater for the advent of 10 new member states.
There are two main arguments in favour of incorporating a Bill of Rights into the new constitution. First, there is at present no formal human rights limitation on the way in which the European Union institutions exercise their variety of powers. Each member state is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Union is not.
In December 2000, the member states agreed to the terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The member states agreed to preserve its provisions, but they did not incorporate the charter into European law. Nor, in the UK at least, did it become domestic law. It had legal influence nonetheless. It has become the practice for all legislative and regulatory measures of the EU to be checked for compatibility with the provisions of the charter. The European Court of Justice has, on a number of occasions, referred to the charter to assist it in identifying fundamental rights to be respected in the Community. Domestic courts in this country have referred to the charter for much the same purpose. It has had no formal legal force. It does not legally bind European institutions, nor does the European Convention on Human Rights formally hind European institutions.
The first conclusion that Sub-Committee E—which I had the honour to chair—came to when considering this issue preliminary to preparing a report was that it was high time that formal requirements of the observance of fundamental rights were built into the constitution, whatever it may become, so as to become binding on European institutions. I have not yet heard any sensible argument against that. It remains to be seen whether one will be forthcoming.
The second reason is the fear expressed by a number of witnesses who gave evidence to the sub-committee that the absence of a Bill of Rights in the proposed new constitution may undermine the credibility of that constitution. All new constitutions tend to have Bills of Rights incorporated into them. That is why it may be said that that should apply also for the new EU constitution.
In their answer to the recommendations in the report, the Government expressed disagreement with the proposition that the new constitution should have a Bill of Rights. It did not accept that that should be so. This remains therefore a major and fundamental issue that must be resolved at the intergovernmental conference in Greece later this year. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the Government's current thinking on the issue. Apart from saying that the Government objected or did not agree—objected is perhaps too strong—that there should be such an incorporation, the reason for that view was not expressed.
1098
Assuming that the new constitution will have a Bill of Rights, what form should it take? In the report, we considered three possible alternatives. One was that the European Convention on Human Rights, to which all member states already adhere, should become by accession on the part of the EU the European Union's Bill of Rights as well. There is clearly logic in that.
Another alternative was that a charter that was prepared some two or three years ago with the EU expressly in mind should be incorporated into the constitution to become the Bill of Rights. The third alternative was that both the other two should be combined: both accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporation of the charter becoming the solution.
The present proposal from the Convention on the Future of Europe is the double-barrelled solution, the third alternative I mentioned—both accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporation of the convention. It is proposed that the EU should have legal personality and enable itself to accede to an international treaty such as the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention would then become part of European law, binding on European institutions as it is already part of domestic law in this and other member states.
Secondly, the Giscard convention proposes that the articles of the charter, more or less as they stand—I shall return to the "more or less" later—shall be incorporated into the constitution. The charter provisions would thereby become part of European Union law. The Government's comment on that double-barrelled option was that they,
"would have many objections to putting [it] into practice".
The Government did not explain what those objections were or why they had them. What is the nature of their objections? Perhaps they are the same objections—no more nor less— than their objections to having any Bill of Rights at all. We await further information.
I draw your Lordships' attention to several textual points about the charter. First, it was not drafted as a document intended to have direct legal effect. As I said, it was not incorporated into European law at the time that it was formally proclaimed. It was drafted to express any policy aspirations that all member states shared rather than providing precise legal rules. That feature of the charter is apparent from its contents, the following examples of which are taken at random. Under the heading "Freedoms", Article 13 of the charter states:
"The arts and scientific research shall he free of constraint",
which is a broad definition. However, there are some forms of scientific research, such as the cloning of humans or embryo research, which is a topical example, that nearly everyone accepts must be subject to some constraints, albeit of varying degrees of strictness. Article 13 simply cannot mean what it says.

1099
Secondly, under the heading, "Equality", Article 21 says:
"Any discrimination based on any ground such as"—
and there is then an enumeration of matters including—
"sexual orientation shall he prohibited".
but everyone accepts that the activities of paedophiles must be prohibited and restrained, so Article 51 also cannot mean what it says.
Under the heading "Citizens Rights", Article 42 states that any citizen of the EU has a right of access to documents of the Union's institutions. That is carrying freedom of information to a fine degree. The breadth of that right is not expressed in the charter to be subject to any restrictions at all. However, Article 49 states:
"A European law shall lay down the general principles and limits which, on grounds of public or private interest, govern the right of access to such documents".
So Article 42 cannot mean what it says.
The report draws attention to those and other examples of the inappositeness of the charter articles for precise legal application. The question of a possible re-drafting was mentioned, but it is accepted, for practical political reasons, that the charter cannot be subjected to a wholesale re-draft.
The convention's solution to the problem is to propose that each of the charter articles in turn should be accompanied by an official commentary explaining the intended function and scope of the article. The preamble to the charter has had a sentence added to it from its December 2000 form. It states that the charter,
"will be interpreted by the Courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard"
to the official accompanying explanations. Thus, the explanation accompanying Article 13, the article about "arts and scientific research" being "free of constraint", states that the right is to be exercised subject to the limitations authorised by Article 10 of the ECHR. As many of your Lordships will know, Article 10 of the ECHR permits constraints to be imposed for various purposes, such as the interests of public safety and the protection of health and morals. So that cuts down the charter articles. Anyone who reads it would not understand them without also reading the accompanying explanation.
Article 21, the no discrimination article, is accompanied by an explanation which says that it,
"does [not] lay down a sweeping ban of discrimination in such wide-ranging areas",
which limits the scope of the discrimination ban. The explanation accompanying Article 42—the right of access to documents—states that the right only applies within the limits for which provision is made in Articles 1–49(3). There one finds provision made for the expected public security, national security restrictions on the right.
The articles of the charter as incorporated do not mean what they say; they must be read in conjunction with t heir respective explanations. So far as it goes, the technique of accompanying legally imprecise articles with explanations that give them precision is to be
1100
welcomed. I think that the Government also welcome that technique. However, the text of the official explanations is not yet settled. The version to which I have been referring, dated 3rd June, was supplied to us by the noble Baroness. Lady Scotland. However, it contains a request for comments and suggestions to be made by 10th June. That date has now passed and presumably some were made. What the end result will be, those suggestions having been taken into account, we simply do not know.
If the charter is to be incorporated into the constitution, in my view, and in that of both the sub-committee and the Select Committee, it is of the highest importance that the articles should be accompanied by explanations that lend satisfactory legal precision to their intended effect. Otherwise, there will be a field day for lawyers, although riot for anyone else. We believe that the Government share that view and hope that their representatives at the IGC will rigorously examine the commentary with that in mind.
The next point of concern is related to the vexed issue of competencies. It is a feature of the charter articles—as it is of the articles of the ECHR —that their language is such that they are capable of applying to matters that are outside the competencies of the EU and its institutions, but to matters that are within those competencies. It is essential, and this is also a view shared by the Government, that any entrenching of these articles in EU law via the new constitution should not lead to any extension of those competencies. If they are to be extended, it should be as an intended variation of the present arrangements, not via some sort of competence creep that might emerge from application of the new Bill of Rights.
Outside the competencies given to the EU and its institutions under the new constitution, it must remain for member states to pay whatever regard to the articles of the charter or the European convention may be required under their respective domestic laws.
On the so-called "horizontal clauses" in the charter, Articles 51 and 52 are intended to deal with the potential problems of "competence-creep", and they have been subjected to amendments specifically directed to that end. The official explanations that accompany these two amended articles are lengthy, complicated and important. Sub-Committee E has not yet had an opportunity to subject them to the scrutiny they undoubtedly deserve.
Subject to that need for scrutiny, my present impression is that the amended Articles 51 and 52, coupled with the explanations, ought to prevent the incorporation of the charter from producing the competence creep that I mentioned. It is certainly essential that that should be so, but the Minister's comments on this aspect of the proposals would he valuable.
The fifth issue relates to the implications of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights for the European Union's Courts and their jurisdiction. The purpose of a Bill of Rights must be to provide citizens with new protection and new rights against abuse of power or

