Sitting of 5 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 12 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Housing Licences
    Dr. Brian Iddon: When he plans to bring forward legislation to license (a) rogue landlords and (b) houses in multiple occupation. [100648]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): As announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government intend to publish a draft housing Bill this Session. The Bill will, among other measures, include powers for local authorities to license landlords in areas of low demand and introduce the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Following consultation on and pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Government intend that it should be introduced to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Dr. Iddon: That, of course, is good news, but what help can my hon. Friend give local authorities such as Bolton metropolitan borough council, the regeneration schemes of which are often blocked by non-compliant landlords, whose houses in multiple occupation attract prostitutes and their associated drug dealers?
    Mr. McNulty: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns. We have made it clear that, before the housing Bill is introduced, we will introduce pilot projects from June 2003 to help local authorities tackle the problems as effectively as possible, using the portfolio of existing powers under legislation. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is
    800
    engaged in serious negotiations with Bolton metropolitan borough council to ensure that it is one of the five pilots.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister have to make a declaration under the ministerial code of conduct if such a Bill is introduced?
    Mr. McNulty: As ever, the hon. Gentleman continues to bore the House, and the answer is no.
    Ms Joan Walley: We have exactly the same problems in Stoke-on-Trent. This legislation cannot come quickly enough, as we have neighbourhoods that are being blighted by the activities of absentee landlords. Will my hon. Friend look favourably on a pilot project in Stoke-on-Trent, so that we can take action in advance of the legislation?
    Mr. McNulty: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome of the housing Bill. We have spoken before about the difficulties in Burslem and Stoke, and I will happily carry on talking to her specifically about how regeneration, housing and low demand fit together across a range of projects.

    Housing (South Swindon)
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to ensure that there is adequate affordable housing in South Swindon. [100650]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The Government have provided £6.5 million via the Housing Corporation for an accelerated housing development programme in Swindon that has delivered some 650 affordable homes since 1999, including a 46-unit scheme for key workers, Isambard House. Clearly, there is a lot more to do, which is what our statement on sustainability, recently made to the House, is designed to achieve.
    Ms Drown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. A serious need exists for more affordable housing in Swindon, yet developers object even to providing the Government's minimum—that 30 per cent. of homes must be affordable—and say that it is an unjustified and onerous demand and contrary to Government circular 6/98. A fear also exists that asking for more than 30 per cent. will put off developers from making any proposal. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we should listen to people on housing waiting lists, and not to developers making spurious objections? Given that places such as London and Oxford are going for 50 per cent. affordable homes—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I sympathise with a number of my hon. Friend's points. There is a clear need for more affordable homes, but unfortunately it was not achieved in the recent planning for housing in her area. She will well appreciate, however, that the private and the public sectors negotiate the proportion of social housing or affordable homes within a planned

    801
    development: it is not set at 30 per cent. The Mayor of London has suggested 50 per cent. or 30 per cent., and we are discussing how we might maximise the proportion of affordable homes.
    David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister has in the past stated his belief that shortages of low-cost social housing are caused by the actions of property companies abusing the right-to-buy scheme. As a result, he has proposed to cut discounts available to council tenants throughout the south of England. That does not yet include Swindon—it has a local election in May, which I am sure is not relevant—but, undoubtedly, if housing pressure continues, it will do so. Will he explain how this discount reduction will stop right-to-buy abuses in property companies?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Our study of abuses of the right to buy identified 42 areas in which we wish to apply the reduction in the discount. In those areas, particularly one or two in London, the huge discount attracted a number of people to offer to buy with the local authorities or to buy on behalf of the tenant, with the local authority, to take advantage of selling at a higher price later. That is what we have discovered in our surveys, and that is why we have reduced the discount.
    David Davis: Interestingly, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to a study because, before he began his latest attack on the right to buy, the Government commissioned a report from Heriot-Watt university on the supposed abuses of the policy. The report was supposed to be published in January, but it has not yet been formally released. We now know why. It shows that council tenants use property companies because they cannot get a mortgage on their house or flat. It should be obvious to anyone with even limited financial acumen that, for poor families, the lower the discount, the harder it is to get a mortgage. Therefore, the effect of cutting the maximum discount first from £50,000 to £38,000 and now to £16,000 will be to drive many poor people into the arms of property companies—the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman says he intends. Will he now reconsider this policy, which will not make available any more houses and will harm the interests of all council tenants and the least well off in our society?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not aware that that is a problem in Swindon, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in the 42 areas that we have identified and in respect of which we will lay an order tomorrow, more people have applied to take advantage of the schemes that I have proposed for reducing the discounts.
    I must apologise. I thought that the Heriot-Watt report had been published, but I am now advised that it will come out tomorrow with the statutory instrument.

    Regional Government
    Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on regional government in the southwest. [100651]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March from the south-west and the other English regions outside London on the level of interest in holding a referendum for an elected regional assembly. We are now evaluating the responses.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The south-west area multi-modal study—the SWARMMS report—is now slopping around in the south-west, but it is doing nothing for my constituency or for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). An unelected, unaccountable regional assembly is administering it. When will the Deputy Prime Minister take the report back under control, so that it will bring benefits to the south-west?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the regional assemblies have been quite successful.[Laughter.] I take as one indication of that the active participation of Tory councillors on the assemblies. In fact, more than 160 Tory councillors sit on the boards. They think that they are doing a good job, and we will retain them. No doubt the referendum will provide people with a good opportunity to state whether they want to go further and have a regional referendum. The indications are that well over 60 per cent. of people in the south-west want to have a referendum.
    Jim Knight: I am keen to make the regional assembly for the south-west accountable through the introduction of an elected regional assembly, but there is some concern in the region, which is fuelled by the Conservative party, that that may spell the end of the shire counties. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are neutral about whether county councils could form the basis of unitary authorities following the introduction of regional government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we do not want three layers of administration. If people in a region choose to have a referendum, they will decide in that referendum whether they want regional government. Before they make that decision, they will receive an indication on what type of local government structure will apply. The local government body will consider the matter and recommend whether and how the unitary authority system will operate alongside regional government. If people vote for that, clearly the county council structure, as we know it, will change.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: In the event of the eminently sensible people of the south-west wishing to have nothing to do with an elected regional assembly, will the Deputy Prime Minister enact a framework by which we can get rid of the unelected regional assembly and return the money that it spends to the taxpayers of the south-west?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much conversation in the Chamber, which is unfair.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the people of a region choose to have a referendum and then reject the idea of regional government, it is clear that the concept will not

    803
    apply. It will be a decision for people in the region. On the question of whether the assembly that is in place at present would remain, it is my judgment that it should, along with the regional development agency. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not ask for the abolition of the regional development agency.

    High-performing Councils
    Linda Perham: What additional freedoms and flexibilities he plans to make available to high-performing councils. [100652]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Last November, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published detailed proposals for extending freedoms and flexibilities to local government in the context of the comprehensive performance assessment. Those authorities categorised as excellent will enjoy substantially less ring-fencing, a dramatic reduction in obligations to produce plans, a three-year inspection holiday and participation in the innovations forum, which will explore new ways of delivering better public services.
    Linda Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Sadly, my Tory-run local authority, the London borough of Redbridge, will be unable to take advantage of those freedoms and flexibilities because it has been criticised by the Audit Commission for patchy achievement against five budget priorities. What action will he take to ensure that councils that have had their weaknesses identified and are setting a very high council tax despite receiving above-inflation Government grant receive clear advice and support so that there is better financial management of their budgets in future?
    Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that the purpose of the comprehensive performance assessment is to encourage improvement in the performance of local authorities. We have put arrangements in place to assist authorities with capacity building and a series of other measures that are designed to tackle weaknesses. I am sure that her authority will benefit from that in the same way as other authorities that have had disappointing results from the comprehensive performance assessment.
    Mr. James Clappison: Is the Minister aware that Hertfordshire county council received the highest score on comprehensive performance from the Audit Commission under the exercise carried out at the behest of his Department, yet it received the lowest increase in grant of any county council? Council tax payers in Hertfordshire face an increase of 18 per cent. as a result of the Government's scandalous treatment of the south-east. Does that not show that, whether it is local government services or university admissions, this Government punish excellence in the name of cack-handed socialism?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman can say that with a straight face, because he was a Minister in the Department in the last years of the Conservative Government. During that period, grants to local government were cut by 7 per cent. in real terms.
    804
    That was his record. Hertfordshire county council has received an increase of 3.9 per cent. from this Government. That is Labour putting money in, whereas the Tories threaten cuts.
    Geraint Davies: Do the flexibilities that my right hon. Friend is considering include discretion over passporting of expenditure and the ability of councils to borrow, as with the new ideas for foundation hospitals?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend's authority, which had a good assessment in the comprehensive performance process, can expect to benefit from significant freedoms. I am pleased that its discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills have produced an amicable and satisfactory outcome. I am sure that the authority will want to continue to drive forward the excellent services that it has prided itself on delivering in Croydon.
    Mr. Edward Davey: New freedoms are welcome, but does the Minister realise that by threatening to cap councils the Government have egg on their face yet again, because in opposition they opposed Conservative capping? Are the record council tax rises the fault of this Government, with their control-freak approach to local authorities, whereby Ministers ring-fence much of the grant money? Rather than capping, would it not be much fairer to put a small income tax rise on the very wealthy and cut council tax bills by £100?
    Mr. Raynsford: We have ended the crude and universal capping that the previous Government adopted. Would the hon. Gentleman ignore entirely a 55 per cent. council tax increase by an authority that cut its council tax by 25 per cent. in an election year? Would he do nothing about that? The Government believe that it is right to take a responsible approach to council tax. We are giving extra freedoms and flexibilities to local government, but we also believe it is right that local government be prudent and responsible. Some of the authorities controlled by the Liberal Democrats and certainly by the Conservatives have taken a less than responsible view of council tax setting this year.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although Burnley council would always want greater freedom and flexibility to tackle the problems that it faces, the No. 1 thing that it needs is more finance and resources to get on top of those many problems?
    Mr. Raynsford: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of resources, which is why I am sure that he will welcome the Government's decision to allocate an increase of 12.6 per cent. to Burnley council, which faces difficulties and is benefiting hugely from the Government's grant distribution system.
    Mr. Mark Field: Will the Minister give an assurance that those councils that were deemed excellent in the recent review will be exempt from any proposed capping?
    Mr. Raynsford: We have already made it clear that we do not intend to cap authorities that have an excellent or good rating under the comprehensive performance assessment. However, it is incumbent on authorities that aspire to be good and excellent to be responsible in the organisation of their financial affairs. I am sure that the Audit Commission will want to keep a close watch on all authorities, including those that are good and excellent, to ensure that there are sound budgeting standards and that the temptation to manipulate the council tax for political purposes does not get the better of some authorities' judgment.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at the record of the high-performing councils, which in the past 10 years have had some of the lowest increases in council tax? This year, their increases are among the highest: the only thing that has changed is the grant formula. When that was announced in December, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a generous settlement and there was no need for council tax to rise. He accused me of scaremongering for suggesting that band D council tax would be £1,000 for the first time, and that there would be double-digit inflation. Given that we were looking at the same figures, why was I right and he hopelessly wrong?
    Mr. Raynsford: The people who are hopelessly wrong are the hon. Gentleman's own local authority, which has just admitted that it made an error and managed to double count £3.7 million. He would do better to talk to Essex county council about getting its figures right instead of lecturing us.

    Low-cost Housing
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the provision of low-cost housing in (a) the south-east and (b) the midlands. [100653]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): All regions, including the south-east and the midlands, will benefit from the increased funding for affordable housing announced in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister presented to the House on 5 February.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that it is important to minimise exhaust fumes and other forms of pollution? What percentage of low-cost housing will be built within half a mile of available work rather than on green fields?
    Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the purpose of the communities plan and sustainable housing is to incorporate the growth in jobs. We are looking at areas of high demand and are making sure that we have plans for the future. Let me tell the hon.
    806
    Gentleman that I was delighted to announce the communities plan in the south-east with the Conservative leader of Ashford council.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the enormous benefit of the Pathfinder project to areas in the midlands such as Stoke-on-Trent, where it provides more low-cost housing, regenerates housing stock and brings a sense of development to the housing market in north Staffordshire?
    Mrs. Roche: I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. It is essential that we try to regenerate those areas, and that aim goes hand in hand with our work in growth areas, which is why we are making an additional £500 million available. My hon. Friend's constituency will certainly benefit from that.

    Parish Councillors
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the number of parish councillors who have stood aside because of the parish council code of conduct. [100654]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Standards Board for England and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been informed of 95 resignations by parish councillors unwilling to accept the code of conduct out of a total of more than 70,000 parish councillors across England.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister's answer is proof, if proof were needed, of the Government's cynical contempt for the integrity and selflessness of hard-working parish councillors, often with years of non-political public service, who are the backbone of our rural communities in particular. Will the Minister now account for the Government's actions to my constituents, particularly Councillor Brian Smith of Tattenhall and district parish council, where 12 of the 15 parish councillors have resigned or are stepping down because of the monstrous code of conduct? Will the Government now revise the code, given that it is an attack on rural communities in particular and shows contempt for their approach to selfless public service?
    Mr. Leslie: Only 0.1 per cent. of parish councillors cannot live with the basic concept of a register of members' interests. It is an important component of local democracy, just as it is of national democracy. Parish councils need to be seen to be objective and working in accordance with basic democratic principles. I do not believe that a register of members' interests is too much to ask.
    David Taylor: I am a parish councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that the standards of probity in parish councils are higher than in any other area of local government? Is it not a tad over the top that there are tighter restrictions on parish councillors, who may spend £7 per head of their

    807
    population, than on Ministers, who may spend £7,000 per head? Will he admit that we could have it a little wrong?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend's argument is wrong. We believe that parish councils are important and should be accorded significant respect and status. That is why we wish to extend the basic principle of a register of members' interests to parish councillors, just as one applies to all democratic layers of government in our country.

    Local Government
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What assessment he has made of the ways in which the comprehensive performance assessment will improve performance of local government. [100655]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The comprehensive performance assessment outcomes for county and single-tier authorities were published on 12 December 2002. We are currently working closely with local government to ensure that councils build on their CPA assessments to achieve real improvements in the quality of the services they deliver.
    Mr. Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend understand that very few local authorities have confidence in the assessors? Does he know that one of the assessors for Wolverhampton council was a Lib Dem councillor from another authority? Can he see the irony of allowing a representative of a party constantly and consistently rejected by the voters of Wolverhampton to pass judgment on that council? Will he take steps to ensure that no such nonsense is repeated, in order that we may have greater confidence in the process?
    Mr. Raynsford: The vast majority of local authorities have welcomed the CPA, especially the peer review element, which has involved other councillors and council officers from other authorities contributing towards the assessment. We see that as an important part of the process. The crucial purpose of the assessment is to improve the quality of services. I am pleased that Wolverhampton council has been speaking positively about how it can improve its services in the light of the comprehensive performance assessment.

    Social Exclusion Unit
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will set out the social exclusion unit's plans over the next 12 months. [100657]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women(Mrs. Barbara Roche): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister today announced two major new unit projects. The unit will work across Government to look at what more needs to be done to
    808
    help people in the most deprived areas move into work, and to prevent social exclusion among adults with mental health problems.
    Mr. Thomas: I warmly welcome that announcement. Will my hon. Friend ask the unit to undertake further work on the institutional, financial and legal barriers that still face social entrepreneurs who want to set up social enterprises to help in the regeneration of their communities?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We should certainly examine barriers to enterprise. The House will be interested to know that the rate of business start-ups is 10 times higher in the best parts of the UK than it is in the most deprived areas. Social entrepreneurs can make a magnificent contribution to neighbourhood renewal and regeneration.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest causes of social exclusion is the misery and poverty caused by drugs in our society? After six years of a Labour Government, why do heroin addicts in Plymouth still have to wait two years to get access to treatment?
    Mrs. Roche: I would be very pleased to discuss with the hon. Gentleman any problems that he is encountering in his constituency. As I am the Minister with responsibility for homelessness policy, which can sometimes, but not always, have a connection with drugs, particularly in respect of single homelessness, I have taken a keen interest in this area. I can tell him that very good progress is being made with the work of the drug action teams, but I shall certainly consider the issues in his constituency.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Earlier this morning, we concluded the Northern Ireland negotiation, which I hope will allow a final and durable settlement. I met the Russian Foreign Minister at 8.30 this morning and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Bellingham: Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that people should go to university on the basis of their merit. On Monday, his Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education said that she would set specific targets for children from poorer backgrounds. Can he now clear up this confusion once and for all and

    809
    assure pupils in my constituency that their university applications will be based on merit and transparency, and not crude social engineering?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it should be based on merit and the ability of students, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that we should do everything that we possibly can, subject to what I have just said, to widen access to our universities, because it is also important that we allow children from working class and poorer backgrounds the chance of a first class, quality university education.
    Roger Casale: St. Helier hospital in south-west London has leapt from a zero to a two-star rating and has just taken delivery of ultra-sound equipment for cancer care. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Merton council and local campaigner Stephen Alambritis that such improvements make a good case for keeping the hospital open? Does not the case of St. Helier show that, through reform, we can improve the health service where those reforms are backed up by investment and not undermined by the 20 per cent. cut on expenditure proposed by the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we recognise that the extra investment going into our national health service is delivering real results for the people of this country, including, incidentally, 40,000 extra nurses since the last general election. There could be nothing more disastrous than a 20 per cent. cut across the board—the policy of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, even if Saddam Hussein destroys all his al-Samoud 2 missiles, he will still be in material breach of resolution 1441 because of his failure to disclose his chemical and biological weapons?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is obviously right, since he has to disclose and destroy the entire chemical and biological weapons programme.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister confirms that Saddam Hussein is in breach of UN resolution 1441, so will he now confirm that, unless Hans Blix reports to the Security Council on Friday that Saddam Hussein has co-operated fully, including the full disclosure of his chemical and biological weapons, there will be a vote on the second resolution early next week?
    The Prime Minister: The exact timing of any vote is a matter that is still under discussion, but yes of course it is the case that if Saddam Hussein fails fully to comply, there should be a vote in the United Nations. I hope very much that the United Nations supports the position that it set out in resolution 1441 last November, which called upon him to have full, unconditional and immediate compliance. It is plain at the present time that he is not in such compliance.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The fact that Saddam Hussein remains in material breach means that military action is
    810
    more likely. Will the Prime Minister therefore spell out exactly what is happening in the no-fly zone? Is it not now the case that British and American planes are making pre-emptive strikes on targets that would threaten our ground forces rather than just our aircraft? Surely that represents a substantial change in existing policy. Would not the Prime Minister help his own case if he more frankly spelled out to the British people what is exactly and really going on?
    The Prime Minister: No. The position on the no-fly zones remains exactly the same as that set out by the Defence Secretary earlier. Let me make a point in addition to those that I made a moment ago. Conflict could be avoided even now in one of two sets of circumstances. The first is that Saddam complies fully and unconditionally. Let us spell out what that means: accounting for the thousands of litres of anthrax, the hundreds of tonnes of precursor chemicals, the thousands of special munitions for chemical and biological warfare and the 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent, and giving proper access to Iraqi scientists and experts for interview. Thirty-four requests for such interviews have been refused. Of those granted, nine have been on Iraqi terms, not those that the inspectors set out. Saddam must therefore comply fully and absolutely.
    The second alternative is that he leaves. Those are the only two ways of avoiding conflict, but either route could prevent it. To those who claim that we are hell bent on conflict, I say that it can be avoided if Saddam does what the United Nations and the international community demand.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: While I recognise that my right hon. Friend's priorities are understandably elsewhere, may I encourage him to view enthusiastically the prospect of Government support for a British bid to host the 2012 Olympics? It would be based on, but not exclusive to, London. Apart from the obvious benefits to British sport, will he recognise the considerable benefits to British business, jobs and the acceleration of east London's regeneration?
    The Prime Minister: We entirely recognise the potential benefits of the Olympics bid. The Government will make their decision shortly. It is important to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend said, that people in London are fully behind the bid.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When the Prime Minister says that he hopes that there will be a vote at the United Nations on a second resolution, is he implying that if no vote is held, Britain will still go in with the United States and military action against Iraq will follow?
    The Prime Minister: No. I simply say that it depends on Saddam's compliance. If he is not complying, a resolution will undoubtedly be put to a vote.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister clarify his comments of last week? Can we have a guarantee that