1101
excessive or wrongful exercise of power by Union institutions or bodies. Where that has happened one would expect to find that the aggrieved citizen would have an effective right of recourse to the European Courts and effective remedies once he got there. But at present, under the treaty, a citizen's right of access to the European Courts is distinctly limited. It is dealt with under Article 230(4) of the treaty establishing the European Communities.
In order to institute proceedings in the European Court, a citizen must show that the action to which he objects is of "direct and individual concern" to him. The words "and individual concern" have been strictly interpreted by the European Courts so as to prevent an individual from bringing an action alleging invalidity of some European Union legislation on the grounds of access to competence or on any other grounds. He must show that it would affect him personally and not just in a general way as a citizen along with others.
The Giscard convention, responding to the point that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights requires an amendment of the restrictions imposed by Article 230(4), has proposed to add words which would allow an individual to institute proceedings in a European Court,
"against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to him without entailing implementing measures".
I read that slowly because I am by no means sure what it means. It is obviously intended as a relaxation. The requirement that the action complained of be of "individual concern" has gone, but the relaxation applies to an objection to a "regulatory act" only. What is meant by regulatory act is unclear. It may be that it is directing itself to subordinate legislation and that it would not allow an objection on this relaxed footing to be taken to an item of primary legislation. That is a guess; it may not be right. What the words, "without entailing implementing measures" mean, goodness knows. I do not. The amendment is highly important. It is very new. We have not yet had the reaction of the Government to it. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has a better view than I of what it means. If she has, I hope that she will tell us; if she has not, I hope that she will take steps to have it elucidated. It will be of great importance to citizens to know what right of access to European Courts they will have under the new constitution.
I should like to make one final point on the jurisdiction of the European Court. At present, the Court has no jurisdiction on second pillar matters common foreign and security policy matters—and a restricted jurisdiction only on third pillar matters of justice and home affairs matters. I suggest to the noble Baroness that any matters within the competence of the European Union or its institutions will, if the present proposals go forward, be within their respective competencies, need to be matters in respect of which the rule of law can be seen to apply by complaints being justiciable before the European Courts. The European Union, in all its competencies, should be subject to the rule of law.
1102
Whether the final constitution will involve any extension of Union competencies in second pillar and third pillar matters we do not yet know. Maybe it will not. I understand that the Government are to oppose any such extension. If that opposition carries the day, the need for an extension to the European Court of Justice's jurisdiction will not be so pressing. But if the competencies of the Union and its institutions are to be extended and if the new Bill of Rights is to be incorporated, there is a very strong argument that the jurisdiction of the ECJ should be correspondingly extended. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comment.
I have mainly directed my remarks to the incorporation of the charter into the constitution. The accession of the European Union to the ECHR, if that comes about, will raise much the same issues. It will raise the same need to prevent competence creep, the same need to consider an extension to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the same arguments for and against will apply. I do not need to repeat myself as to that.
The political practicality of accession to the ECHR may be an obstacle to that being achieved. All the signatories and not simply the member states—there are signatories that are not member states—will need to agree any consequential changes that the accession of the European Union might involve.
In summary, is the Union to have a Bill of Rights? Should it be the charter? If so, what attention can be paid to the explanations to the horizontal clauses and to European Court of Justice jurisdiction? Should the European Union accede to the ECHR and what should the jurisdiction of the ECJ be, having regard to these changes? These are all matters which require attention. They are issues of potentially very great importance to all the citizens of this country and therefore to Parliament. They deserve and, I believe, will have your Lordships' careful attention. I therefore commend this report to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (6th Report, HL Paper 48). — (Lord Scott of Foscote.)
1.47 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in taking part for the first time in a debate on a report based on the work of Sub-Committee E, of which I am a member, I take some consolation from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in the previous debate—namely, that constitutional change should not be an elite concern. I certainly would not consider myself to be among the elite on this issue.
I shall speak largely about incorporation but perhaps from a slightly different perspective. As a person, on the matter of incorporation of the

1103
European Charter of Fundamental Rights into the new constitution I support the general view expressed by Professor Arnull that,
"a constitution for the Union which did not contain a Bill of Rights—could be regarded as undermining the statement in an earlier provision of the Treaty on the European Union that the principle of respect of fundamental rights is one on which the Union is founded".
I am aware that not everyone shares that view although most of our witnesses did.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, laid before us in great detail some of the legal difficulties involved in the incorporation of the charter into a constitution. In layman's terms, the main benefit of the charter is that incorporated into the new constitution it would offer citizens a wide range of justiciable rights.
In written evidence, Justice, at page 77 of the report, stated that,
"given the increasing capacity of EU institutions to affect individuals' human rights, a binding catalogue of fundamental rights guarantees is an essential part of the constitutional structure of the Union".
I find it difficult to understand why anyone should, in principle, oppose such rights of the citizen against the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. Surely, European Union civil servants and European Union institutions should be liable to challenge if they abuse their powers. A practical problem—again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote dealt with this in detail—arises from the need to reform the operation of the European Court of Justice to enable effective access to legal remedies available under the charter.
In paragraph 163, the committee concluded that in order for citizens to be able to avail themselves of the legal remedies theoretically available under the charter the operation of the European Court of Justice should be reviewed and, where necessary, reformed to give practical effect to the incorporation. I confess that I am disappointed with the Government's negative response to that conclusion and I hope that the Minister will he able to elaborate on the reasons for it.
A more serious problem is the wide coverage of the European Charter, incorporating as it does a large part of the ECHR together with economic and social rights taken from the Social Charter and from various existing international texts. An argument can certainly he made that even if one accepts that citizens have a right, for example, to equal access to education, to a pension or to decent healthcare, these are all aspects of rights that are best satisfied via the relevant government policies and actions, as provider and enabler.
Furthermore, it raises the whole thorny problem of subsidiarity. The British and, no doubt, other member states hold fast to their own rights and duties to ensure the well-being of their people in these matters. The question is whether, in incorporating the charter within the new constitution of the European Union, we are doing something that will encourage competence creep from the member states to the Union. Perhaps I should reassure the House that, as an
1104
enthusiastic supporter of the European project for all of my adult life, I have no wish to see the Commission encroach upon the powers of member states tin less there is a convincing reason for overturning the principle of subsidiarity.
The Convention Working Group on the Charter was alive to this problem and proposed a solution in the form of the so-called horizontal clauses. Noble Lords will have seen that we paid a good deal of attention to them and proposed several trenchant amendments, to be found on page 25. In particular our suggested amendments to sections 1 and 2 of Article 5 I spell out plainly that the operation of the charter should respect the limits of the power of the Union as conferred on it by other parts of the treaty and that the charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union.
Of course we are not able to debate the clauses today in the final form decided on by the convention working group. I have not seen the relevant horizontal clauses so I do not know what they now say. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. Indeed, in a sense it is difficult to debate our report outside its true context, that of the constitution itself. Personally, I found that the attitude of the Government towards incorporation of the charter was not particularly helpful during the course of our committee's work. The Minister could not offer us any real sense of the Government's opinion on the incorporation. Not for the first time I was left thinking that, in a sticky situation, I should like to have the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on my side.
The government response to our report makes it clear that they are still in what I would call a state of hostile neutrality towards incorporation. I do not think that I can follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, in hoping that the Government will negotiate vigorously and even in a slightly hostile manner on the charter during the process of discussion now about to take place at Council and IGC level. I hope that the Government will use their negotiating power and credit on other matters where they may be more likely succeed, because in my view the incorporation of the charter is extremely likely to go ahead, it having been given a fair wind by many institutions within the Union as well as by member states. There may be better issues on which energy and credit could be spent.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope she will tell us that the Government are adopting a more positive attitude to what is in my view a very important issue.
1.54 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I hesitated about whether I should say anything this afternoon because I was confident that my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote would say everything about the committee's work that needed to be said. I, too, am a member of that sub-committee. I do not know whether noble Lords noted a recent aphorism from Signor Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy, who said in

1105
relation to a friendly state that that state—I need not identify it—missed a good opportunity to remain silent. As a general test to apply to one's interventions, that might not be a bad rule. Your Lordships will be the judge of whether I am transgressing and have missed the opportunity.
I have only one major point to make about the charter and what is proposed in the latest text from Giscard d'Estaing and his colleagues: this matter is becoming very complicated and difficult and we are going to lose the average citizen having any knowledge at all of what we are now talking about. People have heard of the Convention on Human Rights; that has hit home, perhaps not down at the Old Bull and Bush, but it is a known fact out there. But if you ask someone whether they have heard about the Charter of Rights, I venture to say that even in your Lordships' House you will receive what might be called a "non-response" unless they happen to serve on the appropriate committee. A kind of blaze of apathy meets discussions of the kind we are now having on this extremely important matter.
The aspects of complexity to which I want to draw attention are fourfold, on each of which I shall say a few words. First, I turn to the notion of both a charter and a convention; secondly, the actual status of what is written in the charter; thirdly, the status of the Explanatory Memorandum; and, fourthly, a word about remedies. In relation to the last, unlike the chairman of our committee, I have not received the latest word. What I have is the text of Parts I and 2 of the convention, but I have not seen the latest proposals on remedies, so noble Lords will be relieved to learn that what I have to say on them will be extremely truncated.
On my first point concerning the charter and the convention, my noble and learned friend Lord Scott referred to Article 1.7 covering fundamental rights. Paragraph (1) of that article states:
"The Union shall recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which constitutes the Second Part of this Constitution".
The next paragraph states:
"The Union shall seek accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Accession to that Convention shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in this Constitution".
For the ordinary citizen, things are already becoming rather difficult. The EU itself will apply to become a party to the convention, and thus the Strasbourg convention along with its caselaw and so forth will all become part and parcel of European law. That is in addition to what will happen forthwith once the constitution is adopted; that is, the charter will come on board.
Again, the man in the street might think, when it states that:
"The Union shall recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter",
1106
that it is a resounding declaration and proclamation of what is actually going to happen, but when one reaches the horizontal clauses, one finds a more complicated situation. Qualifications appear in relation to that declaration. Thus Article 51 states:
"The provisions to this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law".
I shall skip the second sentence and move on to the second paragraph of the article, where it states:
"This Charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union or modify powers and tasks defined by the other parts of the Constitution".
That immediately calls into question what any earlier article might have said. Article 14, for example—I pick these examples at random—is headed "Right to Education". It states:
"Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training".
In the second paragraph of the explanation it states:
"It was considered useful to extend this article"—
beyond Article 2 of the protocol to the Strasbourg convention—
"to vocational and continuing training".
It then refers to point 15 of some other document.
The process for someone trying to make head or tail of this is very difficult. It looks as though you have a declaration of all these rights, and then you come across language which clearly underlines that some of them may not mean what they say at all—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, referred to the obscurity of the language—because you have not got an EU competence within which they could he articulating a rule or principle. It is a difficult and complicated concept.
As to the status of the explanatory memorandum, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, the original text stated in part 2 that the explanatory memorandum was of "no legal value". That is not perhaps a perfect translation but I suspect that the thought behind it was that it was not intended to be a legal document defining what was said.
But, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, we have now moved beyond that to the revised form of the preamble—it is, of course, in draft form—which now states that the charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the member states,
"with due regard to the explanations prepared at the instigation of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter".
So some kind of status is now accorded to the explanations.
I find the explanations quite difficult. Let me take the issue of double jeopardy as an example. Under the heading of "Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence", Article 50 of the charter states:
"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law".

1107
That looks like a straightforward, good old-fashioned declaration against double jeopardy, an issue we have debated quite recently in your Lordships' House.
However, if you look at the explanatory note, there is a reference to Article 4 of one of the protocols to the convention, the second paragraph of which states:
"The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the re-opening of the case in accordance with the law on penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings which could affect the outcome of the case".
I can hear the ordinary innocent man saying, "What is the effect so far? I have had a declaration of what the right is and I now have a quotation from another piece of human rights law". Further in the explanation, at the end of that paragraph, it states:
"The very limited exceptions in the conventions permitting the Member States to derogate from the 'non his in idem' rule are covered by the horizontal clause in Article 52(1) of the Charter concerning limitations. As regards the situations referred to by Article 4 of Protocol No 7"—
which I have just read—
"namely the application of the principle within the same Member State, the guaranteed right has the same meaning and the same scope as the corresponding right in the ECHR".
I hope that I am being completely fair when I say that that material is incredibly difficult. You state a right which is not fettered; there is then a quotation from something which purports to fetter it; and then you are told to look at the power in Article 52 to derogate on certain terms.
I do not have time to elaborate on that issue in great detail. I reinforce the point made by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Scott, about the commentary on these horizontal clauses, which are extraordinarily long. Article 51 has more than a page of commentary; and the explanation on Article 52—which is another horizontal clause—runs to about four pages and introduces some extraordinarily difficult concepts.
I take my last example from the text on page 59 of the latest document we have. Paragraph 5 of Article 52 clarifies the distinction between the rights and principles set out in the charter. According to that distinction, subjective rights shall be respected whereas principles shall be observed. At the end of the paragraph it states that in some cases an article of the charter may contain both elements of a right and of a principle, and gives some examples.
I have probably said enough to indicate the tremendous difficulty and complexity of having these two documents side by side. Will the Minister give some consideration to the plea that if you are going to have a charter at the forefront of a new convention, you should do your best to make it clear, simple and effective? The method that has been adopted is almost the worst possible method that could have been adopted.
As to remedies, it is essential that there should be adequate remedies. One has to study the small print of the latest proposal, but it does not look as if it goes as
1108
far as the Advocate General, Francis Jacobs, would have wanted it to go when he gave his testimony to the committee. Those are my observations.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the report. It expresses a balanced and sensible view on complex and controversial issues, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. have said.
Before turning to the substance of the debate I should like to express our concern about the delay in obtaining it. The report was adopted by the EU Committee of your Lordships' House on 3rd February, four-and-a-half months ago. It dealt with a very fast moving target. The work of the convention is now finished and the convention president, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, will present today or tomorrow the draft constitution to the EU summit at Thessaloniki. Many of the issues raised in the report have already been decided as far as the convention is concerned.
1 recognise that the report itself is more likely to influence opinion than the debate in your Lordships' House on the report. Secondly, the draft constitution will, of course, have to be considered by an intergovernmental conference which will have power to amend it. Having said that, I believe it would have been more appropriate to have had this debate before the Easter Recess. I certainly support the idea of making arrangements to ensure that reports which deserve a debate in your Lordships' House should be debated more quickly, perhaps by arranging a debate in Grand Committee while something else is proceeding on the Floor of the House.
I turn to the substance of the report. The main issue is whether the existing charter of fundamental rights should be incorporated into the constitution. The report does not come to a firm conclusion, but says in paragraph 45:
"That any EU Constitution should include a Bill of Rights, specifying rights of the citizen and limiting the powers of the EU institutions seems beyond argument".
I agree with that absolutely. The need for a Bill of Rights arises because of the black hole so far as human rights attach themselves to the work of the European Union. Each member state is, of course, party to the European Convention on Human Rights and is hound by it. The EU itself is not bound by the ECHR and cannot at present be a party to it. Therefore, EU legislation cannot be directly challenged on human rights grounds. That could put the courts of member states into an insoluble conflict over EU legislation: they would be bound to implement that legislation under EU law but forbidden to do so by the European convention.
Sub-Committee E of the European Union Select Committee looked at the charter in 2000, when it was being drafted and negotiated. I was a member of Sub-Committee E and of the parent committee at the time. In our report published in May 2000, we recognised the existence of the black hole but had some concerns about the creation of a legally binding charter,