    811
    before any military action involving British troops is taken, there will be an opportunity for a debate and a definitive vote in the House?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary spelled that out clearly in the debate. He said that, subject to the caveat that we have always expressed about the security of troops, the decision should be put to the House. I accept that, but with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a matter not of process or procedure, although that is important, but of whether he, as well as us, is prepared to uphold resolution 1441, which everyone said that we should uphold.
    In the past few days, I have spoken to many world leaders and discussed the issue with them. Not a single leader or official of any Government disputes the fact that Saddam is not currently complying. Everyone accepts that he is not, that he is not co-operating properly and that he is a threat. Resolution 1441 stated that he had a final opportunity to disarm voluntarily and that he had to co-operate fully, unconditionally and immediately. Everybody accepts that he is not doing that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should join me in urging people to vote for the second resolution.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: The Prime Minister is aware that progress in Northern Ireland often appears to be a matter of two steps forward and one step back. After his discussions last night, what are his hopes for progress in the coming weeks?
    The Prime Minister: It was a detailed and good set of discussions over two days. It is possible that we have reached the basis for the final breakthrough to resolve all the outstanding issues of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. It has to be done on the basis of a complete cessation of all paramilitary activity and implementation of all remaining parts of the agreement by the Governments and other parties. I think that there is real hope for that breakthrough, but the discussions over the next few weeks will tell us whether that hope is well founded. I hope that it is, because I truly believe that the one thing that people in Northern Ireland know—let me spell it out again—is that there is no way in which the agreement is going to be renegotiated: it is either implemented or we do not have the peaceful future in Northern Ireland that we all want to see.
    Tom Brake: Does the Prime Minister recognise the figures of 12 per cent. and 50 per cent.? Twelve per cent. is the average council tax increase and 50 per cent. is the proportion of trusts that have either fiddled or misreported their waiting list figures. Which figure gives the Prime Minister the greater cause for concern?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to council tax, the hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of the funding that the Government have put into councils not a single council anywhere is getting anything less than an above-inflation increase. I believe that that is the first time that that has happened.
    Secondly, of course we deplore any inaccurate accounting that the Audit Commission found. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Audit Commission also found that in the case of the vast
    812
    majority of trusts that were not the subject of its report the figures are plainly accurate and right. Furthermore, we have a situation whereby there is not a single waiting list national indicator, in-patient or out-patient, that is not better than it was in 1997.
    Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend may be aware of BT management's proposals to outsource some 700 call centre jobs to India. May I ask him to use his good offices to discourage BT and any other like-minded employer from exploiting the low-wage economies of the world, particularly at the expense of British jobs? In the name of being British and of the morality of being British, that sharp practice has to be outlawed. Will he consider introducing legislation that would do so?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot say to my hon. Friend that it would be right to introduce legislation to outlaw it. Obviously we hope that as many jobs as possible are kept here in this country. I point out to my hon. Friend, however, that it is partly as a result of the way in which the economy has been managed and the labour market is run that we have a better position on unemployment and employment in this country than does virtually any other major country.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Can the Prime Minister say what principle makes it right to have a referendum on the single European currency, but wrong to have a referendum on the European constitution, which is of even more importance for the future of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The principle is the same as that which led, for example, to there not being a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.[Interruption.] I am sorry to bring back happy memories among Conservative Members, but that is correct. We have laid out very clearly the reason why we will have a referendum on the single currency. It is a big decision for the whole country and it is right that there should be a referendum. It is not the case that there was a referendum either on the Single European Act 1986 or on the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Iain Luke: The Prime Minister may be aware of early-day motion 770, which was signed by many Scottish Labour Members, advocating the advantages to Scottish and to UK business of an early entry into the euro zone. Given Sir Edward George's comments yesterday about it being more advantageous than it was a year ago to consider entry to the euro, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no fudging of the Chancellor's five economic tests and make a pledge to call an early referendum to take Britain into the heart of Europe and of the European monetary system?
    The Prime Minister: Tempting though it is to speculate, I am afraid that I must simply repeat to my hon. Friend that the tests have to be completed by June and that those tests will of course be done on the basis of the assessment that we have already set out.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Presumably the Prime Minister does not want to agree with the chairman of the Audit Commission, who said that some hospitals
    "have lost sight of the priorities"
    and
    "put the meeting of government targets before patient care."
    The Prime Minister: Of course hospitals should not do that, but the chairman of the Audit Commission also said that he thought that the maintenance of targets was an important part of making sure that the health service operated properly.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister gave the same excuses 15 months ago when the National Audit Office produced the same report as the Audit Commission has today, and nothing has changed. His comments show that the culture of fiddling the figures goes right the way to the top. Today, the Audit Commission said that more than 90 per cent. of trusts gave inaccurate information on waiting lists. It said that some hospitals are
    "offering appointments to patients at short notice and then, when they are unable to attend … resetting the 'clock' measuring their waiting times to zero."
    Will the Prime Minister explain why, after he has been in charge of the health service for some six years, the Audit Commission chairman now says that it is under-managed and over-bureaucratised?
    The Prime Minister: First, it should be pointed out that we actually asked for this report from the Audit Commission because of the earlier report from the National Audit Office. Secondly, it was a report on 41 out of 300 trusts. Thirdly, it is extremely important that we do have targets for the health service. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that the whole of the health service is in chaos and crisis, and not offering proper treatment. That is because it is the desire of the Conservative party to run down the national health service, because it wants to cut its funding. The truth is that the record investment in the health service is delivering real results for people. It is delivering reductions in waiting times and in waiting lists; it is delivering more doctors and nurses, and more hospitals. Actually, the vast majority of people in the national health service get a decent level of health care from it. The right hon. Gentleman's alternative, which is to push people out into the private sector, may be fine for a few at the top, but it would be disastrous for the vast majority of users of our national health service.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Instead of the Prime Minister trying to say what others might do, why does he not take responsibility for what he has failed to do? He should admit that he is raising taxes on hard-working people to fund a system that puts Government targets before patients' health, and which now has more bureaucrats than beds. Patients know that, whatever the Government say, they cannot believe a word that the Government produce. Is it not time that the Prime Minister apologised to the thousands of patients whose operations have been cancelled because of his political meddling?
    The Prime Minister: Let us indeed not take what I say, then, but consider, for example, what the secretary of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons said just a day or two ago about cardiac services. He said that people are now working
    "in an environment where waiting lists are plummeting; where the number of trainees in cardiac surgery has doubled; where new cardiac centres are being built and existing centres modernised and expanded; and where the results for heart surgery continue to improve and are better than in most of the developed world".
    That is what is actually happening in our health service today. Of course it is the case that, as I said, the right hon. Gentleman needs to run down the health service. He has got to say that the extra money going into the health service is not necessary, but he should talk to people in the health service. They know that it needs the extra funding that is going into it; that is what is producing the extra nurses, and the results on cardiac surgery. When we came to office, 60 per cent. of cancer patients were seen within two weeks, but that figure is now well over 95 per cent. That is where the money is going—on better national health service care.
    What the right hon. Gentleman has said yet again, in his opposition to what we are doing in April, is that the extra money that we would put into our national health service, he would take out. He would then add to that through 20 per cent. cuts across the board.[Interruption.] He and his hon. Friends can say what they like, but in the end that is the choice before the country, and I believe that this country will choose the national health service.
    Andy King: I hope that, after Question Time, my right hon. Friend will accept two CDs made by constituents of mine. They want to pass on to him a message about the proposed large international airport in Rugby, and the message is clear: no airport here. Indeed, that is the message not just from Rugby, but from across the midlands. I hope that my right hon. Friend will enjoy listening to the CDs in his leisure time.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the CDs will make a fascinating listen. I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says. He will know that the consultation period is running for consultation on airports, and we have got to take account of all the representations made. He has made his point very strongly, and we will of course listen to it.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he wants all hospitals to be foundation hospitals, or has he decided this week that he cannot fight a war on two fronts?
    The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Health has made very clear, provided that hospitals meet the criteria, we want as many foundation hospitals as possible. It is right that we have freedom for those hospitals so that they can provide a good service for national health service patients. However, it is not just reform and freedom that they need—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There should not be so much shouting.
    The Prime Minister: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not just freedom and reform that the NHS needs, it is money. The difference is that the Conservative party is not prepared to support the extra investment that is an essential part of getting reform to work.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fear of detection is one of the most powerful tools in the fight against crime? Will he join me in congratulating Gwent police on having one of the highest detection rates of all the police forces in England and Wales, contributing to a 17 per cent. reduction in crime? Will my right hon. Friend consider the current funding formula to ensure that Gwent police are able to have a visible police presence—not only in deprived urban communities but in rural areas such as Usk?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that Gwent will apply to—and, I hope, receive help through—the rural policing fund. My hon. Friend is right to point out that crime in his area is falling. There are also record numbers of police officers in this country today; we have more police officers than we have ever had before. That is essential in the fight against crime and it is one reason why so many police forces round the country are being successful in reducing crime.
    Derek Conway: Is the Prime Minister aware that the pensioners of Old Bexley and Sidcup face not only a decrease in their incomes but a Labour council and Labour Government imposed council tax increase of 17 per cent.? What message does the Prime Minister have for the excellent headmistress of Marlborough school—a special school in Sidcup working with children with severe and profound mental and physical handicaps—who now faces a £65,000 shortfall in her budget and a real risk of losing excellent, experienced teachers because of the Government settlement? Will he consider such problems? This is not just about facts and figures; there are real problems for children who have the greatest need in our society.
    The Prime Minister: I will of course look into the situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. However, what he is saying, in effect, is that his school and his council need more money. It is for that very reason that we have put in such a large increase to the local authority budget; and it is for that reason that we are increasing the amount of investment in schools by a record amount. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if the school has difficulties, it would, I think, react very adversely to a policy of having 20 per cent. cuts across the board.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today sees the launch of the first annual report of the Children's Commissioner for Wales? The existence of the post has already made a great deal of difference to children in Wales. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to introduce a children's commissioner in England?
    The Prime Minister: We are studying carefully the Welsh example and the results of having a children's
    816
    commissioner there. We have always set out why we believe that the situation is different in England. We have also had the Laming report in the intervening stages and we are considering our response carefully.
    Mr. David Laws: I want to come back to the issue of foundation hospitals. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Secretary of State for Health, who said in a speech last month that he was in favour of freeing such hospitals from the constraints of central Government and capital rationing—in other words, from the controls of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We have the benefit of having both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health here today, so will the Prime Minister confirm which of them he is backing in this long-running Government dispute?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, it is important that we get as many foundation hospitals as possible, based on the criteria that we have set out. However, just as I would say to the Conservatives that they are failing the country by failing to support extra investment, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he and the Liberal Democrats are failing the country by failing to support the necessary reform. On this side of the House, our position is that we need investment and money in our health service.
    Mr. David Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of research and development in Britain, particularly in developing industries such as aquaculture. Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing disappointment at the decision of the Sea Fish Industry Authority to close down the Ardtoe research facility in my constituency with the loss of 17 jobs? Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and a delegation of research scientists to try to keep this vital facility open?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the position of the Sea Fish Industry Authority and I know that Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive are prepared to meet my hon. Friend. If that meeting is unsatisfactory to him, I will be happy to meet him myself. We recognise the important role of aquaculture and the importance of research in the United Kingdom.
    Gregory Barker: Now that the IMF has joined the swollen ranks of those who can see that the Chancellor is incapable of balancing the nation's books, what advice is the Prime Minister giving to his neighbour in Downing street? Should he put up taxes even further or cut public spending?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the economic record of the Government. Let me tell him what the IMF report also said. It said that
    "UK economic performance has remained enviable".
    It also said that
    "the economy appears to have weathered the global slowdown relatively well"

    817
    and that
    "the UK public finances are among the strongest in the G7".
    It is thanks to the Chancellor that we have the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment and lowest interest rates for years and years. We all remember the Tory days of 3 million unemployed, 10 per cent. interest rates and disaster for the British economy.
    Lynne Jones: Would at least nine affirmative votes in the Security Council for the so-called second resolution tabled by the US, UK and Spain give clear—I emphasise the word "clear"—legal authority for war against Iraq? What difference would the use of what my right hon. Friend describes as the unreasonable veto make?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me assure my hon. Friend that we will always act in accordance with international law. Secondly, in relation to the resolution, we are confident of securing the votes for that resolution and we will carry on working to that end. We are doing that because we believe that it is important that the UN, having declared a position on Iraq, follows through and maintains that position. I know that my hon. Friend opposes our position on the matter, and I do not disrespect that—she is perfectly entitled to do so. However, I know that we both agree that the authority of the UN is important. If that authority is to be upheld, it is important that what we said last November is implemented. If it is not, the effect on the UN—apart from the effect on the international situation—would be disastrous.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories? Is he also aware that since 1980 the United States of America has vetoed 14 resolutions of the Security Council on the middle east? Does he consider those vetoes reasonable or unreasonable?
    The Prime Minister: I simply point out to the hon. Lady that the UN resolutions are not just in respect of Israel, but of the Arab world and the Palestinians, too. In relation to the Palestinian territories, what is happening there is appalling, but the only way out of it that will maintain all the UN resolutions—not just those on Israel, but those on the Palestinians and the Arab world—is to get a peace process going again in the middle east. All I can say to her is that this country will play its full part in that, but in the end the only way to avoid the terrible tragedy that is happening to the Palestinians—and, indeed, to innocent Israeli civilians who are also dying—is to ensure that we get a proper peace process back on track. We will certainly do all that we can to facilitate that.
    Tony Worthington: Three weeks ago in the United States the Under Secretary of Defense told the US Foreign Relations Committee how Iraq would be administered in a post-conflict situation.
    818
    He said that an office of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance had been set up under General Garner. He invited contributions from UN organisations, aid agencies and coalition partners, and said that coalition officials would account to the US President through Donald Rumsfeld and General Franks. Is not it unacceptable that our aid agencies and UN organisations should respond to the US President? Is our policy that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know how to ask a brief question. Will the Prime Minister try to answer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All sorts of people may have made statements about the matter, but I shall tell my hon. Friend exactly what is happening. At present, we are in intensive discussions, with the US and others. Indeed, part of my discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister this morning was about how we make sure, if there is a conflict, that we take the greatest care of the subsequent humanitarian situation in Iraq. I have no doubt that there will have to be a substantial UN involvement. That is what we are arguing for and what we want to see. I believe that that will be the outcome. Therefore, rather than speculate about what might happen, I assure my hon. Friend that we will declare those plans to people as soon as we have them properly worked out.
    Andrew Selous: The Prime Minister has just told the House that everyone accepts that Iraq is a threat, but many of my constituents tell me that they are still unclear about the direct threat and risks to the UK as a result of not disarming Iraq. What would the Prime Minister say to them?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question, as people do ask it. I think that the threat of leaving Saddam Hussein armed with weapons of mass destruction is twofold. First, it is that he begins another conflict in his region, into which Britain as a country would inevitably be sucked, with all that that means. Alternatively—and I think that this is a powerful and developing threat that the world must face—the risk
    is that states such as Iraq, which are proliferating these chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, will combine in a way that is devastating for the world with terrorists who are desperate to get their hands on those weapons to wreak maximum destruction.
    The events of 11 September, of course, changed many American minds about the threat, but they should also change all our minds. Surely everyone accepts that, had the people involved been able to cause even more death and destruction, they would have done so? My worry is that, when there are nations that proliferate, trade and develop this stuff, and terrorist groups that are desperate to cause maximum destruction, the world has to stand firm. The matter has come to a point over Iraq. If we do not stand firm over Iraq now, we will never be able to deal with the next threat that encompasses us.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer today announced that he intends to deliver his Budget statement on 9 April. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that that is the day before the date on which the House is due to rise for the Easter recess. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it would be entirely unacceptable for debate on the Budget to be curtailed or postponed until after the recess. May I therefore ask whether you have had any indication that the Easter recess will be postponed, so that the customary four days of debate will take place immediately after the Budget? The House must be able to discuss the Budget's implications for the black hole in the Government's finances, the imminent and substantial rise in taxation, and the burgeoning pensions crisis—all of which lie directly at the Chancellor's door.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am as concerned as everyone else about the Easter recess. However, the Leader of the House will answer business questions tomorrow—[Interruption.] Order. It would be more appropriate for hon. Members to put that matter to the Leader of the House tomorrow.[Interruption.] Order. What I am trying to say is that it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which, if I may say so, is even more important than the Easter recess. That is that 9 April is right in the middle of the election campaigns in Scotland and Wales. Either the Chancellor has forgotten about that—which seems unlikely, as he is frightened of losing the elections—or he is showing breathtaking arrogance. My point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that a previous Government ended up losing in the Scottish courts when they tried to abuse the local electoral process in Scotland, never mind the parliamentary one. Is not the Chancellor in danger of ending up in exactly the same position?
Mr. Speaker: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered his own questions. That matter is not for me—it is for the Scottish courts.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House knows the proposed dates for tomorrow, surely he must know them today. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman—who is in his usual place—share with you and the rest of the House the Government's proposals, so that right hon. and hon. Members may know as soon as possible, then perhaps follow up the matter in business questions tomorrow? Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), there are severe implications for the rules governing the politicisation of the run-up to elections and they should be fully considered. When will we get proper guidance? Why do we have to wait?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Leader of the House wants to come in on a point of order.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having said that it would be more appropriate to make the announcement at business questions, you will forgive me, I hope, if—in response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I share with the House the information that I intended to announce tomorrow. That may be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, so that there is no mystery about it.
It is standard procedure that there should be four days of debate following the Budget statement. It would be our intention to make sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate the Budget over four full days. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is correct that it would be wrong to delay. That was never our intention. We shall therefore be tabling a motion for the House to sit on the Friday of that week for a day's debate on the Budget. The Budget debate will continue until the Monday of the subsequent week—14 April—when it will conclude. There will be, as always, four days' debate on the Budget.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be the first time that there has been such a partitioning of the Budget debate, with its deferral until April. That seems to coincide with the changes made to the sittings of the House. Will you please investigate the relationship between those changes and the appalling decision to defer the Budget debate?
Mr. Speaker: This is in danger—[Interruption.] Order. This is in danger of turning into a debate. The hon. Lady asked me to look into the matter. Perhaps I will look into the matter. That would be the best way.
Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the same subject. Is it different?
Lembit Öpik: My point of order refers to the talks on Northern Ireland over the past two days. Given that some Northern Ireland parties have not seen the full content of that which was agreed—certainly the Opposition parties in this House have not done so—is there any mechanism that would cause the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to the House to make a statement on what has been agreed for our consideration?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that is something that the hon. Gentleman could raise in business questions tomorrow.

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June and 29 October 2002],
That the programme order of 10th February in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] shall be further amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in standing committee) for "Thursday 6th March" of "Tuesday 11th March".—[Mr. Woolas.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Bill
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Committee, considered.
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY

      LOCAL RETENTION OF RATES
      '(1) In Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act (non-domestic rating: pooling), in paragraph 4 (rules for calculating authorities' non-domestic rating contributions), before subparagraph (5) there is inserted—
      "(4A) The rules may include provision for such deductions as the maker of the rules thinks fit for the purpose of enabling an authority to retain part, or all, of so much of the total payable to it in respect of the year under sections 43 and 45 above as exceeds an amount determined for the authority by or under the rules.
      (4B) Subparagraph (4A) above shall not apply in the case of a special authority.
      (4C) Subparagraph (2) above shall have effect subject to subparagraph (4A) above.
      (4D) The consent of the Treasury is required to the inclusion in regulations under this paragraph of provision under subparagraph (4A) above relating to England."
      (2) In paragraph 5(6) of that Schedule (contribution to be calculated after end of year and certified by Audit Commission)—

      (a) before the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted—

      "(ba) if it is an authority in England notify to the Secretary of State, and if it is an authority in Wales notify to the National Assembly for Wales, the amount of any deduction that in accordance with provision under paragraph 4(4A) above is made in calculating the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) above," and

      (b) in paragraph (c), for "and the amount" there is substituted ", and the amount or amounts notifiable under paragraphs (b) and (ba) above,".