1109
particularly about possible conflict between the terms of the charter and the ECHR. We recommended, at that time, as the best solution, the accession of the EU to the ECHR so that it would become a single Bill of Rights, binding both on the EU and, by virtue of their separate participation in the ECHR, on the member states.
In the event, when the charter was adopted in 2000, it was given a merely declaratory status—that is, not itself declaring the law but treated as a statement of what were understood to be existing human rights recognised by the member states. It was at that stage denied formal legal status, due, to a considerable extent, to pressure from the United Kingdom, applied through the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, now the Attorney-General, but then the representative of the United Kingdom Government on the convention which originally drew up the charter.
The status of the charter is now being reconsidered. It has been recognised that the black hole has to go and that a charter with merely declaratory status is not good enough. As I have already said, the committee has said in its report that the EU must have its own Bill of Rights.
In addition, the status of a declaratory charter is ambiguous. Its provisions, as statements of existing human rights generally recognised by the EU and its member states, are unlikely to be ignored by the courts. Indeed, they have not been ignored but have been considered, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, on a number of occasions.
I come back to whether the draft constitution should incorporate the charter of fundamental rights as the Bill of Rights or adopt the ECHR as a Bill of Rights through providing for accession. The creation of a new Bill of Rights, as distinct from the charter, is theoretically possible but, in practice, impracticable.
In practice, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, told us, the Giscard convention has fired both barrels: it has incorporated the charter but has also provided for accession to the ECHR. As the report points out, there are practical problems with accession. It will require amendments to the ECHR and the consent of all 44 member states of the Council of Europe. It would therefore plainly take years to achieve. The advantage of incorporating the charter is that if the constitution is adopted by the EU, the charter will be adopted as part of it and come into immediate effect. I now believe, having changed my mind somewhat since 2000, that this is the right course, mainly because accession to the ECHR will certainly take a long time and may well not be achieved at all.
I also feel that the risk of conflict with the ECHR has been reduced by the incorporation of Article 52.4 of Part 2 of the convention, which provides that, in so far as the charter contains rights corresponding to rights guaranteed by the ECHR,
"the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention".
1110
Further, the charter must apply only to the EU itself and its institutions and agencies. That is an issue that is absolutely central to the status of the charter. It should apply to member states only when they are implementing the law of the European Union. That is provided by Article 51.1. Article 51.2 provides:
"This Charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union".
We have what appear to be strong safeguards against the possibility of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, referred to as "competence creep".
The charter does not extend the power of the European Union and its institutions; indeed, it limits them by requiring the use of existing powers to conform with human rights as laid down in the charter. The report says in paragraph 98:
"The Charter's impact on Member States' freedom of action is therefore circumscribed. It is not intended to fetter the powers of Member States outside the field of Community/Union law to pursue whatever policies they choose".
I therefore believe that the charter should be welcome not only to pro-Europeans who recognise a Bill of Rights as a necessary part of the constitution, but also to reasonable Euro-sceptics, as I would describe them, because it limits rather than expands the exercise of the powers by the European Union. I am therefore very pleased that the report is published in the name of, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, whom I know to be in the category of reasonable Euro-sceptics.
The charter is of course far from perfect. I entirely agree with the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, concerning the awkward relationship between the charter and the commentary, which is certainly a prospective source of great confusion. The charter contains some provisions that appear to fall outside the competencies of the European Union. For example, Article 25 states:
"recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life".
That is a perfect description of the functions of your Lordships' House.
The charter also contains some rights that are not significant enough to justify inclusion in a Bill of Rights. For example, Article 29 states:
"Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service".
A more important defect is the procedural difficulty that individuals will have in enforcing rights under the charter. As the report states in paragraph 142—and I entirely agree—
"If incorporation … is to confer any real benefit on individuals, the rights that will have been created will need effective remedies in order to give those rights substance and make them meaningful".
I strongly agree with the report's call for the re-examination of Article 230 of the Treaty of the European Communities, which puts barriers in the

1111
way of applications by individuals to the European Court of Justice. I agree wholeheartedly with the report's conclusion in paragraph 156:
"It seems to us essential that the creation of a Bill of Rights for the Union … should go hand-in-hand with the development of effective judicial remedies available to individuals in the event of any breach by the EU or any of its institutions".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, referred to a new amendment intended to enlarge the rights of individuals. That amendment is so recent that, like the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, I have not seen it, although I have what I thought were the latest documents. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, I find it—certainly as he read it out—extremely difficult to understand.
We welcome the report and the charter and its incorporation into the draft constitution of the European Union as a Bill of Rights. However, we want steps to be taken to strengthen the ability of individuals to enforce it. The Government have succeeded in clarifying and strengthening the provisions that restrict the operations of the Bill of Rights to the institutions of the European Union and the implementation of European Union laws. I hope that as a result the Government feel able to accept the incorporation of the charter into the draft constitution.
2.20 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and his committee on this excellent report and to say how pleasing it is to have two of the members of his committee—the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—speaking. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford would normally have spoken for the Opposition in this debate, but he is unavoidably absent.
My first point is a general one connected with the draft of the European constitution of which the charter forms part. When the Charter of Fundamental Rights was conceived, in 2000, the Prime Minister stated, ahead of the Biarritz summit, that any charter of fundamental rights was only a political document and would not have legal standing. It is now included as part 2 of the constitution where, if enacted, it will be fully binding and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is despite the Government's response when, in paragraph 2, they agreed that the charter was not drafted in a form suitable for legal status. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, has of course expanded the point in some detail.
In that connection I am slightly disturbed to read in paragraph 11, on page 9 of the report:
"It seems to be generally accepted that, excepting the horizontal clauses, there is no practical possibility of changes being made to the text of the Charter. It may be right that this is the present political reality but it is regrettable. The text of the Charter has been criticised, even by some of its most ardent supporters. Revision is desirable. And, post-incorporation, any amendment of what would have become part of the Union's constitution would be very cumbersome and much more difficult to achieve. This state
1112
of affairs underlines the importance of the horizontal clauses and the proposal that the Charter should be supported by an explanatory commentary".
Of course that last wish is in the process of being granted.
I was going to say that the latest version of the document is a good one, but then it was comprehensively taken to pieces by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. In view of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, that the drafting of the charter itself is on the relaxed side, it is absolutely essential, if this route is followed and the document is to have legal or quasi-legal status, that the commentary is a truly top-class document.
I would certainly welcome an explanation by the Minister of why between 2000 and now the Government changed their mind on the status of the charter. It raises justifiable fears among many people in this country that the charter and the constitution are being pushed through by stealth. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, spoke eloquently on behalf of the occupants of the Clapham omnibus on which, as he reminded us, some Members of your Lordships' House are occasionally passengers, too. They will not be all that impressed by the significance of the proposal that, in addition to the members states, the EU will become party to, for example, the Bill of Rights if it is enacted.
I also understand that the Government, when they get to the IGC in the autumn, intend to reverse certain items in the constitution—the "red lines", as we are told—but that the charter is not to be included in this renegotiation package and there is no intention of attempting to reverse any of its provisions. So we are stuck with a massive package of "rights", all indeed fundamental and admirable in themselves, but inappropriate to be the subject of enforcement anywhere save in the domestic jurisdiction of member countries. At the seminar on 17th June at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Jack Straw and Mr Peter Hain sought to assure those attending that the proposed regulations did not impinge on national legislation on existing rights. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the safeguarding of many of those rights will pass from the member states to Brussels. Having said that, I shall attempt to be objective.
We have the Government's response to the committee's report, and I am pleased to note that many of the recommendations have been accepted. We are pleased to see that the Government fully recognise the importance of the horizontal clauses as a bulwark against the enlargement of Union and Community competencies—the competence creep.
I commend the clarity with which the various alternatives for the possible combinations of the charter, the ECHR and a Bill of Rights have been set out. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for further clarifying the matter in his excellent speech. I am, however, concerned by the Government's response to the recommendation at paragraph 163, page 39 of the report, in which they state that they are not in favour of individual right of access to the European Court of Justice, arguing that