      (3) In paragraph 5(6A) of that Schedule (Audit Commission to send copy of certification to Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales), after "the amount" there is inserted "or amounts".
      (4) In section 99 of the 1988 Act (regulations about English billing authorities' collection and general funds), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
      "(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

      (a) for the sharing among a billing authority and major precepting authorities, in accordance with prescribed rules, of an amount equal to all or part of any deduction that, in accordance with provision under paragraph 4(4A) of Schedule 8 below, falls to be made in calculating the billing authority's non-domestic rating contribution for a financial year;

      (b) for requiring a billing authority to inform, within a prescribed period, any major precepting authorities of any amount that falls to be shared under provision under paragraph (a) above and of the effect of the rules governing its sharing;

      (c) as to the manner in which any payments which fall to be made by a billing authority by virtue of any provision under paragraph (a) above must be made;

      (d) as to the period within which, or time or times at which, any such payments or instalments of such payments must be made; and

      822

      (e) as to the recovery (by deduction or otherwise) of any excess amount paid by a billing authority in purported discharge of any liability arising by virtue of any provision under paragraph (a) above.

      (3B) The rules that may be prescribed under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above include (in particular) rules that require a billing authority, when making an estimate under that paragraph, to disregard amounts that fall to be shared under provision under subsection (3A)(a) above."
      (5) In section 97 of the 1988 Act (English billing authorities: principal transfers between funds), after subsection (4) there is inserted—
      "(4A) Where in accordance with regulations under section 99(3A) below a billing authority is required to share any amount, it shall transfer from its collection fund to its general fund so much of that amount as, in accordance with the regulations, it calculates to be its share."
      (6) In section 99(1)(b) of the 1988 Act (regulations about liabilities of English billing authority under section 97(1) or (3) to transfer sums from its collection fund), for "or (3)" there is substituted ", (3) or (4A)".
      (7) In section 38 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (c. 19) (council funds for principal councils in Wales), after subsection (9) there is inserted—
      "(9A) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision for the sharing among a new principal council and major precepting authorities, in accordance with rules specified in the regulations, of an amount equal to all or part of any deduction that, in accordance with provision under paragraph 4(4A) of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (local retention of rates), falls to be made in calculating the council's non-domestic rating contribution for a financial year."
      (8) In subsection (10) of that section (provision that may be included in regulations under subsection (9))—

      (a) for "The regulations" there is substituted "Regulations under subsection (9) or (9A)", and

      (b) in each of paragraphs (d) and (e), after "the liability mentioned in subsection (9)" there is inserted "or any liability arising under subsection (9A)".

      (9) In that section, after subsection (11) there is inserted—
      "(12) In subsection (9A) "major precepting authority" has the meaning given by section 39(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.".'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.39 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19 to 23.
      Mr. Raynsford: New clause 10 will provide for local authorities to retain some or all of the growth in business rate revenue for their areas. The proposals will allow us to introduce a scheme along the lines that the Chancellor announced in his 2002 pre-Budget report. The scheme will increase the incentives for business and local authorities to work in partnership, to maximise local economic growth and regeneration, while at the same time governing additional resources to address local priorities.
      Any scheme introduced will generate additional revenues from increases in the tax base generated by local authorities successfully encouraging growth and not from increasing the tax on existing business. The money raised would be genuinely additional to local

      823
      authorities and they will be free to decide how to spend it. The scheme will allow local authorities to keep only revenues associated with any growth in the business rate tax base and will not replace the current business rate pooling system. The business rate pool acts to reduce the unfairness of business rates and to ensure that revenues are distributed more equitably.
      New clause 10 provides for a scheme in England, with rules set by the Secretary of State, and for Wales, with rules set by the National Assembly for Wales. The provision also allows the Secretary of State to implement arrangements for sharing the retained rates revenue between different tiers of authority. That will allow us to balance the need to furnish incentives to encourage business development with providing additional resources to the tier of authority that faces increased cost following business development. It is not the Government's intention that the new scheme should serve to reward only authorities that are already doing well, at the expense of declining areas. We are looking at a range of options to get the best distributional fit, with each local authority receiving an incentive that is relevant to them, while keeping the scheme as simple as practical.
      We have also made it clear that local authorities will not bear the downside risk of a declining business rate tax base. We are considering options that will allow local authorities to benefit from the scheme, even though they are in economic decline, should they manage to slow the pace of that decline.
      Mr. Edward Davey: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how on earth the Government will be able to measure relative economic decline and whether the actions of a local authority have managed to slow it?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say. We shall be consulting on the options, including the distributional consequences, in the summer. These are important issues and it is right that they should be considered by a range of people. We certainly expect there to be full and thorough consultation before detailed arrangements are put in place. There are technical points and issues of fairness that need to be addressed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted.
      The provision is sensible and will allow for a new introduction—a new arrangement that will incentivise local authorities and help to build a better relationship between local authorities and business.
      Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 are all consequential. I commend the provisions to the House.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: If my interpretation is correct, new clause 10, as the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has presented it, is an attempt to give local communities a stake in economic development in their areas. However, we should make it clear that, although the phrases "economic regeneration" and "economic development" were used in the ministerial statement published last week and in the Treasury document, we are actually talking about new buildings—new physical development and infrastructure.
      824
      The provision takes a new and interesting approach to fighting nimbyism by recognising the contribution to that syndrome of a lack of immediate fiscal benefit to the community from new developments. The Government are taking an interesting initiative, which is broadly welcome.
      However, the new clause is only a small beginning. Will the Minister explain whether the Government intend to extend the principle? If I correctly interpreted the real underlying purpose of the provision, which the Minister may not have heard because he was busy conferring with his colleagues, and it gives communities that suffer the burden of new development some fiscal stake in the benefits from that development, are the Government considering extending that principle to council tax receipts? Could new housing development add to the fiscal benefits enjoyed by a community? That might make it easier for the Government to secure the support, or at least the acquiescence, of local communities in their attempt to impose the housing objectives that the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined over the past few weeks.
      Regulations will determine the detail of the measure, and I was expecting the Minister to be rather more forthcoming in his opening remarks. I was expecting to be scratching through my notes with a blue pen because the Minister had answered the questions that I had intended to put to him. The House is being asked to add the new clause while knowing almost nothing at all about the detail of the proposals.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Edward Davey: I might be anticipating the hon. Gentleman's speech, but does he agree that it is probably not appropriate to make this tax change using secondary legislation?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Minister gave a pledge on Second Reading that the Government intended to make draft regulations available to the Committee before the regulation-making powers in the Bill were considered. The Minister has made no apology to the House for the fact that there are no draft regulations in this case, although we are of course considering the new clause for the first time. Indeed, I place on record the fact that, by and large, the Minister lived up to the commitment he made on Second Reading, and the Committee received a continuous supply of draft regulations, which greatly informed and enlightened the debates on those regulation-making powers.
      Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend will know that I was not one of that privileged, small group of hon. Members who were considered suitable to serve on the Committee, and I am anorakishly but legitimately concerned about the opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members to debate such matters on the Floor of the House. Does he agree in that context that we need to know whether the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure or to its negative counterpart?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend—who would, indeed, have been a fine addition to the strength of Standing

      825
      Committee A—takes a great interest in the distinction between the negative and affirmative procedures, and it would be extremely useful if the Minister could clarify that point in responding to this short debate.
      We are dealing with a slight gap in the armament of scrutiny, as we have had the benefit of the regulations only in relation to other parts of the Bill. The Minister talks about a consultation exercise in the summer, but it is simply not good enough that the House is being asked to agree to the new clause without any draft regulations or explanatory notes and, therefore, any indication of the Government's intentions. Are we talking about 5, 50 or 95 per cent.? Once again, we are being asked to vote for a pig in poke in agreeing to the new clause. Will the Government make anything available before the Bill is considered in the other place?
      I should like to pick up two points from the very limited information that we have at the moment, which consists of the Treasury's pre-Budget statement, last week's ministerial statement, which repeated a chunk of it, and the Minister's contribution today, which repeated a chunk of that. It is clear that local authorities will retain a portion of new non-domestic business rates, but the statement refers to growth in the business tax base. It is not clear to me whether the Minister is contemplating that only a portion of that growth in the tax base attributable to new buildings will be included in any percentage to be retained, or whether he expects that revaluation increases—perhaps representing a general uplift in an area's economic tone—will be included in the amount from which a proportion will be retained.
      I should like to understand a little more about the phrase "additional increases", which was used in the Treasury statement and, I think, repeated in the Minister's statement. I understand the term "additional non-domestic rates"; I understand the term "increases in non-domestic rates", but I do not understand the term "additional increases in non-domestic rates". I suspect that the Minister has in mind that there will be an amount of increase that the local authority must first achieve without receiving any retained percentage, and that only the addition above that increase will attract the retained percentage. Those are the kinds of things that we need to understand if we are to make an informed judgment about what the Minister proposes. Without draft regulations or any statement of Government intention, it is simply not possible for us to form a clear opinion.
      Nevertheless, on the face of it, any empowerment of local authorities to keep even a portion of the non-domestic rate is welcome, and, I might say, in stark contrast to the Government's approach on capital receipts, which reduces the flexibility of local authorities. On a closer reading of the ministerial statement, however, I have one or two concerns about how straightforward the process will be.
      Mr. Davey: Before the hon. Gentleman moves to a detailed analysis of this proposal, will he clarify that, in principle, the Conservatives are in favour of part of the increase in the business rate being kept locally? Can he
      826
      explain how that is consistent with previous Conservative policies? It may be, but, for the benefit of the House, will he elaborate the exact Tory position?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman and I have had these enjoyable exchanges on many occasions during proceedings on this and other Bills. It is our position that increasing local autonomy is right, and that genuinely community-based local government is the right approach. To the extent that it can be prudently done within the overall fiscal framework, the maximum possible autonomy should be accorded to local authorities.
      The phrase in the Minister's short written statement of 25 February that has given me concern is the following:
      "We are looking at a range of options to get the best distributional fit, with each local authority receiving an incentive that is relevant to them, whilst keeping the scheme as simple as practical."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 9WS.]
      Anyone who has looked at a Government scheme relating to local government finance will know that "as simple as practical" must have a different meaning from the one that it would have to the layman. Could what at first looks like a welcome devolution of power back to local authorities, to allow them to keep a tiny fraction of their non-domestic rate income, be a complex system of specifically tailored incentives to local authorities to deliver on a specific Government agenda—in this case, facilitating the development of business property and infrastructure in the area? If that is how it works in practice, with different targets, thresholds and criteria for different councils, it will effectively be another piece of ring-fencing whereby local authorities get an additional slice of money only if they comply with a specific Government agenda and deliver on specific Government targets. The Minister shakes his head to imply that that is wholly wrong, but we simply do not know, because he has told us virtually nothing about this measure. We need to know how it will work, and how we can know that it will be fair and not just another mechanism for redistribution to the Government's favoured authorities.
      Mr. Bercow: It certainly appears that the fog of confusion descending on this subject is becoming deeper by the moment. If moneys are to be shuffled back and forth in an uncertain way and in accordance with a labyrinthine formula, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the principles on which calculations of entitlement to interest will be made?
      Mr. Hammond: I can tell my hon. Friend with absolute honesty that I have made no assessment at all of that matter.
      Mr. Bercow: Has the Minister?
      Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the Minister, with the substantial resources available to him, is also not in a position to make any such assessment, precisely because we lack many of the relevant details about how the scheme will work.
      Let me pick up on something that the Minister said in his brief contribution at the outset of this debate. To paraphrase, he said that this was genuinely new

      827
      additional money and was not intended to interfere with the existing pooling system for national non-domestic rates. I do not profess to be an expert on local government finance. Indeed, one of the Minister's predecessors many years ago once remarked to me that only one person in his Department genuinely understood local government finance, and he was about to retire.
      Mr. Bercow: It is like the Schleswig-Holstein question.
      Mr. Hammond: As my hon. Friend says, it is like the Schleswig-Holstein question, often posed and never resolved.
      The Minister says that this additional money will not interfere with the pooling system. I presume, however, that there is only one pot, and money that does not go into that pot because it is effectively top-sliced to the retaining local authority will not be there for distribution to other local authorities. That could have several consequences. The amount of NNDR received by all other local authorities that do not achieve the Government's threshold may be reduced, and Government grant, under the formula grant process, may be increased to make up the gap. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister could say so clearly. If that is not the case, taking anything out of the NNDR pot must reduce the amount for redistribution to other authorities.
      The only other alternative is that there are no other authorities, and the so-called incentive scheme is so structured—or tailored, as the Minister calls it—that every authority gets to retain a slice of its NNDR, in which case the effect may be minimised, although that will make it difficult to see the benefits of the scheme. Can the Minister give a pledge, here and now, that grant will make up the shortfall in the NNDR pot available for redistribution as a result of top-slicing for retention by local authorities? The grant that is retained will therefore be genuinely additional to the total amount of money—council tax receipts, plus formula grant, plus NNDR redistributed—that that authority would have received had it not been for the top-slicing that the scheme involves. If the Minister can give that assurance, he clearly has the details of the scheme in his mind, if not on a piece of paper. Why has he not been able to share those details with the House?
      I turn to a specific question, which I apologise for asking, as it is the kind of question that one would ask properly in Committee. When the Government introduce new clauses on Report, however, we must ask such questions on the Floor of the House. Proposed new subsection (3B) of subsection (4) of the new clause, which inserts new words into section 99 of the 1988 Act, refers to
      "rules that may be prescribed under paragraph (a) of subsection (3)".
      I take that to mean subsection (3) of section 99. I have obtained the intranet print of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and, although I find subsection (3) in it, I find no paragraph (a). Is that a typographical error? Does it mean to refer to the proposed new subsection (3A) to be inserted by the new clause? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that specific point when help comes to hand.
      828
      The principle of local retention is welcome, but it must be a genuine additional resource and not just a redistribution from one authority to another. The Government have said that no authority will suffer from negative business rate growth, but they have not said that none will suffer from the reduced size of the total NNDR pot for redistribution. Will the Minister give that assurance today?
      The Treasury document and the ministerial statement have sounded alarm bells, and we need to see the regulations before we know whether their sounding is justified. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why he cannot provide even an indicative outline of the Government's intentions in the way that he has done for some other clauses. Will he make a commitment today that such an outline will be available when the Bill reaches the other place?
      1 pm
      We will not oppose the new clause, but I hope that a substantive debate on the issues will be possible in the other place or, if for any reason that is not possible, when the regulations are laid. I still hope that we will be able to persuade the Government that the provision should involve a small first step to devolution of financial autonomy back to local authorities. The rest of the Bill certainly does not deliver that.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The new clause puts me in a bit of a quandary. I want local authorities to have extra autonomy for their spending and local taxation, so allowing local authorities to retain part of the growth in the business rate is clearly a welcome step. However, the sheer complexity of the scheme that is likely to emerge from the consultation is mind-boggling, and not just in terms of working out how the increase will be measured but, as the Minister has acknowledged, in terms of working out how we will assess the relative economic decline of an area that does not have a growing business rate tax base. We will also have to assess whether there had been a reduction in the pace of that decline because of local authority action. All that shows just how complex the proposal is.
      We should give credit to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). He talked about how the policy would sit alongside the pooling of the uniform business rate. If the Minister answers the hon. Gentleman's question in the affirmative and if it appears that grant will be paid back into the pool to compensate for any loss of rate proceeds, the grant side of the scheme will also be complex. One can imagine the regulations that will have to be introduced. We now realise why they were not ready for consideration by the House today.
      We should be worried about complexity in taxation matters. The Government have made the whole tax system far more complicated, and that has put huge extra compliance burdens on businesses and individuals. The provision will place an extra compliance burden on local authorities, and we must try to work out whether the extra financial autonomy that will be gained as a result of this timid devolution of financial power is worth the extra complexity. The House and local authorities will have to consider that balance. Our conclusions will depend on their assessment of whether the proposal is a sensible way forward.

      829
      Because of the complexity, I wonder where on earth the scheme came from. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out, it appeared in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, so does that mean that it came out of No. 11 Downing street and the Treasury? It is a fiendishly complicated and clever scheme of the type that the Chancellor is very good at dreaming up. Did a certain Ed Balls help the Chancellor to dream up the scheme in the back of a cab or in a pub? It has that sort of feel. It does not appear that the policy has gone through rigorous analysis in the civil service. It is rather bizarre.
      I am glad that the Government are committed to consulting widely with the Local Government Association and many other stakeholders. The consultation will have to be pretty extensive and involve the consideration of detailed proposals. I hope that we will have an early sight of any draft regulations before we scrutinise them in the House.
      As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I am concerned that, because we know so little about the proposal's eventual form, the House will be asked to provide primary legislative agreement and will be able to consider the detail only in a Statutory Instrument Committee. The proposal will probably involve hundreds of millions of pounds, and the figure is likely to grow over the years. Therefore, one would normally expect to debate such a matter in a proper Standing Committee. Since I became a Member of the House, I have had the fortune or misfortune to serve on more than seven Finance Bill Committees. They consider tiny and minor tax changes, and we spend hours in a full Standing Committee debating the merits of tax change that is worth just a few million pounds. Although the Minister pumps this up as a major tax change, he says that it will be suitable for consideration in a Statutory Instrument Committee. I have problems with that, so I hope that he will try to convince me that this is the right route for the House to take.
      I also want to probe the logic behind the Government's proposal. It seems that the Conservatives have now changed their position, so we can now all agree that it is right that local authorities have, to an extent, more control over business rates in their areas. Would it, therefore, not be logical to go further than the Government propose? Ever since the Government nationalised the business rate, Liberal Democrats have argued that there is a case for denationalisation and for handing back the control of rates to local authorities. We would do that fully and completely and not in the partial and minor way envisaged by this proposal.
      Will the Minister reflect on our suggestion? He may try to keep his counsel, but he will know that the Government have set up the balance of funding review. That review is relevant to the debate, because it will examine how much of a local council's budget should be raised through local taxes and how much should come from central Government grant. The presumption is that the review will try to shift the balance so that more
      830
      of a local authority's revenue comes from local taxes. Clearly, this proposal would be a small step in that direction.
      Mr. Hammond: And the 55 per cent. council tax rises.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman refers to the huge rises in council tax, and he is right. Unfortunately, they may be part of the shift, though not a very welcome one. It is such an unfair tax.
      However, before I am called to order, Mr. Speaker, I shall move on to the point that I was about to make. The Government have set up the review and, if they wish to change the balance, surely the business rate is one of the ways they could do that. Businesses are often in two minds about such a suggestion. In the past, they were worried that some local authorities would behave unwisely, levy too high a business rate and undermine economic activity. I presume that is why the Tories nationalised the business rate. I suspect that the proposal is framed in such a complex manner in an attempt to avoid that problem.
      Other business people—and sometimes the same business person in the same conversation—will argue that, since the business rate was nationalised, their links with the local authority have been weakened. The dialogue between businesses and local authorities has been significantly reduced. That is certainly the experience in Kingston, the borough containing my constituency. Although local authorities have tried to overcome the problem of reduced dialogue, the fact that we no longer have a locally raised business tax has got in the way of an important partnership.
      The Government talk about building up that partnership. Given the logic of that and of this provision, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have contemplated going even further to the full denationalisation of the business rate? It could be a local business rate that is based on properties or, as the Liberal Democrats propose, it could be based on land values. I commend our proposal because by widening the tax base to include undeveloped land, we would reduce the business rate burden on existing businesses.
      I hope that the Minister will explain why he is taking a partial route. We are minded to support the new clause because it will give a little extra financial autonomy to local authorities, but we want to see the details before we sign up to it in the other place and agree to the regulations that will follow.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had a useful debate on an important issue. I appreciate the generally positive response of the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that it is right to explore ways in which we can give greater freedom and flexibility to local government. In fact, that is one of the great themes running through the Bill. Therefore I was a bit disappointed at his churlish remarks about other freedoms, such as borrowing, trading and levying charges on discretionary charges, all of which are included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's Government took more from local government than any other in

      831
      recorded history. He should surely recognise and acknowledge this Government's steps to give greater discretion to local authorities. However, I welcome a sinner who even partially repents and I am delighted that he feels able to support, at least in principle, our proposal to allow some measure of local discretion over additions in value, created through either development or local authority actions, to enhance the non-domestic rate base.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister emphasises the word "additions". I hope that he will say what is meant by additional increases. He also refers, however, to actions that are due to the local authority. Will some Government official determine which bits of economic growth are due to the work of the local authority and which are due to the work of the market?
      Mr. Raynsford: I will deal with those matters. Let me start with the philosophic principle behind the policy. We do not believe that those areas where there is an increase in the non-domestic rate base should automatically get the full benefit; nor do we think that those areas that have a much harder task to retain industry and investment and to attract new investors should not get the benefit, because they face far greater difficulties. It is right to have a regime that genuinely rewards additional increases to non-domestic ratepayers but does not penalise those authorities that succeed in stemming decline when an authority would otherwise face economic problems. The issue is difficult and we have not yet finalised our proposals.
      We have not published regulations because the scheme is in its early stages. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his kind remarks about our willingness to try to make regulations available on all other matters covered by the Bill, but the scheme's proposals have just been made, following the Chancellor's announcement, and we intend to hold a full and thorough consultation, beginning in the summer, on how it will operate. The scheme will inevitably be complex. Difficult issues need to be addressed and we want to ensure that there is a full debate.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I agree that areas that are experiencing a relative economic decline with a falling business rate tax base should not be penalised and that the system should be asymmetric, but I cannot get my head around trying to measure different speeds of decline and what actions have been taken by whom—the market or the local authority—to change those speeds of decline. I understand why the Government want to help those areas, but is that the right mechanism?
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: It is the right way to help those areas. Authorities should have an incentive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of creating closer links between business and local authorities. We are keen to do that in many ways. He knows that the business improvement district arrangements are a specific attempt to create closer links between business and local authorities. We believe that the incentive scheme will do exactly that. It would be perverse,
      832
      however, as I think he acknowledged, if those authorities that have a much harder task to attract new investment and to expand their non-domestic rate base were prevented from benefiting from the scheme, especially if any huge effort that they put into encouraging good relations with business and attracting new investment is offset by a general trend of decline in the area's economic prospects.
      We want a scheme that allows such efforts to be rewarded. I accept that that will be difficult. A baseline will need to be established which is founded on principles that will be the subject of full consultation. It will need to reflect the starting point against which any increases or reductions can be measured. The mechanisms will need to be agreed and the measurements will also be the subject of fairly detailed discussion.
      Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister clarify whether he means a growth in the tax base, by which I mean the base of property, some of which may be empty, that has rateable value, or growth in the rates received? In other words, does an empty factory that is filling up and starting to pay rates count as growth?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. We relate growth to the rate base. We do not want short-term variations, as a result of premises being empty for a short time, to distort the arrangements. There will clearly need to be rules to govern what should happen if there is a significant increase in the tax base but no overall increase in the rates derived.
      Before I go into the detail, let me explain how we will ensure that information about the proposals is made available in the most comprehensive way to help discussion. We will provide notes for consideration in the other place, setting out our broad policy intent. They will outline a number of options on the scheme's detail. They will not take the form of a draft set of regulations because it would be premature to draft regulations before the consultation is complete, especially as the consultation is designed to tease out some of the complexities that may have to be addressed and to enable us to reach the right formulation. We intend to provide Members of the other place with more detailed information about our policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is in keeping with the spirit that we have adopted throughout the Bill's consideration.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether we would extend the principle to the council tax. The answer is no, because the council tax is raised in such a way that the local authority receives the revenue raised. It would be bizarre to have an incentive when there is no question of them not receiving whatever council tax is due to them. The scheme is a response to his Government's action to ensure that non-domestic rates are not locally available other than in exceptional circumstances. As I said, we want to provide an incentive to local authorities to attract additional investment. The scheme will give them an additional bonus and it would be inappropriate to apply it to council tax.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked whether regulations would be made by affirmative or negative resolution. We intend to make them by negative resolution but, to pick

      833
      up on what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about statutory instruments, that will only take place after a full discussion that is based on the consultation. That will allow the issues to be examined in great detail not just by Members of Parliament, but by a wider public. We all recognise that it is important to have full consultation on the scheme.
      Mr. Hammond: I am disappointed that the Minister said that the regulations will be made by negative resolution. Can he assure us that if they are laid before the House and are prayed against by the Opposition he will use his influence with the business managers to ensure that a proper debate on such a negative resolution is held?
      Mr. Raynsford: I know that the Opposition tend to pray against almost any regulations, but it would be right and proper to have a full debate on those particular regulations. I would use any influence that I may have to assist with that aim, as there is every reason to debate those important matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will approach the matter in the spirit of constructive engagement that has characterised previous exchanges, and will seek to improve the scheme and ensure its effective implementation.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I do not understand why the Government do not want to introduce the regulations using the affirmative procedure. Is there a reason why they cannot take that route, as it would appear to be the most appropriate one, even though there may have been prior consultation with groups outside the House?
      Mr. Raynsford: I do not believe that it would be appropriate or precedented. I repeat that there should be a full discussion during the course of the consultation. I extend to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton the undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—if Opposition Members are concerned about the detail of the regulations and would like an opportunity for debate, I shall certainly use my influence to ensure that that is possible.
      May I move on to the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge? He asked for clarification of our intention that there should be growth in the tax base. He is right that the key is growth in the non-domestic rate base. If that were just the result of a general uplift, as I have suggested, it would just be a buckshee gain for authorities that may have done nothing at all or even have pursued policies that worked against business investment in their areas. That would not be fair or appropriate if other authorities with much greater difficulties put huge effort into trying to attract business to their areas. Equally, if the scheme was limited to areas of new development, areas that have great difficulty in attracting new development would be penalised, so it must take account of authorities' ability to maintain investment and retain and enhance businesses that might otherwise have left their areas. The scheme would certainly not be restricted to new development, although that would obviously qualify, as it would bring additional rate value to the area.
      834
      I should make it clear that the increases are additional—it is not a question of simply top-slicing the existing national non-domestic rate. A baseline will be important in ensuring that we are talking only about additions that are available under the scheme. If the whole national non-domestic rate pot was treated as a basis for the scheme and top-sliced, irrespective of whether there had been enhanced value, that would diminish the value of the scheme. The aim is to establish an agreed baseline; to continue with the national non-domestic rate and pooling arrangements, as I have already said; and to allow the additional value achieved through the kind of initiatives that I have described to be reflected in the scheme, permitting authorities to retain that additional value.
      Mr. Hammond: I am not entirely sure how the scheme will work. My understanding is that all national non-domestic rates went into the pot for redistribution, so I am not sure how the Minister will ensure that the pot is the same size after he has allowed some authorities to retain some non-domestic rates. Will he explain that again for those of us who have not been quick enough to grasp it the first time? Is he saying that there will be an annual ratchet? Does a local authority that scores a bit of additional tax base and retains 10 or 20 per cent. accumulate a certain sum forever, or does the ratchet mean that next year it has to run further up the escalator to get anything? Finally, is the Minister saying that there will be no losers, and that every authority will either be in the same position or will be a winner?
      Mr. Raynsford: The answer to the last question is yes. I have already said that there is no intention to penalise authorities. This is an incentive scheme designed to give an additional benefit to authorities that have either successfully enhanced their non-domestic rate base through positive initiatives or have been able to stem the decline in that base through effective partnership with the private sector.
      The hon. Gentleman asked some interesting questions about the period for which the benefit lasts. We are discussing those issues ourselves at present, and they will be the subject of consultation. There are some interesting policy issues. When there is a revaluation, a rebasing will obviously be needed. If an authority has the prospect of getting the benefit immediately after a new revaluation, but would lose it if the addition came before the revaluation, that would be a perverse incentive. We certainly do not want perverse incentives to affect the timing of schemes to attract new development. Our aim is to ensure that there is a reasonable time in which authorities can derive benefit from the addition, but clearly it cannot be indefinite, as that would involve a curious change in the tax base over a period of years. If any increase accumulated at any point in time there would never be any rebasing. We believe that there must be a rebasing; there must be a period in which authorities can secure the benefit; there must not be scope for perverse incentives. All of that, as hon. Members will understand, will be the subject of full consultation.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister attempts to answer my questions, it is becoming apparent that the scheme will be an incredibly complex mechanism. Can he give

      835
      the House an order-of-magnitude figure for the sums of money we are talking about? I would caution him against going down a complicated route if, in fact, we are talking about small sums of money. Can he give us an idea of the budgeted figure for the total amount of retained national non-domestic rates?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake of assuming that the scheme has already been worked out in fine detail. I have made it clear to the House that it is an exciting proposal introduced by the Chancellor towards the end of last year. It has considerable benefits and advantages, which Opposition Members recognise, and we are keen to ensure that there is a full and thorough consultation during which the scheme can be discussed, refined and improved before we introduce regulations giving effect to it. There is no rush—we are not rushing to introduce the scheme in the near future, and do not anticipate it being in force before 2005, so there is plenty of time for the full discussion and debate that we should rightly have. If we had not proposed the scheme now, and if there is not an appropriate legislative vehicle in the next couple of years, that opportunity may have been lost. It was therefore right to make provision for it in the Bill. At the same time, we accept that the scheme is in its early infancy and needs to be developed and refined.
      As with all matters of local government finance, we will need to establish an appropriate balance between fairness and complexity. If the scheme becomes too complex, it simply will not be worth the candle. On the other hand, if it is seen as rough justice and some of the downsides that we talked about earlier seemed likely to happen, that would undermine confidence in the scheme. That is why we will need arrangements that give the incentives that I described and give a local authority a reward for a reasonable period, but do not produce a distortion over time or perverse incentives. Those are the kind of issues that we will need to explore in the consultation.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I understand the need for consultation and the fact that these are complex matters, but I find it alarming that the Chancellor is proposing a scheme of incentivisation, apparently without any idea of what sum has been budgeted to pay for it, so the Minister can give the House not the faintest idea whether we are talking about £10 million, £100 million or £1 billion across all local authorities. Could that rather casual approach to the public finances be the reason why the Chancellor will have to borrow £24 billion in the corning year and £35 billion the year after?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of getting away from the subject of the Bill. As a result of the prudent management of the country's public finances, we are able, uniquely among major developed countries, to undertake the substantial investment in public services that the Government are delivering. It is sad that the Opposition are committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public service expenditure, which would decimate the public services that we are discussing.
      Mr. Edward Davey: This seems to be a little debate about some new power that may never be used, as it is
      836
      such a dog's breakfast. Let me pose another problem to the Minister, so that it can be considered even before the consultation document is written. The business rate tax base could suffer from a cyclical effect: some businesses could come into an area, pay rates for two or three years, and then move out. There is a degree of variability within a particular valuation period, adding further complexities to those that we have discussed. There is a final complexity with which the Minister failed to deal in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) with respect to the central pot. Although it may not be top-sliced, it will lose additional funds because they will go into the scheme under discussion.
      Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that if there is an appropriate mechanism—I shall not anticipate what precisely that might be, because as I said, these are issues that need to be discussed and finalised following consultation—to avoid the short-term cyclical effects that he describes, and to ensure that there is genuine reward for effort to achieve an increase in the tax base without short-term fluctuations, that will make the scheme simpler. If it followed all the short-term movements that he describes, it would be an inherently more complex scheme. The contradiction that he thinks he has found does not exist. It is possible to have a scheme that is relatively straightforward—not totally simple; I accept that these are complex matters—which removes unnecessary complexity and which has the advantages that I described.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about section 3A(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I am pleased to tell him that there is a section 3A(a), and I shall read it to him. It states:
      "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as regards any financial year—
      (a) that a billing authority must estimate at a prescribed time in the preceding financial year and in accordance with prescribed rules whether there is a deficit or surplus in its collection fund for the year and, if so, the amount of the deficit or surplus".
      Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister happen to know when that was inserted into the Local Government Finance Act 1988? Alarmingly, given that we have to depend on these things, the intranet edition of that Act was prepared on 20 September 2000, so I must assume that the provision to which the Minister refers was inserted subsequently.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full answer to that question. I can assure him that section 3A(a) exists.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton began by saying that he was in a bit of a quandary. That is a normal place for Liberal Democrats to be. Let me reassure him that he just about got there in the end, recognising that the measure is positive and deals with devolving greater financial responsibility to local authorities. We do not agree that there is a case for devolving the entire national non-domestic rate to local determination, for a number of reasons that we can explore on another occasion. We have already debated the matter.

      837
      The balance of funding review that we are initiating soon will look at a range of issues, and I have no doubt that some people may wish to raise the issue in that context. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will continue to press the matter, but there are not just serious technical issues relating to fairness because of the considerable disparity in the non-domestic rate values area by area; there are genuine worries on the part of business, which is not at all attracted by the idea of relocalisation. I have stressed that we are keen to encourage good working relationships between local authorities and business, and we see our proposals as one way of achieving that. I hope that the necessary new clause and the appropriate amendments will be added to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      STANDARDS COMMITTEES AND MONITORING OFFICERS: DELEGATION
      '(1) In Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000
      (c. 22) (conduct of local government members), after section 54 there is inserted—
      "54A Subcommittees of standards committees
      (1) A standards committee of a relevant authority may appoint one or more subcommittees for the purpose of discharging any of the committee's functions, whether or not to the exclusion of the committee.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to functions under section 55 or 56.
      (3) A subcommittee under subsection (1) shall be appointed from among the members of the standards committee by which it is appointed.
      (4) As regards subcommittees appointed under subsection (1) by a standards committee of a relevant authority in England or of a police authority in Wales—

      (a) regulations under section 53(6)(a) and (c) to (g) may make provision in relation to such subcommittees, and

      (b) sections 53(7), (8) and (10) and 54(4) and (6) apply in relation to such subcommittees as they apply in relation to standards committees.

      (5) As regards subcommittees appointed under subsection (1) by a standards committee of a relevant authority in Wales other than a police authority—

      (a) regulations under section 53(11) may make provision in relation to such subcommittees, and

      (b) section 54(5) and (7) apply in relation to such subcommittees as they apply in relation to standards committees.

      (6) Subject to any provision made by regulations under section 53(6)(a) or (11)(a) (as applied by this section)—

      (a) the number of members of a subcommittee under subsection (1), and

      (b) the term of office of those members,

      are to be fixed by the standards committee by which the subcommittee is appointed."
      (2) In Chapter 5 of that Part (conduct in local government: supplementary), after section 82 there is inserted—

      Delegation by monitoring officers
      82A Monitoring officers: delegation of functions under Part 3
      (1) This section applies to functions of a monitoring officer of a relevant authority in relation to matters referred to him under section 60(2), 64(2), 70(4) or 71(2).
      (2) Where the monitoring officer considers that in a particular case he himself ought not to perform particular functions to which this section applies, those particular functions shall in that case be performed personally by a person nominated for the purpose by the monitoring officer.
      (3) Where a deputy nominated by the monitoring officer under section 5(7) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (nomination of member of monitoring officer's staff to act as deputy when monitoring officer absent or ill) considers that in a particular case he himself ought not to perform particular functions—

      (a) to which this section applies, and

      (b) which, by reason of the absence or illness of the monitoring officer, would but for this subsection fall to be performed by the deputy,

      those particular functions shall, while the monitoring officer continues to be unable to act by reason of absence or illness, be performed in that case personally by a person nominated for the purpose by the deputy.
      (4) Where functions to which this section applies are to be performed by a person nominated under subsection (2) or (3) who is an officer of the relevant authority, the authority shall provide the officer with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in the officer's opinion, sufficient to allow those functions to be performed.
      (5) Where functions to which this section applies are to be performed by a person nominated under subsection (2) or (3) who is not an officer of the relevant authority, the authority shall—

      (a) pay the person a reasonable fee for performing the functions,

      (b) reimburse expenses properly incurred by the person in performing the functions, but only to the extent that the amount of the expenses is reasonable, and

      (c) provide the person with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are reasonably necessary for the person's performance of the functions."

      (3) In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (designation etc. of monitoring officers), after subsection (7) there is inserted—
      "(7A) Subsection (7) above shall have effect subject to section 82A of the Local Government Act 2000 (monitoring officers: delegation of functions under Part 3 of that Act).".'.—[Mr. Leslie.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
      Mr. Leslie: New clause 14 is an important proposal concerning standards committees and monitoring officers in local authorities and makes two important changes in the regime governing the conduct of local councillors introduced in part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000.

      839
      The first important change allows standards committees of local authorities to create sub-committees. That is necessary because if standards committees are to consider reports of alleged misconduct, it would be fairer and more consistent with human rights for a small tribunal—say, between three and five people—to constitute the tribunal, rather than the full standards committee.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not disagree that a smaller committee may be convenient, but I would be fascinated to know where in the Human Rights Act or the European convention on human rights the Minister finds any reference to the size of the tribunal.
      Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks me that. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights states that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing. Some standards committees have 19 members, so there is a risk that such a tribunal would be too large and the case would turn into a show trial. A large tribunal could be intimidating to some members whose case was being considered. Case law suggests that we should make sure that the opportunity for a fairer hearing for those cases is available. We need to make the change in primary legislation so that the regulations can follow.
      The second change allows monitoring officers of local authorities—those in local councils who will do the job of investigating—to delegate the function of carrying out the investigation. The provision is needed because monitoring officers can have other responsibilities in local authorities, especially smaller local authorities—for example, they may be the local council's principal legal adviser. On occasions monitoring officers may, therefore, have been involved in the very matters to be investigated, possibly having given informal advice earlier to a councillor under investigation. To avoid conflicts of interest, the new clause provides an explicit power for a monitoring officer to delegate those functions to another person.
      David Winnick: In recognising the importance of what the new clause proposes on standards committees and monitoring officers, may I ask whether such provision is not all the more necessary in view of the scandal at Westminster? What steps, if any, are the Government taking to get Lady Porter to pay the £26.5 million that the House of Lords has stated that she owes to the London borough of Westminster? Is it not essential that the Government regard that notorious scandal, and Lady Porter's refusal to pay despite her huge fortune, as a matter of concern?
      Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss that case in general terms, but, sadly, I do not think that it would be appropriate for Ministers to take on the role of the Standards Board for England and the auditors in respect of that case. As he will know, it is for Westminster city council to pursue any financial matters on its doorstep. We shall see how the council manages to do that job.
      I was speaking about the second important change that the new clause makes. Such changes are known as section 66 regulations, under the Local Government Act 2000, and many locally elected councillors who serve on standards committees, including a number of
      840
      independent members who have given up their time to do so, have been waiting for some time for changes to complete the standards regime process and allow cases that can be best dealt with locally to be handled at local council level.
      Mr. Edward Davey: One problem that local authorities experience with standards committees is dealing with an awful lot of trivial, silly and frivolous complaints, often made on partisan grounds, from people in all parties. Will the new clause help to reduce the number of such complaints? If not, when will the Government tackle that problem?
      Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, claims and counter-claims in politics are, I am afraid, inherent in the nature of the business. There is obviously a need to ensure strong guidelines for dealing with frivolous or vexatious claims, especially if they can be dismissed very quickly. Nationally, the Standards Board for England has been carrying quite a burden in terms of the number of complaints, many of which are very minor, if not irrelevant. The board is setting up processes to ensure that it can quickly dispatch its business and clear people against whom spurious allegations have been made.
      Introducing regulations to ensure that a national standards board no longer considers every single complaint and allowing complaints to be quickly delegated to a local level, where they can be dealt with equally speedily by the local standards committees, is the best way of proceeding. I do not think that it would be possible to write into primary legislation some definition of spurious allegations, as the matter is very complex, but it is best and most appropriate that local standards committees can make that judgment.
      Mr. Davey: Is not part of the problem the fact that various councillors and members of the public can make such allegations cost-free? As they stand to lose nothing, there is almost an incentive in some areas for people to make vexatious claims. The situation may be difficult, but if the Government are prepared to consider complex powers on local retention of rates, they should put their mind to this matter, which is causing real problems and wasting a lot of office time and taxpayers' money.
      Mr. Leslie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the tribunals in such cases are not the same as industrial tribunals, where the complainants themselves may have an expectation of compensation in making a complaint against some wrong that was done personally to them. Although cost awards might be appropriate in such cases, I do not believe that they are appropriate in the more civil situation in which complaints are made on the basis of standards and ethics, whether at a national or local level. I believe that we can strike the right balance by giving guidance to standards committees, so that they can dispatch their business efficiently. Indeed, the Standards Board for England is likely to issue guidance across the board on the questions involved, not least of which is whether monitoring officers can delegate functions to other officers.