1113
the issue of remedies for breaches of the ECHR is in their view dealt with adequately by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. I note that this matter is addressed in the Framework of Proceedings of the Discussion Circle, paragraph 2, and the Minister's comments on that will be welcome. The latest document that we have may also be relevant in that regard.
I now turn to the horizontal provisions which the committee has highlighted. As many noble Lords have said, these are the essential defence against "competence creep" on the part of the Union. I note from the Minister's reply under Q219 on page 46 of the report that the Government are addressing the matter. However, in paragraph 91 on page 26, the Committee is unequivocal in its view:
"In our opinion, however, it is, in principle, unsatisfactory that the rights of the individual should, in effect, be curtailed by the horizontal clauses. Such an approach scarcely serves the interests of transparency or makes those rights more visible to the citizen".
It goes on in the next paragraph to state:
"It is essential to ensure that the horizontal clauses are as clear and as unambiguous as possible".
The Government must not stand accused by their citizens of in effect saying, "Don't worry, these horizontal clauses are here for your protection but I am afraid they come at a cost in the form of curtailment of your rights and loss of transparency". I shall welcome the Minister's comments on progress in that field.
Perhaps I may finally turn to the remedies proposed by the committee. The committee effectively says that the charter must have real teeth so that the rights conferred can be given real substance. The Government's reply is that rights are already available under national law—though I have to say in passing that this is a reflection on the need for the charter—but
that it is for member states to agree what, if any, further remedies may be required at Union level, and these will emerge from the convention discussion circle. So much is riding on the outcome of their deliberations.
In the next recommendation covering paragraphs 146, 148 and 150 of the report, the committee states:
"No matter within the scope of the Charter and within EU competences should be outwith the jurisdiction of the ECJ",
and goes on to say that the court should have jurisdiction over the second and third pillars. Again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, made an eloquent case for that. But here the Government and the committee do not agree. I have to say that noble Lords on this side of the House are in agreement with the Government who state in their response that there is no ECJ jurisdiction in CSFP at present, nor should there be in the future. There are plenty of points on which we disagree with the Government as regards the charter and the wider constitution, but here the distinction between executive functions exercised at the international level and the legislative powers impacting on individuals is well made, and we support it.
1114
As I said, this is an excellent report. We have studied the Government's responses, and we look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister.
2.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and his committee for producing the report. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the erudite and succinct way in which he opened the debate. He gave a comprehensive exposition of the position in which we now find ourselves. However, it was a little unfair of the noble and learned Lord to say that we gave no reason for resisting the incorporation of the charter as it then was.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that it is important —as was said by the noble and learned Lord—for us not to have competence creep and that there should be clarity in relation to the way in which the horizontals are played.
In the relatively short time I have available in which to speak it may be for the convenience of the House if I focus my reply on the outcome of the convention regarding the charter and on Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter. As many noble Lords will know, I had the privilege and pleasure not only of appearing before the committee but also of representing Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations relating to the charter.
Before I do so, however, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that the charter is not such an esoteric matter as he fears. In today's issue of the Sun, reference is made to it on the front page—not with the accuracy that we would wish or the tone that we would desire, but there it is. I am reliably told that 4 million citizens each day delight in reading that newspaper. The subject is on the agenda now.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I want to set out the general policy. As regards the Government's policy on the charter, I confirm that there is and has been no change in our position. We have always welcomed the idea of a statement of rights and freedoms which should be respected by the Union's institutions. It is a matter of public record that we welcomed the charter in 2000 as a political declaration for that purpose. We made it clear then, as indeed I did throughout the convention, that we could not accept that the charter, in the form agreed at Nice, was drafted in a way suitable for incorporation into the treaties.
Our reasons were simple. They accord, if I may say so, with the findings of the distinguished committee whose report on the charter is the subject of the debate. Readability and legal precision are, alas, seldom natural bedfellows. It was clear from the exposition given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, why in this instance that was so. What is suitable for a

1115
political declaration is not always suitable for the law. Frankly, the charter lacked legal precision. If one looked only at the bare language of the charter articles, one would receive the impression that there was a wholly new catalogue of rights, going well beyond the agreed powers of the Union and competing with existing agreed rights. Like the noble Lord, Lord Neill, we could not accept that that was correct. I think that I heard a modicum of agreement in what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote.
There were two obvious alternative solutions to the problem. One could leave the charter as a political declaration, or one could amend the text of all the charter articles so as to bring about the necessary legal clarity. The overwhelming majority of our European partners, like the distinguished committee, take the view that the charter is an indispensable part of the new constitutional treaty. They also regard amendment of the charter articles as unacceptable and likely to do more harm than good. In short, both the obvious solutions to the problem that I described appeared to he unconscionable, or otherwise outwith the art of the politically possible.
I am glad to say, however, that it was possible to persuade our partners as to the merit of a somewhat more subtle approach, to wit to amend a part of the charter which does not contain statements of the rights. I am referring, of course, to the special rules about interpreting the charter which are to be found at the back of the charter in Title VII. I am pleased to say that our partners also proved amenable to work on the legal explanations concerning each charter article, as issued by the presidium to the original convention. I should add that, in the final outcome, I also found that our European partners were able to agree to elevate the legal status of those explanations, which have also been referred to by a n umber of noble Lords.
Virtually all noble Lords who have spoken said—it was mentioned last of all by the noble Viscount. Lord Bridgeman—that the explanations were extremely important so far as clarity was concerned. Making reference to them in the charter's introduction to Part 2 of the constitution is therefore a very important step indeed. The result is a charter which, on the surface, looks rather as it did at Nice in 2000, but which in fact forms part of a much more solid package. It is now much clearer. as a matter of law, that the charter in large part reflects existing rights in the ECHR and Community law. Where it does reflect them, it can mean no more than do those provisions. Where the charter goes beyond them, Title VII and the explanations help us determine how the courts are to treat charter provisions; for instance, as principles rather than rights, or in harmony with the common constitutional traditions of the member states.
Perhaps I may turn to the detail, because a number of noble Lords have indicated that that would be of interest to them. Substantial amendments have been made to Title VII of the charter, which is now entitled General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter. Those amendments perform several important functions.
1116
First, the changes to the wording of Article 51 further clarify that the charter does not extend the Union's powers and tasks. Then there are three substantive additions to Article 52. Article 52(4) requires rights resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the member states to be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me briefly to intervene. I received a document on 20th June—that is, today—which set out the text of Article 51. Would that have incorporated the amendments to which she refers or would it not?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it should have incorporated the amendments to which I refer. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the convention has not been entirely completed. There are a few days left to perfect and bring certain matters together. There was a little more technical detail still to be finalised.
As I said a few moments ago, Article 52(4) requires rights resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the member states to be interpreted in harmony with those traditions. That is an important addition, because existing treaties already allow the court to infer fundamental rights as general principles of Community law from the constitutional traditions common to the member states. That should be done in a way that shows proper respect for individual national traditions. "In harmony" is a helpful way of describing how that interpretation work should be done. We do not want the court to strike discordant notes in the sensitive area of national constitutional traditions.
Article 52(5) is perhaps an even more significant addition to the charter. It confirms that the charter contains principles as well as rights and it clarifies that such principles become significant for the courts only when Acts implementing the principles are interpreted or reviewed. That provision is especially relevant to the social and economic provisions in the charter, not of all of which are clearly based on agreed existing provisions in Community law. Where that is the case, Article 52(5) helps avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. It is important to distinguish in the charter between references to principles and references to enforceable rights.
I turn finally to Article 52(6). That relates to the various references in the charter to national law and practices. It requires the court to have proper regard to such references—and quite right, too.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, made many references to the way in which the explanations further define the articles. If I may respectfully say, they are also an important addition. Very significant changes have also been made to the contents and status of the technical explanations, which address the legal basis for the charter's provisions. The explanations are now to be in the draft constitution as requiring the attention of the courts. They were formerly presented as having no legal value. They have