      841
      1.45 pm
      As I said, local councils are eager for the local arrangements to come into effect. They now have strong standards committees with independent members, and these workable rules will allow them to get on with the job appropriately should the circumstances arise. I hope that the new clause and amendments will be agreed to.
      Mr. Hammond: I shall be brief.
      We agree that most cases of misconduct are best resolved at local level. To the extent that the new clause seeks to remove impediments to the underlying intentions framed in the Local Government Act 2000, it is welcome. That prompts the question of why it was tabled on Report rather than being included in the original Bill or tabled in Committee. Will the Minister clarify that point, which is not a last-minute one, as concern has been expressed about it for some time?
      There is also concern that the need to correct deficiencies arising from an Act that was passed only two years ago highlights the dangers of excessive legislative load, inadequate time for parliamentary draftsmen and the curtailed scrutiny and consideration that Bills often receive. I fear that the consequence of that lack of time will be that the Government will have to introduce an increasing number of measures to correct defects in legislation passed only relatively recently.
      I am grateful to the Minister for giving me his interpretation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights and the way in which it militates towards a smaller rather than a larger tribunal. He spoke about a tribunal of three or four people and cited the example of a committee of 19 as excessive in terms of that article. It might be reassuring if he would confirm that he does not regard 12 members as excessive for a properly constituted tribunal in the terms of article 6. It could have serious ramifications for our legal system if he feels that 12 is excessive,. I look forward to his comments.
      I must again take a few moments of the time of the House to make a couple of drafting points of the type that would have been made in Committee if the same provisions had been considered there. New section 82A(4) to the Local Government Act 2000, as set out in the new clause, provides that where the
      "person nominated … is an officer of the relevant authority"
      he will be afforded
      "such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in the officer's opinion, sufficient to allow those functions to be performed."
      Where a third party is nominated to carry out the functions, however, subsection (5)(c) provides that he will be afforded
      "such staff, accommodation and other resources as are reasonably necessary for the person's performance of the functions."
      The criterion of being "reasonably necessary" is a rather better one than is provided in subsection (4). It is an objective criterion and I cannot see any obvious reason why a local government officer should be deemed able to determine the resources that he needs for himself, apparently without any qualification of reasonableness, while a third party is afforded only those resources that are reasonably necessary. Perhaps the Under-Secretary
      842
      would like to examine that with a view to ascertaining whether, when the Bill reaches the other place, it could be amended to apply the "reasonably necessary" criterion in both cases. I have no other substantial points to make about the new clause.
      David Winnick: I support the new clause, which is necessary. I work on the assumption that most local government business is conducted honestly and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Clearly, a monitoring system is essential; I wish that one had existed previously. If such arrangements had been in place some years ago, the scandal at Westminster council could have been avoided. It is no good the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) disliking remarks that reflect badly on his party; they cannot be avoided.
      Mr. Hammond: It is not a question of my disliking the hon. Gentleman's comments. I should simply be grateful if he extended their scope to include all the scandals in Labour-controlled authorities in the past 20 or 30 years.
      David Winnick: It is up to Conservative Members to do what they consider appropriate; I am dealing with a specific issue.
      If we believe that councillors' behaviour should be above board, it is essential to provide some guidelines. We know the district auditor's findings for Westminster council: 250 council properties in eight marginal wards were sold purely to try to obtain Conservative votes. That was unlawful, and that is what the district auditor found.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      David Winnick: In a moment.
      The most important point is that the House of Lords found last year that Westminster council's conduct was unlawful. The highest court in the land concluded that Lady Porter's actions were unlawful. The sum involved is £26.5 million plus interest. When the issue was raised with the Conservative Government, the then Prime Minister and other Ministers said that they did not want to make a judgment or any comments until the legal process had been exhausted. That has happened. It is unfair that councillors can be surcharged, albeit small amounts, when the former leader of Westminster council can get away with not paying £26.5 million.
      Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment to an Act that was passed in 2000, long after the events that the hon. Gentleman describes. Are they relevant to the debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that we are considering changing structures, and not individual cases. I believe that he has made the point that he wanted to make and gone far enough down that road.
      David Winnick: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall give way shortly to the

      843
      hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who wanted to intervene earlier, but I want to make the point that if the structures had been in place at the time, the scandal that I mentioned would probably not have occurred. I therefore do not understand why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is so upset. I should like him to condemn from the Dispatch Box Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: My comments may be superfluous in view of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to say that if the structures had been in place in the 1940s, Herbert Morrison might not have vowed to build the Tories out of London.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are straying further and further from the new clause. We should revert to it.
      David Winnick: I simply ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to condemn what occurred and say whether he is reasonably satisfied that the new arrangements would prevent the sort of scandal that happened in Westminster. Preventing such scandals is essential for maintaining standards in public life. I also hope that the Conservative spokesman will condemn Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved. It is a simple request and I hope that it will be fulfilled.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The Local Government Association has considered the new clause and given it cross-party support. That is relevant to our debate and decision on it.
      I was disappointed by the Under-Secretary's reply to my intervention. He said that the provisions will not tackle the problem of vexatious complaints and that he is not minded to deal with that. He should reconsider.
      There is no problem with the specific proposals and I add my support to the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Proposed new section 82A(4) refers to staff being sufficient "in the officer's opinion". I, too, believe that that should be subject to a reasonableness test. Officers might decide that they wanted a suite of accommodation and a range of support staff. Although an officer's decision could probably be reviewed, the process would be costly and time-consuming. It would be much simpler if we added the word "reasonable" in the appropriate place to ensure a balance and that taxpayers' money is not wasted.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Under-Secretary implied that reasonableness was built into almost any provision in any legislation? I am not sure whether he is currently operating on that basis. If so, it prompts the question of why "reasonable" appears in some places but not in others.
      Mr. Davey: Indeed. That is why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I made that point. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will have noted that the phrase "reasonably necessary" appears in proposed new section 82A(5)(c). There appears to be some confusion among those who drafted the Bill and in the Minister's thinking. That is a small point and we do
      844
      not want to press the new clause to a Division because of it, but I hope that the Minister will accept it and ensure that the measure is corrected before it appears on the statute book.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Sub-committees are sensible because they can deal fairly speedily with any allegations against someone. People are busy, and convening a full committee can prove difficult. I therefore believe that the new clause may speed up justice in the case of a complaint. That is sensible.
      The point about vexatious and frivolous complaints is significant. There are approximately 20,000 councillors in Britain but, given that number, scandals are rare. All parties have occasionally been touched by scandal, but few councillors are locked up in jail. Some are, but most are honest and diligent.
      Under the current structure, party political groups tend to level complaints on a tit-for-tat basis. For example, a row happens in the council chamber and a complaint is made to the monitoring officer or the standards committee. I had experience of local government a few years ago and I have contacts today. I am always surprised by the frivolity of the complaints. One party starts, the other responds and the complaint keeps going. Guidance should include a reporting system to enable us to identify frivolous or vexatious complaints. They waste much time and effort in local government, which has many better things to do.
      I am sure that monitoring officers will be pleased that they can delegate their functions. Some find themselves in the political position of being bombarded by complaints from various groups. They will be pleased to pass on their responsibilities when they can do that.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman mentioned spurious complaints by councillors from both sides. I know of at least a couple of councils where senior officers used the threat of reports to the monitoring officer to try to keep their councillors going down the route that they would like. I am afraid that we see far too much of that officer-led situation in councils. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any similar circumstances?
      2 pm
      Mr. Syms: I was not aware of that, although the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
      This sours relationships in local government and takes up an awful lot of time. The Minister said that the national committee has many frivolous matters referred to it. That should be made clear. Even if there were not to be a system of fines, there should at least be some system of monitoring and naming people who level frivolous or vexatious complaints, especially if they have a track record of levelling complaints that are not upheld.
      Mr. Leslie: We have covered a large number of issues in a short time, which I welcome. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), I agree that there were several serious cases historically that led to the Government taking a strong

      845
      decision to make structural changes in relation to improving standards and ethics in all levels of public life, not least in local government. Several cases gave grounds for laying the foundations for some of those changes. In the case of Lady Porter, it was the auditor who concluded that there had been scandalous misconduct in that authority. That is well known and on the record. My hon. Friend made the point extremely forcefully.
      David Winnick: The Minister will know that that decision has been upheld by the House of Lords, the highest court in the land. As I said, Lady Porter owes £26.5 million plus interest, and she is obviously finding outlets in various parts of the world so as not to have to pay the money owing to the London borough of Westminster.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat to the Minister what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he addressed the House—that I would rather he did not pursue that matter any further?
      Mr. Leslie: The matter stands on the record, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a number of issues. First, he asked why these changes were not anticipated at an earlier stage, perhaps in Committee. We have here a completely new regime for identifying misconduct, carrying out investigations, conducting hearings, imposing sanctions and so forth. The regulations governing the regime need to provide for fairness and efficiency across the wide variety of circumstances that might arise in each different local authority. That makes the regulation process somewhat complex. The need for the changes that we propose was identified following extensive consultation that we undertook, particularly last summer. We tabled the amendments in response to issues that were identified by the Standards Board for England and by monitoring officers and standards committees around the country.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify whether 12 people were too many for a tribunal or, indeed, a jury. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that that number was excessive. I was trying to explain in a more sophisticated manner that it is important locally that standards committees have the opportunity to set up sub-committees so that the nature of the tribunal can most appropriately reflect the nature of the allegation in question.
      The hon. Gentleman made a well-spotted point in noting that the new clause contains differing descriptions of the resources that can be allocated to monitoring officers who are undertaking an investigation and those that can be allocated to people who are delegated the function as a third person and who will have the resources that are "reasonably necessary" rather than simply sufficient to perform the function. That provision is there because it would not be right to give someone who is not an employee of an authority the automatic right to specify what resources the authority should provide. A situation involving a council employee, with the normal constraints in respect
      846
      of ensuring that they have the necessary resources, differs from that involving somebody, say, from a neighbouring authority having a blanket right. That was the rationale behind the different phrases in the new clause, but I shall certainly look at that issue again to check that it does not give rise to any problems.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for helpfully pointing out that, in general, the reasonableness test under the Wednesbury principle should also apply to any activities and judgments of public officials. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
      The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important points about spurious or frivolous cases. It is important in any political situation that we allow complaints to go forward and that we do not put hurdles in their way. Although he may feel that too many cases concern allegations that are not well founded, some are genuinely and earnestly made, and we should not inhibit them. However, we also have to strike the right balance in ensuring that spurious complaints that are proved to be such can be dismissed quickly. In terms of inter-party banter, the public are pretty sophisticated and well able to make their own judgments about such allegations.
      These are important provisions for raising standards in the ethical structures in local government and I hope that they can stand part of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      USE OF HOUSING CAPITAL RECEIPTS—RESERVED PORTION
      (1) "This section applies to capital receipts paid to the Secretary of State pursuant to section 11(2)(b).
      (2) The Secretary of State shall pay to each local authority which makes a payment to him of a capital receipt pursuant to section 11(2)(b) a special grant equivalent to fifty per cent. of such capital receipt paid to him for the use by the local authority solely for the purposes of—

      (a) defraying the cost of capital works to any building or land in relation to which the local authority is or has been subject to a duty under section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42); and

      (b) securing the provision of housing within the local authority area by a registered social landlord in respect of which the local authority shall have the right to nominate the occupier.

      (3) Any grant which falls to be paid by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be paid in the financial year in which the Secretary of State receives the payment from the local authority pursuant to section 11(2)(b) in relation to which the grant becomes payable.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 6—Empty homes—
      '.—(1) The information obtained in relation to council tax on empty homes shall not be used to require the owner of an empty property that is in reasonable repair to give up the freedom to enjoy and manage that property as the owner wishes.
      (2) Any amount raised by levying Council Tax on an empty home will be retained by the billing Authority and there shall be no substitution of any grant, subsidy or money due from central Government as a result of such a change.'.
      New clause 7—Housing Revenue Account—
      '.—The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the operation of section 90 (under which a local housing authority is required to pay to the appropriate person an equivalent amount of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy in which a negative figure occurs) stating—

      (a) for each local housing authority—

      (i) the amount involved, and

      (ii) the amount by which rents in that authority would rise because of the operation of this clause; and

      (b) to which local housing authorities he has made payments as a result of their Housing Revenue Accounts being in deficit and how much their rents are reduced because of the operation of that section.'.

      New clause 16—Repayment of overhanging debt—
      The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament detailing—

      (a) the amounts paid or contemplated to be paid pursuant to sections 40 and 41; and

      (b) the effects of such payments on rents in relation to the voluntary transfers of council housing'.

      Amendment No. 43, in page 5 [Clause 11], leave out lines 38 and 39.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 5, line 38 [Clause 11], leave out
      'equal to the whole or any part'
      and insert
      'up to a maximum of 50 per cent.'.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 48, line 31 [Clause 92], leave out subsection (1).
      Amendment No. 35, in page 48, line 34 [Clause 92], leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 36, in page 73, line 12 [Clause 125], leave out '92(1)'.
      Mr. Hammond: This group of new clauses and amendments addresses one of the key issues of the Bill, which was discussed in some depth in Committee—at least, in as much depth as the timetable motion permitted. The Government say that the Bill is about delivering freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, but their actions on capital receipts, the associated debt and local authority housing grant demonstrate exactly the opposite as far as prudent, debt-free authorities are concerned. In fact, the whole approach of the first part of the Bill, mirroring the Government's conduct of their own finances, is to abandon prudence, to punish debt-free authorities and to encourage borrowing, while increasing the power of the Secretary of State in the allocation of funding by expropriating the capital receipts of local authorities from right-to-buy sales, as clause 11 seeks to do.
      The Select Committee that considered the Bill in draft—one of the early examples of the draft Bill procedure—recommended that clause 11 be deleted. The Government have rejected that recommendation, which represents an early defeat for the concept of consideration of Bills in draft. We have seen draft regulations in relation to clause 11, and they have been much discussed. We know that the Government intend
      848
      to sequester 75 per cent. of the capital receipts that local authorities receive from right-to-buy sales and 50 per cent. of those obtained from other transactions. The Government use language such as "pooling" and redistribution. Their notes on the clause talk about taking this money in order to redistribute it. However, nobody reading the Bill will find any reference to redistribution or pooling; they will find that the 75 per cent. tax on local authority capital receipts has to be
      "paid to the Secretary of State".
      Clearly, these moneys will not be available to the surrendering local authority, but what assurance do we have that they will represent net additional money at all? The Treasury, as we all know, has its own little local difficulties. It is far from apparent to me that when the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister formulate the overall local authority finance settlements for next year and the two subsequent years, all the money that has been skimmed off in this way will be treated as an additional resource, rather than as a substitute resource for money that would otherwise have been made available to areas in need, from central Government funding.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman and I agreed on many aspects of this issue in Committee, but can he clarify whether, compared with the previous regime, the change that the Government propose will hit only debt-free authorities? The previous regime—it was a Conservative one—prevented many local councils from keeping their own capital receipts. Under the Conservatives, non-debt-free authorities had to pay them to the centre.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of general support. Indeed, I am glad about that because he has added his name to new clause 3, so we would expect him to support it. He is right, of course, that the principal burden of clause 11 falls on the 34 debt-free authorities.
      Mr. Raynsford: It falls on 18 authorities.
      Mr. Hammond: In saying that, the Minister is arguing that it is debt-free authorities with housing stock that the provision hits most substantially. However, it is my understanding that it will impact on indebted local authorities, to the extent that the Government do not choose—as they are empowering themselves to do
      through other provisions in the Bill—to pay off their
      debts for them.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman tries to draw a distinction between debt-free authorities that have housing stock, and those that do not. How can housing authorities that do not have any housing stock possibly benefit from capital receipts from house sales?
      Mr. Hammond: Of course they cannot benefit from capital receipts from housing sales—I was merely trying to contend with the Minister's constant chuntering from a sedentary position. I referred to 34 authorities and he replied with 18, and I was perhaps second-guessing some rationale for his figure. My understanding is that 34 debt-free local authorities will be particularly

      849
      affected by these measures, but if the Minister has a different view, he will doubtless make his point in due course.
      The Government argue that not all local authorities in receipt of capital receipts have chosen to reinvest them in housing assets, and to a limited extent that is true. That is called local decision making, but the power in the Bill is a power to tax local authorities, not an obligation to pool and to redistribute, over and above existing housing capital funding.
      Mr. Peter Luff: As one of those who did not have the privilege of serving on this Bill in Committee, I wonder whether my hon. Friend can explain a little about the retrospective nature of the Bill's provisions. Wychavon district council, which is in my constituency, sold its housing stock some five or six years ago and repaid all its debts. It now has a substantial cash balance. Does he have any concerns about the Bill's implications for authorities such as Wychavon?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point.[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position again. He seems to have an obsession with saying what I am about to say before I can say it.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance. I do not think that clause 11 will pose any threat to those receipts, but I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) to the concern of many local authorities with positive capital balances that changes in the funding formula, and in the general tenor of the Government's approach to local authority finance, present the constant threat that unjust account will be taken of those capital funds, in such a way that the grant funding available to those authorities will be reduced.
      The existing system of housing capital funding is itself being scrapped, of course—a point that I shall return to in a moment. The Government's second argument is that the stock that is being sold was originally financed centrally. Well, perhaps it was, but many debt-free authorities have received negative housing subsidy for years. It is their tenants' rent and their council tax payers' tax that has, over generations, built up the equity that exists in the housing stock that they are disposing of today—through investment, improvements, maintenance of stock, and repayment of debt.
      2.15 pm
      So both the Government's arguments fail. If one believes in local democracy and the freedoms for local authorities that Ministers laughably proclaim this Bill is about, reinvestment of capital receipts from right to buy should be a local decision. The equitable ownership of the assets lies with the local community, not with the Secretary of State. The sequestration of one community's assets, even if for redistribution to another, is the antithesis of responsible and empowered
      850
      local government. It is just another crude attempt by the Government to reinforce the clear thrust of their local government finance policy: to snatch from those authorities wicked enough to be prudent, well run, low taxing and debt free, in order to bail out the hopeless, the feckless and the profligate. That policy will result in average band D council taxes for the coming financial year on the homes of ordinary hard-working families in England exceeding £1,000 for the first time—a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has made.
      Debt-free local authorities currently have the freedom to reinvest—or not, as they choose—their receipts from capital disposals. They, of course, will bear the brunt, but I should be grateful if the Minister would touch on the complex issue of how this measure impacts on indebted authorities. I am ready to stand corrected, but my understanding is that the notional income from set-aside receipts offsets the notional cost of the underlying debt that financed the assets that gave rise to those receipts. The Government seem to be recognising that problem in this Bill by taking powers to themselves to clear local authority debt; indeed, we shall be discussing overhanging debt in a moment. However, it appears that a local authority that has debt will have its receipts not set aside—blocked, in essence—but sequestered by the Government. It will be dependent on the largesse of the Secretary of State to clear its paper indebtedness, at least. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how that process works when he winds up the debate.
      As ever, in Committee we approached this issue in the spirit of constructive compromise. We tabled amendments that recognised the Government's agenda, while resisting the extent of the asset grab that they proposed. We tried to reduce, or to limit, the percentage of the capital receipt that could be taken by the Secretary of State. We tried to ring-fence part of the local authority receipt for reinvestment in housing and regeneration within that local authority area, thus addressing one of the Government's principal purported concerns. I am afraid to say, however, that all that was in vain. The Government proved determined to attack the freedoms of debt-free authorities, and to undermine the right to buy from all sides. That is demonstrated in this Bill, which allows deduction of local authority housing and regeneration investment before the tax is calculated for other capital receipts, but not for right-to-buy receipts.
      If we set clause 11 in the wider context, it is apparent that the Government are putting together a system whereby they sequestrate 75 per cent. of capital receipts from right to buy. At the same time, the right to buy itself comes under attack, in the form of a reduction in discounts, and in a clear policy agenda that seeks to limit the opportunities for ordinary hard-working families to benefit from right to buy.
      Secondly, there is the introduction of a discretionary grant system, whereby the Secretary of State will pay off local authorities' indebtedness where he sees fit. Thirdly, we are all aware of the abolition of the local authority social housing grant—a measure that was well trailed but that all local authorities, without exception, understood was intended to come in on 1 April 2004. With some horror, local authorities have become aware—although they have yet to receive the courtesy of direct information from the Office of the Deputy Prime

      851
      Minister—that local authority social housing grant will, in fact, be withdrawn on 1 April 2003. They became aware of that by being copied in on a letter from officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Housing Corporation on 8 February 2003, just three weeks before they were required by law to have set their budgets. That has caused chaos. It smacks of political vindictiveness or fiscal panic on the part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister is shaking his head, so no doubt he will be defending the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's lamentable performance in communicating with local authorities about the abolition of local authority social housing grant on 1 April 2003. Taken together, all those facts add up to a very curious idea of freedom and flexibility.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen today's written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, on the local authority social housing grant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this episode suggests a degree of incompetence in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that is extremely worrying? It is clear that local authorities did not expect the grant to be phased out until April 2004. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the announcement that it will be phased out in 2003 has, in many areas, left plans for developing more affordable homes in utter chaos?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. The announcement left councils reeling just a couple of weeks before they were due to present their budgets. There has been no clear indication of what the transitional arrangements are to be. There has been an indication that there will be transitional arrangements, but no information has been offered to allow individual authorities to assess which of their schemes will be eligible for the arrangements and which will not. That has led to what I can only describe as outrage among local authorities. The offence has been compounded by the utter discourtesy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in copying in local authorities on an e-mail from an official to the Housing Corporation. There was no effort to follow that up by direct communication with the local authorities. When I contacted the office of the Minister responsible for housing immediately after this fiasco had become known to me, I was told that there would be no chance of any direct communication in the following week—the week when the House was in recess—and that the earliest that any communication would be made would be in the week the House resumed. To my knowledge, nothing has yet gone out to local authorities.
      Sir George Young: My hon. Friend may know that Test Valley borough council is one of the many councils to have been caught up in this. The council has written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only satisfactory transitional arrangement would be one that put the local authority back in the position it thought it was in before the communication went out?
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. A number of local authorities have suggested to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the only fair
      852
      transitional arrangement will be one that recognises all projects that were in local authorities' financial statements and plans at or around 10 February. From the financial information that I have seen on the amount of money available for transitional arrangements, it is clear to me that the Government will not allow anything like all of those projects to slip under the wire.
      Matthew Green: In the information on the transitional arrangements—which has been placed in the Library today—it is clear that, instead of the £500 million provision that had been expected for this year, debt-free authorities will find that their provision has been graciously increased from £175 million to £275 million. Instead of a year, they are being given an extra three months—up to 30 June—to get schemes, together with their planning permission, through. That will allow some schemes to go ahead, but the statement by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, says:
      "We do however need to ensure that the funding limits are not exceeded. If the total claims submitted by 30 June exceed the money available, the Housing Corporation will prioritise schemes with the Government Offices in terms of their contribution to the regional housing priorities."
      In other words, if the limit is exceeded in my area, it will be the Government office for the west midlands that decides who will get the go-ahead.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. I have not seen that statement, and I query why it should be necessary for Ministers to table, only this morning, written ministerial statements that are obviously relevant to today's debate. When that sort of thing happens, hon. Members do not have the opportunity to examine them and discuss them with local authorities. I know from copied correspondence that I have seen that many local authorities have already invested substantial amounts of money and time in projects that will certainly not clear the hurdle that the hon. Gentleman has just informed us has been set in the written ministerial statement. That is a very serious matter. Not only its substance but the way in which it has been handled do no credit at all to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is not, of course, directly responsible for such matters; I am sure that he would have handled them in a way that was not so grossly discourteous to local authorities. He will know that this debacle has done a great deal of damage to the relationship between his Department and local authorities.
      Mr. Michael Jack: Does my hon. Friend feel that, because of the state of the public finances, the actions that have been taken smack of late intervention by the Treasury? Virtually no analysis has been done of the effect of these proposals on councils, which can only move at a certain pace with future housing developments. The whole approach destroys any idea of legitimate expectations.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. As he points out, local authorities have been placed in an impossible position. They have been planning, spending, making progress with projects and preparing

      853
      their budgets, only to find that many of their activities have been put under a shadow on very short notice and without any official notification.
      The signals from Government are utterly confusing. At the beginning of February, we heard the Deputy Prime Minister batting on about the need to build more affordable housing. In some areas, the need to build more affordable housing and to develop sustainable communities is desperate. At the same time, local authorities—which believed that they had been doing precisely the bidding of the Government in negotiating with their registered social landlords and in working up schemes to provide precisely such affordable and sustainable housing developments—have found that the rug has been pulled from under them without even the courtesy of a phone call. They have been left to pick up the pieces and, in many cases, the costs that they have already incurred.
      The Government have given us a curious idea of what freedom and flexibility mean. They seem to mean that the Government take one's assets, cut off one's entitlement to grant funding for one's social housing programme, and replace that funding with grants that are at the discretion of the Secretary of State. At worst, that is open to any kind of gerrymandering; at best, it represents a huge increase in bureaucracy and a loss of local autonomy and accountability, as local authorities are forced to supplicate at the altar of the Deputy Prime Minister for funding for regeneration and social housing schemes.
      Clause 11 hands the Government an £800 million pork barrel that is financed by council tenants and council tax payers. That may be why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), who I am pleased to see is here, was able to vote with the Government in favour of clause 11, even though his own local authority—Barking and Dagenham—will be the single biggest loser, losing £12 million of capital receipts. Perhaps he has been given an assurance that the Secretary of State's largesse will extend to Barking and Dagenham, and his council will not be out of pocket. So much for the Secretary of State's open-minded and objective approach to funding decisions.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's body language may tell us more than his words?[Interruption.] He is now trying to appear open and wise. When my hon. Friend makes a point with which the Minister disagrees, he smiles like a crocodile and shakes his head vigorously. However, when my hon. Friend makes a point with which the Minister cannot in honesty disagree, such as the remark about the promises to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) or about the Treasury's intervention in the social housing grant, the Minister hunches up, buries his nose in his papers and scribbles notes.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not have the expertise that my hon. Friend obviously possesses in the analysis of Ministers' body language. This particular Minister's body language is usually smiling, and I find it difficult to read anything into that, although I have discovered that smiling does not necessarily indicate agreement with or
      854
      approval of what is being said. I look forward to my hon. Friend's continued interpretation, as I may find it helpful.
      New clause 3 is a further attempt at compromise, following the attempts that we made in Committee and that were rejected by the Government. I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have decided to support the new clause. It proposes that the Secretary of State should pay a mandatory special grant for social housing provision and repairs to housing stock, equivalent to 50 per cent. of what is received under the provisions of clause 11. Effectively, new clause 3 provides that 25 per cent. of right-to-buy receipts would remain in the hands of the local authority, with no restrictions on its use; 37.5 per cent. would come back to the authority in a ring-fenced special grant to be spent on social housing and repairs to stock; and 37.5 per cent. would go to the Secretary of State for redistribution, if he is generous, or to be swallowed up into the Chancellor's black hole, if he is ungenerous. More than half the receipts would remain with or return to the local authority. That is a compromise position that any reasonable Government would accept. Unless the Minister will accept it, all we have on offer from him is a set of transitional arrangements that reject the arguments in principle against this centralising measure.
      During the debate in Committee, we touched on the question of receipts other than in the form of cash—in particular, in the form of nomination rights. For example, a local authority might transfer assets to a registered social landlord in exchange for nomination rights to the tenancies in those assets. The Opposition amendment in Committee proposed that such receipts should be excluded from the sequestration process.
      The Bill would require local authorities to value such nomination rights and pay a levy to the Secretary of State, in cash, on receipts that have not been received in cash. That would present serious problems for local authorities. To the Minister's credit, he recognised that that was not the Government's intention, but he did not accept the amendment because he noticed many loopholes and possibilities for evasion by local authorities of his taxing plans. He said:
      "I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee that we will be able to produce revised regulations in time for Report stage, but that is only because of the considerable number of other pressures under which we are working."
      There is obviously too much legislation. He continued:
      "I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman, setting out our thoughts on how we might address this conundrum and I will copy that letter to all Committee members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 2003; c. 145.]
      I am wary of accusing the Minister of not having written to me, because I did so once before and returned to my office to find the letter on the doormat. However. I have not received a letter, and I have spoken to some hon. Friends who are also not aware of having received one. I see from the body language of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that he has not received one either—[Interruption.] Well, I see it from his raised eyebrow language.
      We needed to see how the Government intended to deal with the issue before we returned to the subject on Report. In the absence of any revised draft regulations, we needed at least to have the Minister's thoughts set

      855
      out for us. If he has not been able to set them out in writing, perhaps he will take a little extra time and trouble to set them out in detail when he replies to the debate.
      The second issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is the situation relating to new towns. Currently, the sale of stock transferred originally from the Commission for the New Towns or English Partnerships to new town local authorities is subject to a clawback, equivalent to 75 per cent., to English Partnerships. The Minister will know that there was a debate last week in Westminster Hall to which his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), responded. In that debate, I raised the following question. The Government's response to the Select Committee's report on new towns, their problems and future, states:
      "English Partnerships will discuss with the individual local authorities the issue of assets and liabilities, including clawback. In some circumstances, and with the agreement of the Treasury, English Partnerships might waive clawback or transfer the right to receive clawback to the respective local authority."
      I asked the Under-Secretary how that process interfaces with the arrangements that are now being put in place for the Secretary of State to take 75 per cent. of all capital receipts, and I wish to put the same question to the Minister. The irony is that the new towns have long campaigned for the abolition of clawback on the basis that it would give them equal treatment with all other authorities. They will have equal treatment, but only by subjecting all other authorities to the clawback under which the new town authorities have laboured for so long.
      Will the clawback waiver by EP actually operate and, if so, will the receipt that the local authority obtains be subject to the clause 11 sequestration process? If so, English Partnerships will give, only for the Secretary of State to take away. That would be a meaningless exercise. If what the Government said in their response to the Select Committee's report stands, and the new towns are exempt from the process by the waiver of clawback in specified cases, it represents a large and partisan hole in the Bill. After all, all but one of the new town authorities are controlled by the Labour party. I would be concerned if the Government were introducing a different regime for the new towns compared with all other authorities, effectively exempting some Labour-controlled authorities from the pain that they are inflicting on all other authorities. I look forward to the Minister's response on that issue.
      New clause 6 is an attempt to probe the Government on the recently announced power of forced letting. It seeks to prevent information from council tax records being used as a base for a programme of forced lettings of empty property. I have two questions for the Minister. Will there be an appeal mechanism for anybody whose property is subjected to the proposed enforced letting process? Will a person who does not wish to become a landlord have the right to require the local authority to compulsorily purchase a property identified for compulsory letting?
      The Government's proposals on compulsory letting represent a massive infringement of the rights of private property. The Government and Labour Members are very keen on the human rights agenda, but they cannot pick and choose from it. One of the rights guaranteed by
      856
      the European convention is the right to private property. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have received specific advice that the compulsory letting of private property with no option to require its compulsory purchase would not breach rights under the convention?
      Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman say more about why the Conservatives are so against compulsory leasing, when previous Conservative Governments have introduced legislation to promote compulsory purchase? Will he explain the difference, as he sees it?
      Mr. Hammond: I hope that all hon. Members would find any notion of compulsion slightly unsavoury, as I do. It is always better if these things can be done without compulsion. Clearly, however, compulsory purchase powers will be needed in some cases. The owner of a property may require a local authority to acquire the property, but that is different from the owner being legally required to become a landlord when he does not want to, and having no option to require the local authority to purchase the property. The distinction is clear. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's intentions in the matter.
      New clause 6(2) would establish that empty home receipts should go to local authorities rather than directly to the Government. At present, £160 million in such receipts goes to the Government, and the new clause would bring the procedure into line with what the Government propose in respect of second homes. It would also bring the procedure into line with the incentive system that the Government have extolled in relation to new clause 10.
      New clause 7 relates to clause 90, which deals with negative housing revenue account surplus. The explanatory notes say that the subject is "not well understood". That is masterly understatement. The Minister will do well to find anyone who understands the concept at all, although my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) may be one of the few in the House who qualifies.
      Clause 90 requires a local authority to pay any negative housing revenue account subsidy to the Secretary of State. The notes say that that represents no change, and that it is required simply to deal with changes in the treatment of rent rebates.
      Mr. Raynsford indicated assent.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister, in his customary helpful fashion, confirms that.
      Members of Parliament are required to be suspicious, and new clause 7 therefore would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about the amounts paid in negative housing revenue account subsidy to him by each local authority. That would allow the House to see what the distribution effect is and, I hope, corroborate the Minister's assertion that nothing has changed.
      New clause 16 addresses clauses 40 and 50. As part of its centralising approach, the Government must deal with the question of local authority indebtedness, in respect of stock whose sale receipts are to be sequestered

      857
      by the Secretary of State. This is a matter for indebted, not debt-free, authorities. Currently, indebted authorities have to set those receipts aside, but the Government are proposing a tortuous system: the Secretary of State will take the receipts, and then the loans will be repaid, on behalf of the local authorities, by the Secretary of State. However, as I understand it, that repayment will remain at the Secretary of State's discretion.
      The powers to make the regulations appear later in the Bill. They are framed specifically to give the Government the power to make different regulations applicable to different types of authorities, or to authorities in different areas or regions. That strikes me as an especially dangerous power for the Government to have. Again, it is the antithesis of genuinely local government and proper local financial controls. It would give the Secretary of State huge power, and the ability to exercise largesse towards favoured local authorities.
      New clause 16 would force the Secretary of State to report to Parliament the amounts paid under clauses 40 and 41, and to assess any effects on rents in respect of transferred properties. For example, local authorities that discover that the Secretary of State is not likely to clear their debts may have to hold out for a higher price so that they can continue to service outstanding indebtedness. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
      Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are essentially another way to address the iniquity of clause 11. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will throw his weight behind new clause 3, and not find it necessary to press amendments Nos. 43 and 44 separately. However, if he does press the amendments, we will support him in any vote that is held.
      Amendments Nos. 4 and 35 deal with clause 92. The clause limits the effect of section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 so that it applies only to Wales, but clause 92(2) allows the Welsh Assembly to abolish it for Wales also. I assume that that is a gesture to the principle of devolution. However, the Government say that the proposal is about enabling authorities to comply with the Government's rent restructuring policies in England. The amendments have been tabled to give the Minister an opportunity to explain the policies in a little more detail, and to explain why clause 92 is needed.
      2.45 pm
      My understanding of section 24(3) of the 1985 Act is not that uniform rentals—or fixed percentages for public-sector rents by comparison with private-sector rents—have to apply across the country, but that there should be an equivalence of proportionality, in a local authority area, between public sector and private sector rents across different types of dwelling. That is surely sensible. Wages in the labour market in an area are linked to local market conditions, and local private sector housing market rents are also a function of the local market conditions. My intuition is that it is appropriate to have a consistent relationship between public sector and private sector rents in an area. I readily
      858
      accept that that relationship might have to be very different in areas of high demand and high prices from what it should be in areas of low demand and low prices.
      In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), for example, registered social landlord rents are notorious for being higher than market rents. In many other areas—and my own constituency is one of them—RSL rents obviously have to be substantially lower than comparable private sector rents if the affordable housing market is to function. However, it is not clear why the Government need to use clause 92 to remove section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 in relation to England, and to give the Welsh Assembly the power to remove that section in respect of Wales.
      Amendment No. 36 is a consequential amendment that does not need to be discussed.
      The combined effect of the sequestration of capital receipts under clause 11, the power of the Secretary of State to distribute them as largesse to favoured authorities, changes in the local authority social housing grant, the arrangements for discretionary repayment by central Government of overhanging debt, and the Government's meddling with the formula funding grant, as well as the general thrust of their policy in respect of local authority financing—all those factors undermine the autonomy of debt-free authorities and give the lie to the Government's claim that the Bill is about freedoms and flexibilities. It is about increasing central Government control and the patronage power of the Secretary of State. It is about penalising the prudent to bail out the profligate. It is about disempowering local communities and undermining true financial accountability. It is about politically motivated hostility towards the freedom that right to buy gives ordinary working families. It is about transferring receipts from local authorities and the south-east—where most right-to-buy receipts arise and where affordable housing is desperately needed.
      Clause 11 is bad. The Select Committee that considered the draft Bill recommended that is should be scrapped but the Government refused. New clause 3 makes a bad clause less bad and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I agreed with much of what was said by the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), so I will speak for fewer than the 45 minutes taken by him. As we support and can unite behind new clause 3—which addresses some of the problems created by new clause 11 and the pooling of capital receipts—and one or two other amendments tabled by Conservative Members, we shall not press our amendments to a vote.
      The Government shifted their position on pooling significantly in Committee and in respect of the local authority social housing grant—today, they have changed position again. One might say that that shows flexibility on their part but to those of us who have witnessed the charade, the Government's incompetence is exceptionally worrying. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is not in his place, because it is increasingly clear that he is not getting a grip on issues that are his responsibility. Debt-free authorities—having worked within a particular

      859
      framework for many years and managed their assets properly—are now being penalised. Under pressure from arguments in Committee, the Government have brought forward a transitional arrangement package. It does not go nearly far enough, but it shows that the Government know they got it wrong.
      Equally, the sustainable communities plan contained the mistake of proposing that local authority social housing grant should be abolished from April. The Government realised the damaging effect that that would have on many housing authorities—including those of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Green).
      Matthew Green: Shropshire district council has a £4 million social housing programme for next year, using the last of its capital, which it must try to rush through in three months, including planning permission. If too many councils throughout the country do the same, it will still be at the discretion of the region to decide whether they may proceed or to prioritise something else. If that happens, it will be a scandal.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government say that they are thinking about long-term strategies for sustainable communities, but they present policies that fall apart under initial scrutiny. A few weeks after announcing them, the Government try to patch up their collapsing framework. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that his Department's continual mistakes are not repeated.
      New clause 3 seems to address the problems of clause 11 and is offered to the Government as a compromise. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made a powerful speech outlining that the likely effect of the proposals on her debt-free authority and others would be to prevent them from dealing with the key issue—recognised by the Government in their sustainable communities statement—of a shortage of affordable housing. New clause 3(2)(b) will ensure that grants repaid to authorities could be used to secure social housing. We explored that issue in great detail in Committee and the Government admitted that that was the case. New clause 3 enables the Government to put into practice their intention, so loyal Labour Members should support it.
      New clause 6 is a bit of a curate's egg. I can support the second part but subsection (1) is bizarre, in that it goes against what was said by Conservative Members on the Select Committee that examined the problem of empty homes—when that matter was the responsibility of the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—and reported on the need to improve the quality of information. We are passionate about that issue because there are more empty homes in every region of this country than there are homeless people in every region of this country. If that huge resource were used properly, the homeless problem could be tackled quickly, cheaply and in a sustainable way.
      The Select Committee said that there was a need to improve the accuracy of data on empty homes, particularly in housing investment programme returns,
      860
      and to use geographical information systems to enhance the quality of information—something on which the Government are now moving. The Committee reported also a problem about the way in which council tax data could be used. The Information Commissioner took one view and Poole borough council obtained counsel's opinion that council tax data could be used for the purpose. The Committee sought clarification and called on the Government to end the confusion and bring forward legislation.
      The Government have done so in the form of the Bill, but I wonder where the hon. Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) are to be found, because they agreed to the Select Committee's report, in direct conflict with new clause 3. I hope that Conservative Front-Bench Members will sort out their position.
      3 pm
      The Conservatives may say that new clause 6 is tightly drawn because it relates the use of such data only to the notion of compulsory leasing, a proposal that was aired in the sustainable communities plan, which we shall have to debate on another occasion. We support the Government on those proposals, provided that there are appropriate safeguards, such as those for compulsory purchase.
      Mr. Hammond: What safeguards would the hon. Gentleman propose?
      Mr. Davey: It would be completely wrong for there to be no safeguards and I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Recently, I discussed with Jonathan Ellis, the chief executive of the Empty Homes Agency, the profile of people who leave their properties empty. The picture is mixed. Some of those people are extremely wealthy; they have a huge property portfolio and have never quite got round to dealing with it. They are absentee landlords and they simply do not bother. Others, however, are elderly and do not have enough money to maintain their property. They may be asset rich but they are income poor. They do not want the hassle of getting involved with bureaucracy. Other elderly people may be sick; they may suffer from dementia and have gone into a care home so they did not get round to putting their property to rights and letting it.
      Such cases must be managed appropriately and the legislation must ensure that no local authority could treat such owners insensitively.
      Mr. Raynsford indicated assent.
      Mr. Davey: I am glad that the Minister agrees.
      Such provisions should not, however, prevent us from adopting a public policy whereby empty properties are used to tackle homelessness. The Conservatives should agree. They may point out, rightly, that many empty properties are in the state sector, but that is true of only 10 per cent. of empty homes in London and the southeast. Of course, even that is too much and the problem needs to be tackled. We need to hold the Government and local authorities to account for that.