1117
been enriched in the light of the amendments made to Title VII. The United Kingdom and others were consulted about these changes, and we have suggested several further improvements. I expect the final version of the technical explanations to be issued at the end of next week, once the praesidium of the convention has approved them.
Noble Lords would not expect any lawyer, let alone me, to agree to anything without reading the fine print first. The fine print on the charter is not yet fully available. However, there is some cause for cautious optimism. I am encouraged by the changes already made to the explanations. For example, I liked the reference to the leading case of Annibaldi as regards interpretation of the phrase in Article 51 about implementing Europe Union law. I am also attracted to the various clarifications of individual articles; for instance, what is said about Article 21. That is a big step in the right direction, and that article was properly alighted upon in the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote.
The Government will reach a final decision about the incorporation of the charter in the context of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. In the form in which we have got it, it may be seen much more clearly as a limitation on the powers of the EU institutions; member states would he affected only when they are implementing Union law as set out in the rest of the constitution. The charter should be welcomed as an important means of making sure that our traditional rights and liberties are respected whenever the Union acts under the powers member states have given to it. However, our work is not done yet. Before Her Majesty's Government are in a position to take a definitive view, that work must be completed.
I turn now to specific issues that were raised in relation to the sub-committee's work. To the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I say straight away that we have no intention of overlooking the work of Sub-Committee E. On the contrary, I hope that it will give noble Lords a great deal of pleasure to know of the high esteem in which the committee's work is held by the authorities, both here and in Brussels. The report we are debating today was made available to every member of the convention, and was referred to on several occasions by distinguished interlocutors there during the debate.
The timing of this debate has enabled the House to have the final proposals regarding the charter, and thus for your Lordships' views to influence what happens in relation to Her Majesty's Government's position in the forthcoming IGC. I make particular reference to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who was one of the representatives of the House in the convention, because it was he who, seeing the great value of the content and erudition of the report, thought it incumbent upon him to ensure that every member of the convention had the advantage of it, and formally submitted it into the evidence produced for the convention's consideration. Your Lordships certainly have not worked in vain.
1118
I turn now to the remaining two matters; first, to EU accession in relation to the ECHR. As our response to the sixth report of the committee indicates, we have no great objections in principle to the EU joining the ECHR, but it must be done in a way that does not prejudice national positions. Our reasons are these and they are more than mere technical points. They are concerned with the impact that accession may have on EC/EU competence as regards the position of individual member states concerning the protocols, reservations and ability to derogate.
Although I can see some possible way forward on the issue of competence, I am not clear about the answer on national positions. At this stage, we do not know precisely how the relationship between the ECHR and the ECJ would work in the event of accession.
The noble and learned Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to Article 230(4) and specifically to the implications of the charter for judicial remedies. That matter was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Future provisions regarding the European Court of Justice are set out in Part 3 of the constitution. This part is due to be debated by the convention soon. A small and narrowly focused amendment to what was TEC Article 230(4) is proposed, under which a lacuna in the current system is closed.
The effect of this is a very limited extension of the rule in individual access. It now states:
"Any natural or legal person may, under the same condition, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to him, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to him without entailing implementing measures".
That retains the text of direct and individual concerns, but allows the individual to attack measures which do not involve implementation as such. And this is the legal lacuna in the current standing rules. Personally, I am not convinced that we need this, but I am listening to the arguments in my usual way.
I know that some would have liked to see more than this limited extension, but we must not forget that national judges are also judges of Union law and that the whole system relies on the principle of subsidiarity. It would be wrong to think in terms of replicating a complete national system at Union level, and we genuinely believe that justice should be kept as local as possible.
We think we have come a long way from the position we were in when the charter was a political document and there may be a little further to go. But the IGC will enable us to complete the journey.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, on my own behalf as well as on that of the sub-committee I had the honour to chair, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. The comments have been extremely pertinent and will be of assistance to us in the further scrutiny exercises that we shall undoubtedly have to carry out in regard to revised drafts that come forward. I am most grateful.

1119
I would like to pick up one or two points made by the Minister. As regards the proposed amendment to Article 230(4), when I addressed your Lordships earlier I expressed my difficulty in understanding what was meant by the words used in the addition, but the Minister has given no assistance on that point. I am not pressing her to rise and give it now because one would need to sit down with a towel around one's head in order to understand it. However, I would be grateful if she could consider the point and perhaps write a letter saying what she or the Government believe it means. Until we know what it is intended to do, we cannot react to it as a scrutiny committee.
The Minister said that the explanations that accompany the articles of the charter will find their way into the constitution. I know that there is the reference to the explanations in the preamble, but I do not know whether they will be referred to elsewhere or whether that is what she meant by saying that the explanations would find their way into the constitution. They should have as clear a status as their importance in the interpretation of the articles deserves. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have the debate. I thank the noble Baroness for the assistance that she has given.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2003
2.50 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committed].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2003, and, with the leave of the House, to speak to the three other orders which relate to these issues.
Before I turn to the orders themselves, it might be helpful if I set them out in context. The Government have already legislated to give the Financial Services Authority responsibility for mortgage lending and administration through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, which was laid before Parliament on 27th February 2001. That followed a wide-ranging consultation in the second half of 1999 and a further consultation in October 2000. Those provisions were due to be brought into force in September 2002.
However, the Banking Services Consumer Codes Review Group recommended that mortgage advisers and intermediaries should be regulated as well as lenders and administrators. In addition, the Government received representations from the industry and consumer groups calling for regulation of mortgage advice and advisers.
In parallel, it became clear that the Insurance Mediation Directive—the European Parliament and Council directive—was likely to be adopted before
1120
mortgage regulation came into force. That directive lays down rules in respect of insurance mediation, including that insurance intermediaries should be registered with a competent authority and comply with certain professional requirements. Most mortgage brokers also sell insurance and they would therefore have needed to be regulated by the FSA in any case.
In view of that, the Government announced in December 2001 that mortgage advisers and intermediaries would be regulated by the FSA. In addition, and in order to maintain a consistent and streamlined approach, the sale of general insurance products would also be regulated by the FSA. Brokers who deal in two or more lines of regulated business will deal with a single regulator, not several, and will be able to compete in European markets.
Since then, the Government and the FSA have worked closely with industry and others to design a regime that understands the market and is targeted precisely at maximising benefits to the consumer, and not loading industry and ultimately the consumer with unnecessary costs.
The purpose of these orders is to bring mortgage advisers and intermediaries and the sale of general insurance mediation within FSA regulation.
It might be helpful if I explain a little about decisions the Government have made following consultation on the Insurance Mediation Directive, which I know has been the basis for some critical comment. The Government's proposals to regulate various activities relating to the sale and administration of general insurance were published in a consultation document in October 2002. The Government received around 400 or so responses.
The directive requires the regulation of insurance mediation activities in relation to all contracts of insurance. However, insurance sold as part of a package, including travel insurance sold with a holiday, and some extended warranties that are contracts of insurance are exempt from the directive. Following extensive consultation, the Government decided not to regulate travel insurance sold with a holiday. That is because the consultation provided insufficient evidence of consumer detriment to warrant the extra costs of regulation, particularly for small independent travel agents.
However, the Government recognise that there are concerns about this market. For example, we have received evidence of some mis-selling from the Consumers' Association. The Government have therefore decided to hold a review of this decision two years after implementation of general insurance regulation in early 2007.
The directive requires the UK to regulate extended warranties, which are contracts of insurance costing more than 500 euros, or which are sold separately from the car, whatever the price. However, those costing less than 500 euros per annum are excluded from the scope of the directive when sold at the same time as the car. Some motor warranties cost more than 500 euros per annum and so will fall within the scope of the directive.