      861
      In my constituency, however, 90 per cent. of empty homes are in the private sector. Yes, local authorities could do a better job by using voluntary agreements. They could promote best practice and provide grants to repair and renovate homes so that they could go back on the market. Local authorities could act in partnership with private letting companies to ensure that owners receive a rental income. However, there is a question that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will have to face up to, because it is not covered in new clause 6. If best practice is adopted and there is an empty property strategy, if grants are offered and people are given support to use their assets, is there to be no backstop? If a person has a property that is desperately needed, should not the community take measures to put it back into useful possession? It would be difficult, even on libertarian grounds, to argue against that.
      Mr. Hammond: We already have a well established procedure for compulsory purchase of property where it is required for a public policy purpose. The Government are significantly extending the scope of such procedures. My view, however, is that compulsory purchase is a different order of imposition on the rights of private property than compulsory leasing. Compulsory leasing requires an individual to finance the capital cost of an asset, of which the Government then dictates the use. That seems quite different from compulsorily purchasing a property where it is required for a public policy purpose.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an early opportunity to put right the Conservatives' flawed economic logic. The point is that the property owner will keep the asset, so that must be less damaging than compulsory purchase. We have not yet seen the final proposals, so the hon. Gentleman may have a point, but the idea currently being debated by the Empty Homes Agency and others is that the rental income will be shared with the owner. Indeed, it will all go to the owner once the state's costs have been met; for example, the costs of repair, renovation and administration. The proposals could be extremely beneficial for property owners. This is potentially a win-win situation.
      Mr. Hammond: If it was in their interest, owners could do those things themselves.
      Mr. Davey: In many circumstances, people have neither the competence nor the capability to do that for a variety of reasons. I look forward to future debates with the hon. Gentleman when I can give him some concrete examples. I urge him to talk to the Empty Homes Agency, which has commissioned a MORI poll of the type of people whom we are discussing so that we have a true profile. That information will be important in getting the measure right.
      It is important to safeguard people's property rights, but it is wrong that there should be whole streets where properties are left empty—there is one such street in my constituency in an area of highly priced properties—when there are such huge homelessness and housing problems.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for
      862
      Runnymede and Weybridge keeps saying "Compulsory purchase". That is the illiberal position. The Liberal position is to go for compulsory leasing.
      Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman would accept that there must be an option for a person who is compulsorily required to lease to require the authority to purchase his property, he may overcome my objection. Would he support such a safeguard?
      Mr. Davey: That is a sensible proposal in principle and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. We might need a different regime to ensure that the system was slightly quicker than some of the compulsory purchase procedures, but the House should debate such matters to ensure that we get the legislation right. I hope that Conservative Members will at least agree that it is vital to use such resources, especially where there is high demand for housing and we need to tackle homelessness.
      New clauses 7 and 16 require reports on housing revenue accounts and overhanging debt. We have no problem with that and I shall not rehearse the detailed and technical arguments with which we dealt in huge detail in Committee. We have some concerns about the way that the Government are going about housing revenue account reforms. As some of the money could go to the Secretary of State and would not be ploughed back into housing in local authorities, it is important to monitor the Government's policy. New clause 7 would do that, so we support it.
      There were fierce debates in Committee about the Government's overhanging debt proposals. Following the views of the Select Committee and of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, I argued that, in effect, the Government were giving local authority tenants an extra incentive to opt for a housing transfer. There was some discussion of how the analysis was to be carried out and the Minister has written to me about that issue. However, I am still not convinced that an extra bribe is not being proposed. The Liberal Democrats are not against stock transfer. In many cases, it is appropriate and we have argued for it, but the key public policy issue is that stock transfer decisions should be based on a level playing field for different types of landlord. We fear that the Government's proposals will skew the balance in favour of stock transfer simply because they have failed to win some stock transfers.
      The Government's analysis is wrong. Where stock transfers were lost, it was not because there was no bribe, but because the actual proposal did not make sense and tenants were right to vote against it. Where the proposals are put to tenants in a way that makes sense to them, they vote for them. I suggest that new clause 16 is right and that the clauses on housing issues are wrong.
      I said that I would touch on the local authority social housing grant because it is crucial to these issues. I want to reiterate the shock and anger in many communities. People have been labouring away—whether in public sector housing authorities, registered social landlords or other stakeholders—to try to put together proposals, often with private developers, to build affordable housing on the back of the promise that local authority social housing grant will be part of the financial

      863
      package. Suddenly, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House in the middle of February that those people could not have the grant on which all their work had been done and on the basis of which their money had been invested. That was an absolute catastrophe.
      We are not over-emphasising the problem: affordable homes will not be built, and we are experiencing one of the biggest crises in respect of the shortage of affordable homes probably in the past 100 years. So not enabling proposals that are already halfway down the pipeline to go through seems not only wrong, but to go completely against the thrust of the Government's policy.
      Matthew Green: Is not the reality that the Government are effectively saying that they are not interested in those affordable homes because they are not in their priority areas? The reality is that South Shropshire will need 1,400 affordable homes by 2011. With the abolition of that scheme, one of the main ways of delivering that will have gone, and the regional body will say that places around Birmingham, or somewhere like it, have priority and people in South Shropshire should not have any social housing funds. Rural areas have very real needs, and the fear is that they will not receive the funding that they used to get because they are not one of the Government's priorities.
      Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The problem is that the Government are trying to centralise housing policy over the regions and pick certain areas, and they do not like some areas. They are taking money from all debt-free authorities of whatever political persuasion, and they are taking the local authority social housing grant away from them, too. The Government are trying to control the nation's housing policy from Whitehall, and that cannot be right.
      We are finding—this affects my hon. Friend's part of the country—that the Government sometimes put ceilings on the number of affordable houses that can be built. The councils and communities in those areas would be prepared to see more houses built, but that is being stopped by central Government. That seems to be nonsense.
      I hope that the Government will not leave this issue, especially the local authority social housing grant, at the statement that we received today from the Minister. Frankly, so far as we can tell from the statement, the available grant will be cut by £225 million next year, so fewer affordable homes will be built. That is why I refer the Minister to early-day motion 824, which my hon. Friends and I tabled last night. We did not realise that we would have such an effect—a written ministerial statement being produced the very next day. Obviously, we have more influence than even we had imagined. Unfortunately, the ministerial statement does not go as far as our early-day motion, so I hope that the Minister will look at it again.
      My final remarks relate to new clause 6, on empty homes, the first part of which I have been very critical. I shall end on a more consensual note by telling the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the second part of new clause 6 is very laudable, and he will know that not only do we support it, but the Local Government Association supports it. The hon. Gentleman would like local authorities to be able to
      864
      keep the council tax receipts where they decide to get rid of discounts on empty homes. That seems very sensible—it has been Liberal Democrat policy for many years.
      3.15 pm
      The Government might say, "Well, we've gone some way. We have given councils the power to end the discounts on empty homes. Isn't that a good thing?" Well, I am afraid that that is only half the cake. Allowing local authorities to keep the revenue that they thereby raise would enable them to get a much greater hold on the housing issues in their areas. However, siphoning off that revenue not only gives poor incentives to local authorities, but prevents that policy from having an even more powerful effect on the housing situation. If the Minister does not like the first half of new clause 6, I hope that he will see some merit in the second half.
      I have spoken for longer than I had intended, so I shall simply end my speech by saying that new clause 3 would make a major improvement to the Bill and it therefore deserves the support of not only Conservative Members and the Liberal Democrats, but other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had a long debate, with two speeches—one lasting about 45 minutes, the other 25 minutes. It would be nice to think that I could get through this quickly because my analysis of the two contributions is that they were both erroneous, but the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was slightly less wrong than the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). If one speech was only half the length of the other, there is clearly some merit in keeping comments short.
      Let me try to focus on the various issues. This is a complex range of housing matters. New clause 3 mirrors a number of amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee. Like them, it would remove significant resources—some £600 million—from the funds that will be allocated to all authorities on the basis of their housing needs. The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would either remove the power to make regulations requiring housing capital receipts to be pooled, or limit the pooling rate to 50 per cent. In other words, they are not quite as wrong the Conservatives, but their proposal is still unsatisfactory because it would reduce the amount available for distribution to authorities in need.
      We have always taken the view—interestingly, so did
      the previous Government when the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was the relevant Minister—that it is right that a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of council housing through the right to buy should be recycled, so that it can be used in areas of greatest need. That is a fundamental principle of housing capital finance, but the amendments tabled by today's Conservative party would overturn that principle. If the amendments were passed, the very authorities that we want to help would be penalised—those with high housing need, but low capital receipts.
      I believe strongly that all authorities should have access to the funding that they need to meet national housing priorities, such as affordable housing and

      865
      decent homes, and pooling three quarters of housing receipts is an element in the process by which we can achieve that; removing £600 million from the national mechanism is not.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge claimed that this was a centralising measure, interfering with local authority freedom. On the contrary, it simply applies the same principles that were the fundamental element of the previous Government's policy, but it does so consistently to every authority, rather than allowing a different logic to apply uniquely and paradoxically to debt-free authorities.
      The proof of the pudding has to be in the total sums available. 1 put it to the hon. Gentleman that, far from reducing local authority freedom, the Government are in the business of increasing investment and allowing local authorities to do a great deal more. In 1997–98, we inherited £900 million capital investment in housing; in 2002–03, we are investing £2.5 billion in housing—about two and half times more. That is possible partly because we make proper use of the available receipts, which otherwise would not be applied.
      Matthew Green: The Minister will accept that there may be years when the amount that the Government put into housing, or the amount collected back from capital receipts, is not enough to meet all the housing need throughout the country. The Bill is a centralising measure because somebody in the centre, at regional or national level, will decide what the priorities are for giving out what grant there is. I accept that there may be much more money going into housing, but if it does not meet total need, someone will still be making decisions on priorities—and that someone will not be the local council.
      Mr. Raynsford: Housing is a national issue, and it is absurd to suggest that it should be left entirely to individual local councils to decide whether there should be policies to meet housing need in their areas. In Committee, I cited an example of the Liberal Democrats making a great fuss about the failure of a Conservative council in Surrey to use its money for housing investment—yet they still attack the Government's proposals to ensure that money is used for housing. I have to say here on the Floor of the House, as I said in Committee, that it is typical of the Liberal Democrats to look both ways. First they say that they want money invested in housing, because housing is a priority, but when the Government do something to achieve that, they complain that we are centralising.
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davey: I am surprised that the Minister has brought that example up again, because we soundly defeated him in argument when he brought it up in Committee. My colleagues in Surrey, who were arguing against the Conservatives running the council, were speaking to the local people, because they wanted them to exercise their democratic choice at the next council
      866
      elections to get rid of the Conservative administration that was mishandling the resources available to it. That is called local democracy. If the Government are to push a model in which everybody, on every issue throughout the country, should always look towards Westminster and Whitehall for a solution, they are advancing a centralised model that Stalin would have been proud of.
      Mr. Raynsford: As usual, the hon. Gentleman does his case no good by overstating it. The Bill is designed to ensure that there is a larger pot of money available to enable local authorities to respond to housing need in their areas. By no stretch of the imagination can it be compared to the behaviour of the former Russian dictator whose death 50 years ago is the cause of a certain amount of newspaper comment at the moment. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a very appropriate parallel.
      As hon. Members will know, because we made the announcement in Committee, we have put in place generous transitional arrangements to assist debt-free authorities—a move that was largely welcomed in Committee, albeit slightly grudgingly by some Members.
      New clause 3 is to some extent unworkable. For example, I assume that the reference to special grant means a special grant under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which, as hon. Members will know, requires an affirmative resolution of the House. If the receipt concerned were received at the end of the financial year, there simply would not be time to go through that procedure to comply with the time scale in the new clause. I therefore hope that new clause 3 will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Hammond: It ill behoves the Minister to talk about the time scale at the end of the financial year when he has just abolished local authority social housing grant with zero notice to local authorities. Moreover, if this is all about redistribution, why does the Bill not explicitly ring-fence the receipts in the hands of the Secretary of State so that they have to be redistributed as additional money, and cannot simply be lost in the big pot?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated that matter in Committee, and I gave clear assurances that the money would be used for housing. Those assurances are on the record, and I am happy to repeat them today. It is not necessary to make additional amendments to legislation.
      New clause 6 is an odd combination of two rather different proposals, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out. First, it seeks to limit what a local authority can do with council tax information concerning empty homes. The second, unrelated provision seeks to ensure that the extra money raised from removing or reducing the discount on long-term empty homes is kept by the billing authority.
      I am surprised by the official Opposition's apparent commitment to supporting the freedom of the owner of an empty property to enjoy keeping the property empty. Most people on both sides of the House recognise that there is a problem with empty property, and that we need to take more effective action to bring it into use.

      867
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made several valid points about the work of the Empty Homes Agency, and about action to incentivise the owners of empty properties to bring those properties into use. However, he went on to say that some owners were inexperienced or nervous about letting their properties, and some may be keeping properties empty out of inertia. It is therefore entirely right and proper, as the Select Committee has said, for there to be mechanisms to identify people in that position, to ensure that local authority empty property agencies, where they exist—and many local authorities run empty property units—can advise people about what can be done to bring properties into use, perhaps by putting them in touch with a local housing association that may be able to help with letting.
      The provisions in the Bill are simply about using information already held by local authorities to get empty homes back into use. That is a wholly sensible and admirable proposal, which was supported by the Select Committee and has also had support from all parts of the House, so I am surprised that the Conservative party now appears to oppose it.
      I agree about the importance of safeguards for council tax information, but that information cannot be used to remove the freedoms of a property owner—to require them to take tenants or to sell to someone who would occupy the property, for example. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the reference in the communities plan to propose measures to encourage empty properties to be brought into leasing. It says:
      "We plan to do more to make better use of long-term empty properties in high demand areas. We will consult during the Spring on giving local authorities powers to lease long-term empty properties to improve them and bring them back into use".
      There will be full opportunity to discuss those provisions, which are not related to the Bill. The Bill is purely about information available to local authorities to enable action to be taken in line with the Select Committee's recommendation to bring the number of empty properties down. I would have thought that everyone would welcome that.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that he will consult in the spring about powers for local authorities to lease properties compulsorily, but there is no provision in the Bill to give effect to that. On new clause 10, however, he said that he needed to put the power relating to something that he intended to consult on in the summer into the Bill now, because otherwise there might not be another opportunity to get that power on to the statute book for a couple of years.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my noble Friend Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing and Planning, is preparing a piece of legislation that would provide a good opportunity for such provision. To the best of my knowledge, and I speak with some authority, there is no more local government legislation in the pipeline. As for retaining the extra money from removing or reducing the discount, we had a full debate in Committee on that question when we considered Opposition amendments to clause 75.
      868
      3.30 pm
      As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), said at the time, we believe that there should be no financial benefit to a local authority from a decision on whether to charge full council tax on long-term empty homes. The decision should be taken entirely on housing grounds and not because of potential additional financial benefits to the authority, which could provide a perverse incentive. That would be particularly problematic in areas where there may be very low demand and genuine difficulties for people in letting property. In such cases, we believe that an authority should take decisions on the merits of the case without a potential distorting financial incentive.
      Mr. Edward Davey: What I do not understand about that argument is that it seems to suggest that local authorities cannot be trusted to work out the housing needs in their area and the best policies to tackle them. Although the Minister talks about freedoms and flexibilities and says that this is a decentralising Bill, he is preventing local authorities from enjoying that revenue when they are taking sensible decisions.
      Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary, the policy gives local authorities the freedom to be able to reduce, and even eliminate entirely, the discount on long-term empty homes if they think that that is the right thing to do. We believe that local authorities should base their decision on a proper estimate of the impact of that withdrawal of subsidy and whether it would achieve the desired effect. That gives local authorities the freedom and the choice, and not a perverse incentive. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it would require the virtue of the Archangel Gabriel in some cases for local authorities to forgo potential revenue which, if it were available, they might be tempted to use in particular circumstances.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's argument would hold some sway were it not totally inconsistent with his policy on abolishing the discount on second homes. What is the difference between the two aspects? The only difference is that abolishing the discount on second homes could raise £60 million, whereas abolishing the discount on empty homes could raise £160 million. Is it the case that the Government simply do not trust local authorities to use that money?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, that is not the case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a fundamental difference, because, in areas with substantial numbers of second homes, real concern exists that many local people on modest incomes are priced out of the market. In some tourist areas, such as the west country or the Lake district, where there is a shortage of affordable housing, house prices get pushed up by the presence of many second home owners. That has serious consequences for local people in need.
      It is an explicit provision of our arrangement to ensure that local authorities can use the revenue that they get from removing or reducing the discount—we must have the 10 per cent. discount to ensure that those properties can be identified as second homes—to meet

      869
      local needs. The Liberal Democrats pressed us to insist that that money should be used for housing, but we said that it is better to give local authorities the freedom to decide what they should use it for. I therefore remind the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that his is not the only party that supports giving freedom to local authorities and trusts them to take the decision.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister at least concede that, if councils abolish some or all the discount on empty homes, they should be reimbursed for the costs of levying that council tax? Otherwise, there will be a perverse incentive not to reduce the discount on empty homes at all.
      Mr. Raynsford: No. The position is that a property that is a second home has qualified for the 50 per cent. discount. Under the new arrangement, the authority will be free to decide whether to reduce that discount to anything between 50 per cent. and 10 per cent. It will have discretion as to the level of reduction. Any revenue received from that decision will accrue to that authority and to other precepting authorities when there is a county as well as a district. A fair distribution will therefore exist between different tiers of government. That is a quite separate issue from a purely housing policy-based decision as to whether it is appropriate to give an incentive to someone to bring an empty property back into use by charging the full council tax.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that the final decision on this matter will come when we see the regulations? Will he therefore assure the House that he will keep this aspect under review and possibly ensure that regulations will allow some variations, so that we can see whether he is right or we are right?
      Mr. Raynsford: I can happily give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the policy will be kept under review. Obviously, we keep all policies under review. Our firm view, however, is that the right way forward is that which I have set out, and that is the way in which we intend to proceed.
      The requirement in new clause 7 for annual reports on the operation of clause 90 and its effects on local authority rents would achieve no substantive benefit but it would impose an unnecessary administrative burden. Housing revenue account subsidy has operated as a redistributive system for more than a decade. Like other things, it dates back to the previous Government, as it was introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. It therefore seems doubly bizarre that the Conservatives are now changing the position that they adopted when in government. Redistribution has been achieved up to now by offsetting assumed housing revenue account surpluses against rent rebates. That depended, however, on housing benefit being included in the I–IRA, which was highly controversial and deeply unpopular with many tenants.
      In response, we took a decision to remove housing benefit from the housing revenue account, but after rent rebates are removed from the HRA, the old redistribution system will not be possible, so the new, more transparent mechanism in clause 90 is needed. For
      870
      the vast majority of authorities, the clause will simply replicate the outcome of the current redistribution mechanism. The only authorities whose resources will be affected are the 18 English housing authorities that currently have an assumed HRA surplus greater than their expenditure on rent rebates.
      I have mentioned the figure of 18, so I now owe an apology to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. He suggested that there were 34 debt-free authorities, but I intervened to suggest that the figure might be 18. I apologise—I was incorrect, because I was thinking of the other group. In fact, the number of debt-free authorities with housing stock is 35. I hope that that puts the record straight.
      The authorities that have an assumed HRA surplus greater than their expenditure on rent rebates are currently required to transfer the excess to their general funds, thereby effecting a transfer from council tenants to general council tax payers. In future, subject to transitional arrangements, these amounts will be pooled, thus stopping the current subsidy of council tax by council tenants. That subsidy has caused considerable anger to council tenants.
      Assumed HRA surpluses and deficits for the purposes of clause 90 are calculated on the basis of assumptions about an authority's rent levels and expenditure on its stock. Contrary to the views expressed by Conservative Members, there is no link between an assumed HRA surplus and good performance or political make-up. Local authorities that had the good fortune of low investment needs and, therefore, little debt while being able to command high rents have tended to end up in assumed surplus. Likewise, deficits generally occur when investment needs and, therefore, debt levels, are higher than can be funded from reasonable rents however efficient the council is and however well it manages its affairs.
      The proportion of authorities rated excellent and good by the Audit Commission under the comprehensive performance assessment is about 50 per cent. for all three main political parties. Similarly, comparable proportions of both deficit and surplus authorities equally achieve good or excellent ratings. I stress that list in case the Opposition parties are tempted to indulge in any mischief making on this point. In addition, there will be no adverse impact on council rent payers. Clause 90 will not make any difference to council rents for any authority, as we have now put in place a national framework for affordable social rents based upon the size, location and condition of properties.
      The new clause is not necessary because totals of HRA surpluses collected and HRA subsidy paid to authorities in deficit will be approved by Parliament as part of our request for resources. The figures will also be recorded in the annual accounts of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and be open to scrutiny by both Parliament and the National Audit Office. Additionally, the start of consultation on the annual general determination of HRA subsidy has always been announced in the House and the papers made available. Copies of the final determination of HRA subsidy are also made available to the House. That will continue. There is therefore no need for the further report suggested by the new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister suggested that the provision would have no effect on rent levels. However,