1121
The Government have decided that all motor warranties that are contracts of insurance—whatever their value—should be regulated by the FSA. That is to ensure a level regulatory playing field and to stop retailers manipulating more expensive warranties to make them appear cheaper simply to avoid regulation—for example, by increasing the price of the car or reducing the cover provided. Most respondents agreed with that proposal.
The Government have decided to await the outcome of a Competition Commission inquiry into non-motor extended warranties on domestic electrical appliances before taking a decision on whether non-motor extended warranties that are contracts of insurance should be regulated.
Except in those two areas, those who carry on insurance mediation activities will be caught by the FSMA regime. For many intermediaries, that will mean that they will require authorisation from the FSA. However, the appointed representatives regime will apply to insurance mediation. That will allow representatives of FSA authorised persons to carry out regulated activities without themselves being authorised, provided that the authorised person has accepted responsibility for their conduct.
Following representations during consultation, that regime will be extended in relation to general insurance contracts. As well as being able to arrange and advise on contracts of general insurance, appointed representatives will also be able to conclude contracts of general insurance as agents. They will also be able to assist in the administration and performance of contracts of general insurance. Those changes reflect market practice and should make it easier for firms and individuals to become appointed representatives, if they and their principals so wish.
I turn to the orders themselves. I apologise for the length of my speech, but these four orders are important and, by grouping them together, I have a substantial case to make and. no doubt, some significant questions to answer. The purpose of this package of legislation is to expand the range of activities for which authorisation is required from the Financial Services Authority to include the mediation of certain mortgage contracts and of all contracts of insurance. "Mediation" in this context means making arrangements for a sale, advising on a sale or potential sale or—in relation to insurance only—entering into a contract of insurance as agent for another person or assisting in the administration and performance of such a contract.
These statutory instruments are also intended to implement the directive on insurance mediation. I should also mention that the Government have laid two negative resolution orders before Parliament: the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Misleading Statements and Practices) (Amendment) Order 2003 and the Insurance Mediation Directive (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003.
1122
I now turn to the specific orders. The first brings into the scope of the financial promotion regime promotions relating to the activities of arranging and advising on the provision of regulated mortgage contracts. The financial promotion regime restricts the communication of an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity.
Entering into an agreement the making or performance of which by either party constitutes a controlled activity amounts to engaging in investment activity for those purposes. The controlled activities to which the financial promotions regime applies are specified in the financial promotions order. Such communications must be made or approved by a person who is authorised under the FSMA. In addition, the Treasury may under the order specify circumstances in which the financial promotion restrictions do not apply.
Promotions by authorised persons are not subject to the financial promotion restriction but instead are governed by FSA rules. However, the FSA cannot impose on authorised persons restrictions that are greater than those imposed on unauthorised persons. The order will come into force in October 2004.
The Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2003 extends certain exemptions in FSMA so that they apply to the newly regulated activities in relation to insurance mediation and mortgages. The order also provides that Partnerships UK is exempt in relation to the carrying on of regulated activities relating to investment services. Finally, the order removes the exemption of the Treasury task force.
The order extends the exemptions of local authorities and certain bodies involved with the provision of social housing to include the carrying on of regulated activities relating to the arranging of, and advice in relation to, regulated mortgage contracts and activities relating to certain insurance contracts. The order comes into force on 31st October 2004 for mortgages, and 14th January 2005 for insurance mediation.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.1) Order 2003 gives the FSA responsibility for regulating the activities of arranging regulated mortgage contracts and advising on regulated mortgage contracts. It also makes various amendments to legislation made under the Financial Services and Markets Act relating to mortgages. Firms will need to be authorised or exempted in order to carry out the activities of advising or arranging regulated mortgages contracts. The order also makes consequential and necessary amendments to the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) to ensure that there is no dual regulation for the same activity.
A regulated mortgage contract is defined as a mortgage secured by a first legal charge on UK residential accommodation to be occupied by the borrower or their immediate family. Second and subsequent legal charges on property remain covered by the CCA. If approved, the substantive provisions of this order will come into force on 31st October 2004.

1123
It might be convenient to mention that, as many noble Lords will know, lifetime mortgage—mortgage-based equity release schemes—will fall within the scope of FSA regulation when the FSA takes on responsibility for regulating mortgages in October 2004. However, under current legislation, another type of equity release scheme, home reversion plans, cannot be brought into FSA regulation, as those are sale and purchase arrangements rather than financial services products. They fall outside the definition of a regulated mortgage.
However, the Government have had informal discussions with stakeholders on the regulation of home reversion plans, but they provided no evidence of consumer detriment at present in this market. However, there are widespread concerns about the potential for consumer detriment in the future. The Government announced on 5th June that there is a need for a more in-depth analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation and that there will be consultation in the autumn. I seek to emphasise that the Government have an open mind about this part of the market.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2003 gives the FSA responsibility for regulating various activities relating to the sale and administration of general insurance products, whether carried on by intermediaries or insurers.
Part 2 of the order adapts the exclusions that already exist in the regulated activities order to ensure that they are compatible with the directive. In addition, the order creates new free-standing exclusions from the insurance mediation activities where permitted by the directive. For example, the order excludes from regulation travel insurance sold as part of a holiday package, implementing the equivalent exclusion in the directive. Article 11 excludes from regulation the provision of information in the course of carrying on a profession of business that does not consist of regulated activities. This order will also come into force on 3Ist October 2004.
The Government believe that regulation will provide major benefits to UK consumers in two large and important markets. Each year, UK consumers spend £26.4 billion on general insurance premiums and take out mortgage loans worth £219 billion. Consumer protection in those markets will be increased with regulation providing safeguards to consumers and introducing minimum standards of advice. Intermediaries selling a range of financial services products will have to deal with one regulator only—the FSA—rather than the current complex mix of statutory and self-regulatory arrangements. The Government and the FSA have been working closely with the industry and others to design a regime that understands the market and is targeted precisely at maximising benefits to consumers and not at loading industry and ultimately the consumer with unnecessary costs.
I am aware that the orders are not without some criticism and that there is an element of controversy to them. The Government's view, however. is that in this
1124
area, the case for regulation has been made. It should be recognised that the Government are approaching the matter as part of a coherent pattern, which ensures that there is reference to one regulator across the field. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a full explanation of the arguments behind the orders. We could have saved him from having to make some of his speech. because he will recollect that when the Financial Services and Markets Bill was passing through the House the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, from the Conservative Front Bench, and I argued strongly that the regulation of the provision of mortgage advice and services should have been included in the Bill. I am very pleased to see that three years on the Government have finally agreed with us.
In general, we on these Benches support the orders. However, as the Minister indicated, we have some reservations about them, and in particular with the very difficult issue of equity release reversion schemes. I understand that they do not qualify as mortgages within the meaning of the law and therefore cannot be covered. It surely is within the wit of the Treasury and its draftsmen to come up with some regulations in that regard. The Treasury's press release on the matter states:
"The home reversion market is estimated to currently be worth over £250 million a year and is growing rapidly. The target market tends to be"—
I stress that these are the Treasury's own words —
"elderly, and sometimes vulnerable, people who have paid off their mortgage".
It may well be that informal discussions with stakeholders show no signs of mis-selling, but I wonder how long before the pensions mis-selling crisis or the split capital trust mis-selling crisis we could have said the same thing.
To us on these Benches, it is simply not acceptable that the sale of what I will call quasi-mortgage products is not regulated when similar products just across what I may call the smart lawyer definition divide are regulated. Yet again, it will be the most vulnerable members of our society who are threatened as a result of the Government's lack of foresight. There is scope for a mis-selling crisis. Regulation should be about preventing mis-selling, not waiting until we have evidence that it is going on and then doing something about it. The Government should know that. On the back of pensions and the split capital crisis, it is essential that the loophole is closed rapidly.
My second reservation about the orders, as the Minister forecast, relates to travel insurance. As the Minister rightly said, travel insurance sold as part of a package will not be regulated. As I understand it, the situation will be reviewed in 2007. The ABI, the Consumers' Association and the General Insurance Standards Council oppose this. Their strong view,

1125
which we share, is that it should be included, to ensure consistent regulation and, in particular, consumer protection. The ABI has said that 60 per cent of travel insurance is sold through travel agents or tour operators. That begs the question: why bother, if we are going to regulate only 40 per cent of the market? If that 40 per cent is worth regulating, the other 60 per cent is.
Twelve million travellers a year purchase travel insurance. Some £300 million is spent on that insurance. I draw to the Minister's attention the Which? report published in April 2003, which said that every independent travel agent whom they visited was mis-selling insurance cover. I support the Consumers' Association position. It says:
"Under the regime, brokers and insurers who sell travel insurance direct to consumers will be regulated … their customers will have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is not clear to what extent customers who buy their travel insurance as part of a package will be protected at all. While the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) does have a code of practice not all travel agents are ABTA members".
How do consumers seek rectification of complaints about the way in which their insurance was sold? They have no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Government should think again on that.
With those two significant reservations, we support the orders.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as this is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on his promotion and his new responsibilities and wish him well in the future. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, I welcome him to the debate on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Minister will understand that there is a long history here, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has already referred. On the back of many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, I must say that it is a matter of regret on these Benches that the House is being asked to approve the orders. They contain legislation that is, to a substantial extent, unnecessary.
We are faced with a solution looking for a problem. For more than a decade, this Government and the previous administration resisted attempts in Brussels to adopt an insurance mediation directive. The reason, apart from the particular concerns that we are expressing this afternoon, is that there are no consumer protection concerns needing to be addressed. The measures will represent poor value for money for consumers, as they will pay the ultimate cost of implementation through higher insurance costs and reduced choice.
The official reason for the directive is that it will reinforce the single European market. In this case, sadly, cross-border traffic has never been great, although we need to redouble our efforts to secure a fairer market for UK-based companies. Also, there is no sign that legitimate demand has been frustrated by differing regulatory standards in member states.
1126
Putting it simply, general insurance broking has not been regulated by statute until now; it is a pity that it could not substantially remain so.
Given the directive, however, I join the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in saying that it is doubly unfortunate that the Government should have chosen to make matters worse by implementing the directive in respect of travel insurance in an unfortunate way. This will be regulated now when it is sold as a stand-alone product by an insurer direct to consumers or through an insurance broker. But when it is sold as part of a holiday package, it is to be excused regulation.
It would be simple to argue that since the entire directive is unnecessary—I realise that I am saying that from these Benches only—the less its reach, the better. But by treating travel insurance in this differential manner, the Government surely have their priorities the wrong way around. Packaging products so that the buyer does not exercise choice is a prime cause of consumer detriment in many sectors and is surely well known to the authorities. By contrast, consumers buying travel insurance direct, either from insurers or insurance brokers, are more likely to acquire their insurance as part of a transparent process and often as a result of shopping around. Better value for money can often be achieved by this route. So I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I shall come back to that issue in a moment.
I also reiterate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, given the very strong representations made by a substantial lobby headed by the Consumers' Association, the British Insurance Brokers Association and the Association of British Insurers. Like the noble Lord, I quote from a letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury from all three bodies stating, quite simply, that the statutory regime which the Government are proposing,
"will act to the detriment of consumers".
The Minister sought to deflect some of the criticism by saying, "Well, we know we may have got it wrong"—I, of course paraphrase—"But don't worry because we shall look at it in 2007". That may reassure the Minister but it does not reassure us.
Why is it a matter for reaching a different decision now? The bodies that are putting forward these views have consistently argued that all travel insurance, if we are to move down this road, should be included in the statutory regime. If it is not, an unlevel playing field will be automatically created for the providers; confusion will be caused to the consumers; and consumers will be denied proper protection. It is as simple as that. Insurance brokers and insurers will have to bear the costs of FSA regulation. Travel agents will not.
Surely, therefore, this would tilt the competitive playing field even more in favour of travel agents. Over time, it would surely lead to more travel insurance being sold without the backing of FSA regulation. That would be a perverse outcome. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that all travel insurance is not included in the FSA regime because there was no evidence of systematic mis-selling of travel insurance

1127
sold as part of the package presented during the consultation process. As the noble Lord has already pointed out, and as I think the Minister conceded in a comment when he said, "Well, there may be some evidence", the Consumers' Association and Which? magazine presented evidence during the consultation which indicated that out of 28 travel agents surveyed, only one checked for pre-existing medical conditions, as well as explaining what the policy did and did not cover.
In 1996. Which? magazine contacted 35 sellers of travel insurance, including travel agents and direct sellers, and found that only three explained details of the cover and only two mentioned any exclusions. A 1999 survey of Which? members revealed that consumers are twice as likely to be very dissatisfied if they have to make a claim on insurance bought through travel companies and tour operators than when buying from banks and building societies and other specialist advisers. So what is the evidence to which the Minister referred when he stated that there is insufficient evidence of detriment to consumers? It would he helpful if he could indicate the evidence that he has which balances or outweighs the evidence put forward so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and myself.
I have a number of other points to make, although I want to keep my remarks reasonably brief. A further anomaly in the outcome of the consultation process is that, while those to whom I have already referred want to see a level playing field, that is not a requirement of the directive. Therefore, direct insurers will be covered by regulation alone. But I am not sure whether the Treasury carried out a cost-benefit analysis before reaching that decision. Although the Minister did not use that argument, I understand that it is a point from Her Majesty's Treasury that the justification for not regulating travel insurance sold as part of a package lies on cost-benefit grounds. However, if the Treasury took the decision not to regulate the direct selling of any insurance products not required under the directive without any form of cost-benefit analysis, how can it justify that inconsistency? It would be helpful to know which cost-benefit analyses were carried out and what were the results.
Several other points which need to be raised have already been referred to by the noble, Lord Sharman. The Minister referred to the deferral of the decision on whether to regulate extended warranty products on domestic appliances. I understand that the decision is to be deferred until we have the results of the inquiry into the market being undertaken by the Competition Commission. However, that is disappointing and I trust that the conclusions of the Competition Commission will be available for further consideration of this issue as soon as possible.
I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision on travel insurance. They have spoken previously about a consistent and streamlined
1128
approach. Can we have that on the matter of travel insurance, and will the Government please think again?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their participation in this brief debate and for their kind welcome to what feels at the moment like a baptism of fire. In the past, I have been responsible for one or two orders that have not been quite as controversial and subject to challenge as those now before us. I am also mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to as a history of participation in these issues. It is a long record of real achievement on the part of the two Opposition spokespersons, while I come as an ingénue to the debates. However, I shall do my best to respond to the particular points that have been raised.
I turn, first, to the issue which has been presented most forcefully and on which the greatest anxieties were expressed; that of travel insurance. I had hoped to deflect those concerns in my opening remarks, but it appears that I met with a conspicuous lack of success. Now I must address them in rather more precise terms.
I do not consider the question of cost-benefit analyses in quite the terms expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is the case that something like 18 to 20 million travel insurance policies are sold each year. For the year ending April 2002, some 884 complaints were received. Of course, any complaint may be a pointer towards abuse and certainly suggests mishap, enormous inconvenience and detriment to the consumer involved. However, that figure indicates the measure of the issue and it will be recognised that, under the present statutory provisions, it is not possible to bring this tidily under the remit of the Financial Services Authority. Therefore there is good reason for further consideration of the issue. Once again representations made elsewhere have been presented with considerable force in the House and I respect those contributions.
As to the issue of regulation generally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is uncharacteristically pessimistic about British potential and British achievements in stressing that regulation and complying with the European directive ought not to be a high priority in an area where the industry has had limited impact across frontiers in the past. That is certainly so, but we all recognise the speed at which we are moving into a new age. Modern technology facilitates transfers and arrangements in a much more felicitous way than in the past and there ought to be legislative provision to guarantee that those who sell insurance in Britain are in a fully competitive position across Europe.
We all know that this is a part of the drive towards the single market. It is one area where, because of its unique features, the industry lags a long way behind other industries. It is surely right that we should set in place a system of regulation which encourages our

1129
industry to expand its range. There is no doubt that guaranteed regulation which fits within the European directive is a step towards ensuring that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I know that I am looking back, but my point is that we had in this country a system of self-regulation, particularly through the General Insurance Standards Council, which was envied throughout the rest of Europe. It is very sad that we are now moving towards statutory regulation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and I recognise the value of the previous system of regulation. Although much admired, that does not mean to say that it meets the requirements of the new European single market. The new regulations clearly do.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said about the home reversion market. He is right; it is a growing market and there is a substantial amount of money involved. He is also right to point out that it affects the more vulnerable members of the community rather than conventional consumers because they tend to be elderly and, therefore, potentially more vulnerable.
He made the straightforward point that if we had total regulation against any conceivable ill, we would all be safer—but we would be paying a considerable price. The Government's case must be sustained. We recognise that it is a growing market on which we need to keep a close eye. There is a potential for abuse although we have not got evidence of widespread difficulties at the present time. I earlier gave an assurance that we intend to review the position and implement regulation if that unhappily proves to be necessary. I am conscious that, as ever with these issues, a measure of judgment is involved.
Another aspect of the cost benefit analysis is that it recognises that the travel industry has fallen on difficult times in the past couple of years. It goes without saying that there has been an enormous drop in the American market and that there are other difficulties.
Smaller travel agents seem to work on very tight margins indeed. A recent survey carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers indicates that they are operating on about 1.15 per cent of turnover. Therefore, additional costs of insurance, with regulation, would trim very tight profit margins. It is one of those industries which ranges from very substantial companies to a large number of small companies operating on very tight margins.
1130
It is a question of striking a balance between the inevitable and proper protection that the consumer merits and ensuring that the industry is able to pursue its objectives and provide the service that it does.
I understand the points that have been made and recognise that the debate will continue, particularly in relation to the home reversion schemes. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2003
3.31 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 1) Order 2003
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2003
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before four o'clock.

  Criminal Justice Bill: Law Commission Recommendations
  Criminal Justice Bill: Law Commission Recommendations
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Renewable Energy Sources
  EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, 2 and 3 June
  EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, 2 and 3 June
  London Wholesale Markets Review: Government Response
  London Wholesale Markets Review: Government Response