      871
      will he confirm that the framework that he is proposing involves guidance, will not be mandatory on local authorities and that an authority, such as Sunderland, that has a large HRA surplus could use the surplus to subsidise rents? Or will the framework be more mandatory and will authorities such as Sunderland not be allowed to retain the surplus to subsidise rents?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little confused. The purpose of the rent restructuring framework is to ensure broad consistency across the country that will take account of the size and attraction of particular properties. It will also take account of the local housing market in different areas. The aim is to do that over time, because we cannot make sharp adjustments to issues that impact on the viability of housing organisations and people's budgets. The programme is being phased in over 10 years, and it is designed to ensure that there is a more coherent framework of rents across the country.
      New clause 16 relates to the Government's policy of ensuring that all social housing is decent by 2010, and in particular the contribution that the transfer of local authority housing to registered social landlords makes towards that. The policy was set out in the housing statement, "The Way Forward for Housing" published in December 2000 and reaffirmed last month in the plan for building sustainable communities that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on two matters. The first would be the amount of any payments made, or likely to be made, under clauses 40 and 41. Those payments are in respect of overhanging debt that may arise when an authority transfers its housing to a registered social landlord. The second would be the effect of such payments on the rents of those properties that are being transferred.
      Clauses 40 and 41 allow the Secretary of State to assist one or more English local housing authorities to meet debt liabilities through a direct payment either to the public works loans commissioners or to the local authority on the condition that it is transferred to a non-PWLC lender. They confer similar powers on the National Assembly for Wales in relation to the debts of Welsh authorities. The policy driver for clauses 40 and 41 is assisting individual authorities that transfer their housing stock to a registered social landlord and need assistance to meet outstanding housing debt liabilities when the receipt is insufficient to cover them.
      The amendments appear to suggest that something is not being disclosed in relation to those payments—or perhaps there is a belief that we are giving favourable treatment to authorities that transfer their housing stock and for which we make an overhanging debt payment. Neither is the case. All authorities are treated on a fair basis. It is for a local authority to choose whether it wishes to retain or transfer its stock based on a rigorous option appraisal involving tenants and other stakeholders.
      If an authority or its tenants choose to retain their stock, the Government, through the housing revenue account subsidy, continue to ensure that a local authority can meet the cost of servicing its housing attributable debt. In other words, HRA subsidy continues. However, when a local authority transfers all
      872
      its housing stock, it is inappropriate and, frankly, stupid for it to remain in receipt of ongoing housing revenue account subsidy. That is nonsensical. In such cases, we make an overhanging debt payment. Different authorities are not treated differently. Those that keep their stock continue to get subsidy; those that have no stock no longer get subsidy and the overhanging debt is written off. We do not select the authorities; that is the result of local choice that is possible because the Government have made a commitment to make housing transfer and a decent home available to all tenants.
      When the payment is made, it is common practice for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to include reference to both the payment and its amount in the press notice accompanying the housing transfer. Once a transfer takes place, details of it, including the number of dwellings, the sale price, private finance and overhanging debt payment, are also included on the website and are freely available from the ODPM. Overhanging debt payments were originally recorded in the Treasury's annual accounts, but from 2002–03 they will be recorded in the annual accounts of the ODPM and reported to Parliament through that route. So payments are open to the scrutiny of Parliament and the National Audit Office.
      New clause 16 would also require that the effect of an overhanging debt payment on the rents of the transferred stock should be reported. That again misses the point of the Government's rent restructuring policy, which was introduced after much consultation, and the justifications for it have been set out many times. In consenting to all housing transfers, it is a condition that the new landlord will have determined rents in line with rent restructuring policy and methodology and will meet the 2012 target. How that is delivered will have been part of the development of the transfer proposal on which tenants will have voted. Whether or not there is to be an overhanging debt payment will not have an impact on that process.
      Whether the transfer is of all, or only part, of an authority's housing stock, the delivery of restructured rents by 2012 across all social housing remains the priority. So where there is a partial transfer with overhanging debt, it is our intention that there should be no impact from the transfer on the rents of those tenants who remain with the authority. Therefore, a report to Parliament on the impact of the overhanging debt payments on rents would be nugatory because in all cases there would be nothing to report. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not press the new clause to a Division.
      3.45 pm
      Amendments Nos. 4, 35 and 36 relate to the Government's policy of encouraging authorities to restructure rents, as I have set out. The Government inherited a social rents policy that was a total shambles. In some areas, rents charged by neighbouring councils for similar properties varied by huge amounts and housing associations often charged more than half as much again for similar properties in the same area. In time, our rent restructuring policy will produce a coherent pattern of rents for social housing across England. By contrast, the Opposition's policy would make the situation even more chaotic.

      873
      If social rents were allowed to approach market levels, some housing providers in areas of low demand would be unable to operate, while in areas of high demand such as London, those on modest incomes would be priced out of the market altogether. Amendments Nos. 4, 35, and 36 would delete clause 92, which seeks to remove an obstacle to the policy of rent reform. The amendments would undermine that rent reform and restructuring policy and are therefore undesirable.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether a local authority could look at the relationship between public and private rents in its area. The relevant legislation does not explicitly refer to an authority having regard only to its own area, so local authorities can look at a much wider area. However, we believe that that is undesirable because it inhibits the scope of rent restructuring policy, which is why we are introducing change. As for the position in Wales, he rightly identified the fact that we wish to give the National Assembly for Wales scope to reach a decision on its own merits within the Principality.
      The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of nomination rights. I apologise for the fact that he has not received a letter. I tried to ensure that all the commitments were followed up, so I shall certainly pursue that. However, I took up the issue because there was a potential anomaly and conflict with existing policy, as nomination rights are not taken into account when calculating the level of receipt. My noble Friend Lord Rooker has since agreed that, when an authority's contribution to pooling is calculated, any consideration or reduction of the receipt in respect of nomination rights will be excluded. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and put that on the record.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister answer my question about a possible clawback for English Partnerships and the way in which that relates to clause 11?
      Mr. Raynsford: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I urge him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton not to press their amendments to a vote.
      Mr. Hammond: As usual, I greatly enjoyed the Minister's reply to the points that he thought that I was going to make. In many cases, however, he did not address the points that I did make. The key provision in this group of amendments is new clause 3, which deals with issues raised by clause 11. Clause 11 is a centralising measure—it gives the lie to the Government's claim that the Bill delivers freedom and flexibilities to local authorities and it is the antithesis of good accountable local government. New clause 3 is a sensible compromise and has the support of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. The Government have rejected it because they are bent on the redistribution of assets of prudent, debt-free local authorities. I urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 3.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 312.

      Division No. 101]

      [3.48pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Hammond, Philip

      Allan, Richard

      Hancock, Mike

      Amess, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Baker, Norman

      Heald, Oliver

      Barker, Gregory

      Heath, David

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Barrett, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Bercow, John

      Howard, rh Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Keetch, Paul

      Brazier, Julian

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Burnett, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burns, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burnside, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burstow, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Leigh, Edward

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cameron, David

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cash, William

      Lidington, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chidgey, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Collins, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclean, rh David

      Cotter, Brian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Maples, John

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Mates, Michael

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mercer, Patrick

      Dodds, Nigel

      Moore, Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Fabricant, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Flook, Adrian

      Pickles, Eric

      Forth, rh Eric

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Garnier, Edward

      Pugh, Dr. John

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Randall, John

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Rendel, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Greenway, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rosindell, Andrew

      875

      Ruffley, David

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Thurso, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tredinnick, David

      Selous, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Viggers, Peter

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

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Webb. Steve(Northavon)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spring, Richard

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Streeter, Gary

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Syms, Robert

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Austin, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cohen, Harry

      Baird, Vera

      Coleman, Iain

      Banks, Tony

      Colman Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Battle, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Hilary

      Corston, Jean

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cruddas, Jon

      Best, Harold

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brennan, Kevin

      Darling, rh Alistari

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Davy, Valerie(Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Burnham, Andy

      Dawson, Hilton

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Denham, rh John

      Cairns, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Donohoe, Brain H.

      Casale, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Caton, Martin

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Challen, Colin

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Clapham, Michael

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Edwards, Huw

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      876

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Farrelly, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fisher, Mark

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Luke, Ian(Dundee E)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhian

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McFall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grogan, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marrsi, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Merron, Gillian

      Heyes, David

      Millburn, rh Alan

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Mole, Chris

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Morgan, Julie

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Mudie, George

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Hutton, rh John

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Owen, Albert

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Perham, Linda

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prescott, rh John

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      877

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

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Timms, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Trickett, Jon

      Salter, Martin

      Truswell, Paul

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Nell(Wigan)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Ward, Claire

      Singh, Marsha

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watsoa Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      William, rh Alan Swansea W)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Woodward, Shaun

      Southworth, Helen

      Woolas, Phil

      Spellar, rh John

      Worthington, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 8

      COUNCIL TAX AND REGIONAL BODIES
      '.—Nothing in Part 6 of this Act (sections 74–86) may be used in conjunction with the use of council tax to raise tax for any regional body.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 71, line 11 [Clause 120], after 'authority (', insert 'but not'.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The purpose of the new clause is to probe the Government's intention for funding the various regional bodies that they are introducing. The Under-Secretary has already funded the shadow regional assemblies—the so-called regional chambers—out of central Government funds. If he can tell me that no provision in part 6 seeks to fund any regional bodies,
      878
      I shall withdraw the new clause now. Unless he can give me that assurance, I shall continue to press the matter. Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Leslie: I shall intervene. Part 6 has no tax-raising mechanisms save for revenues from forgone discounts or changes to valuation bands at some point in the future. There are no direct mechanisms whereby regional bodies could gain. However, part 6 affects revenue and such mechanisms cannot therefore be ruled out for the future.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: "Such mechanisms cannot be ruled out for the future." We must therefore assume that the Government have a gleam in their eye and council tax will be used in future as a mechanism for funding various regional bodies. We already know from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that eight shadow assemblies or chambers will be set up by the late spring. All eight regions will have those so-called indirectly elected bodies. They are likely to constitute the regional planning body, which will have substantial powers to draw up regional spatial strategy. It presumably needs substantial funding to operate them. We will have regionalisation to that extent, whether we like it or not.
      We know from the Deputy Prime Minister's community statement that a regional housing body will be established to draw up a regional housing strategy. Another stratum of regional bodies will therefore require funding. Furthermore, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, which is in another place, will provide for the possibility not only, God forbid, of regional referendums, but of directly elected regional assemblies, if people vote for them. Those regional bodies will require considerable funds, and that is what the new clause probes. It would be interesting if the Minister could indicate the sums that the Government are already providing to fund these shadow regional assemblies, chambers—call them what you will—in the north-east, for example, where the concept is most advanced.
      Amendment No. 3 would reverse the thrust of clause 120 so that, although the Secretary of State will be able to provide powers to designate different local authorities for different purposes, he will not be able to do it purely on a regional basis. It seems grossly unfair that a whole class of local authority should be singled out on a regional basis for different treatment in relation to council tax.
      Will the Minister clarify the stage that funding for the regional bodies has reached, the size of the budget that is set aside for the next year or two, and whether it is intended that there should be a regional council tax or any separate precept to pay for them?
      Matthew Green: We support the new clause, although for an entirely different reason—namely, that council tax should be scrapped. It is a completely inappropriate means of raising revenue for councils or for regional bodies. When the regional bodies finally emerge from the weak state that the Government propose into the fully-fledged system of regional government that we hope for, they will need tax-varying powers. Scotland has the ability to raise extra tax or, indeed, to lower it; Wales does not, but should have. One of the oddities

      879
      involved is that it may turn out that all the English regions, Scotland and London have the power to raise money in one way or another—although the London system is inappropriate—while Wales is left as the only part of the country that cannot. The Government may find themselves in difficulties with their Welsh MPs in that regard.
      Overall, council tax is an iniquitous, inappropriate and non-progressive form of taxation that should be abolished and replaced with levels of local income tax. I am sure that that system will increasingly develop in the future.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I seek clarification of the Liberal Democrats' policy. Are they saying that they would have a local income tax to raise money for local authorities as well as a regional income tax to raise money for the regions? Have they undertaken any proper costings as to how much those two taxes would put on the average taxpayer's bill?
      Matthew Green: The money would only replace money that is currently raised by council tax, so overall it would not add any extra burden of taxation. Such a tax would be based on ability to pay rather than on a fixed asset. Council tax is a particular burden on pensioners, for example, who are on fixed low incomes but have to pay more each year. Council tax has no buoyancy. It has to be raised every year, unlike income tax; with the latter, if the economy goes up there is a general shift up in revenues. Council tax is completely non-progressive. We have proposed that in the forthcoming Budget the Chancellor could introduce a 50p band for income tax across the country and use that to knock £100 off every council tax bill.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue his remarks in relation to the amendment.
      Matthew Green: Thank you for bringing me back on course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was getting rather too enthused about our alternative Budget. However, the reality is that the money that would be raised through a local income tax, or through a regional form of income tax, would merely replace money that is currently raised through council tax.
      I should point out to the Conservatives that such a system works in America, where several different tiers of income tax are raised at state, county and national levels. Indeed, such a system is also used in parts of Europe. This is not rocket science, and my understanding is—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to draw his comments back to the new clause.
      Matthew Green: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in a way they are directly related. In supporting the Conservatives, we are seeking to ensure that the council tax is not the mechanism used to fund regional bodies. I am explaining what should be used instead, so I hoped that, on that ground, it was in order to go down that route for a while.
      880
      Our support for the Conservatives' new clause is based on an entirely different reason from theirs; it is clear that they would not want to establish the ability to raise, or to vary, taxation at a regional level. In our view, the council tax definitely should not be used as the vehicle to raise such funding; in fact, it should be scrapped at a local level as well.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Does he not accept that there will be an increase in the overall burden of taxation? His party strongly supports regional bodies, but we say that they are an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. In any event, they are expensive and will have to be paid for. Does he accept that there will be an increase in the burden of taxation to pay for them?
      Matthew Green: Regional bodies exist, and they are currently paid for out of central Government funds through the passing down of national taxation. We want such decisions to be taken at a regional level by democratically elected regional assemblies. The hon. Gentleman assumes that if a new tax exists, it has to be higher; however, it can be simply a replacement for another form of taxation, and that is what we want to see.
      In conclusion, we will support the Conservatives' new clause, and on amendment No. 3, we are in broad sympathy with their reasons for probing the Government. We are happy for central Government to make regulations applying to individual councils in order to vary matters, but we do not want them to take blanket decisions that apply to entire regions. For that reason, we are happy to support the Conservatives' amendment. Overall, and perhaps for entirely different reasons—particularly in respect of new clause 8—we lend them our support.
      Mr. Syms: I rise to support new clause 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has been clever in tabling it to tease out the Government's position; indeed, the Minister's intervention was very interesting in that regard. In talking about regional government and its architecture, the Government, whenever they propose such a case, have always said that it should involve moving powers downward from central Government, rather than upwards from local government. If there is a case for financing regional government, I doubt whether the council tax should be used. I hope that the Minister will be a little more explicit on that issue in winding up the debate.
      The Government have been honest in the sense that, before we get to regional referendums, there will be a boundary review to examine the structure of local government, so that people know what form of local government they will have. Before we have such referendums, it would be equally fair of the Government to set out in explicit terms how the funding of these regional bodies will be covered. Regardless of the different opinions that exist on both sides of the House, once such bodies come into existence, there will come a point when they will need some form of independent finance. However, the Government have not said a lot about that. In setting up another tier of Government, costs are inevitable, even if one is trying to get rid of the

      881
      county councils, as is the Government's will. We therefore need a little more clarity about what the Government hope to do in this regard.
      Council tax is appropriate for local government, although I will not stray into that argument, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has said, a number of models exist in other parts of the world such as the United States and Germany. Those models may be more appropriate for this kind of funding.
      4.15 pm
      This shortened debate is important. The Minister will understand that, on this side of the House, we are not great enthusiasts for regional government. We are concerned that the Government have a stealth policy towards local government: they keep pushing powers to the regions and employing more people there, but without there being any great demand for that, from my constituents anyway. The Government ought to be more explicit about the sort of deal that people will get. Financing will be critical in whether or not people will support regional bodies.
      Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) found my earlier intervention interesting. Let me elaborate on it, because I am concerned about new clause 8 and amendment No. 3. Let us be clear about what the new clause will do. It would make it impossible for anything in part 6 of the Bill to allow the raising of revenue for any regional body. However, part 6 does not contain foundation revenue-generating instruments; it simply contains a number of measures that amend existing council tax provisions. The effects of new clause 8 would not be straightforward. For example, the new clause would mean that any revenues that were generated or changed because of alterations to the revaluation cycle would not be able to go towards regional bodies. However, other parts of council tax revenue would be able to go towards regional bodies, which is rather curious. Highlighting technical flaws in a new clause is sometimes a Minister's last refuge, but there are more substantive issues that I would like to raise.
      Matthew Green: I am sure that the Minister is just about to raise those substantive issues, but this may be a good time for him to let us know what the Government's thinking is on the possible future need to raise money regionally. Without making any commitments, can he tell us what the likely mechanism will be, so that people can have some preparation time?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman will recall from his late-night reading of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions", that funding and decision-making powers will not be taken away from local government but from Whitehall. I commend the White Paper to all hon. Members; it will make that point clear, even to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Funding and decision-making powers will be devolved to elected regional assemblies, should they be set up. Funding for
      882
      programme expenditure would come from revenues that had already been determined and decided by central Government, rather than being raised wholly from local council tax payers. In that respect, hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have set a hare running in the wrong direction. I hope that what I have said usefully corrects their view.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) raised an important point. If the Government are setting up a mechanism to discover whether people want referendums on elected regional assemblies—with all that that would involve in sorting out the different tiers of local government—people are entitled to know what those regional assemblies are likely to cost, and whether council tax, or something else, is to be the mechanism for that. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those points in the best possible spirit.
      Mr. Leslie: We have not yet passed legislation to create regional assemblies. A Bill is going through the House that will enable referendums to be held on the establishment of elected regional assemblies. However, legislation on how those assemblies would operate and the programmes that they would undertake has yet to come.
      The White Paper suggests that a precept on council tax could be levied for the administrative running costs of elected regional assemblies, but not for the programmed expenditure. We anticipate that about 5p a week would be the typical levy on a band D council tax payer. That small amount would go towards the administrative running costs of an elected regional assembly. However, we should not rule out other possible precepting capabilities for a regional assembly. If local people choose in a referendum to have a regional assembly, and if they wish to see revenue generated for regional expenditure, who are we to stop them?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has just said something very significant. On top of the new council tax band D bills of more than £1,000 that will be imposed, he has just said that he expects a regional council tax precept to be around 5p a week. Is he saying that £25 a year will be added to those huge increases—[Interruption.] If my maths is right, 5p a week is £25 a year—
      Mr. Syms: It is £2.50.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I got the decimal point in the wrong place. Even so, the principle would be established that a precept could be put on the council tax to pay for the running costs of regional bodies. Could the Minister confirm that?
      Mr. Leslie: Of course I can confirm that. It is in the White Paper and has therefore been in the public domain for some time. If the Conservative party has only just noticed that, I congratulate it. It would be only £2.50 a year, and I cannot see that as too onerous. We should also remember that there are already many precepting authorities for the council tax, many of which are regional bodies. That brings me to the point that the new clause could stop longstanding regional

      883
      bodies operating. For example, regional flood defence committees levy a precept on local councils. Under the new clause, they would be bereft of funding, because they would no longer be able to precept local authorities to raise revenue. Other regional environmental, planning, arts and tourism bodies would be affected, even those on which Conservatives serve. I challenge the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to confirm that he intends that the new clause should deprive regional flood defence committees and coastal defence committees of the revenue that they need to stave off potential natural disasters that could affect many people. That expenditure is extremely important and those constituents who have been afflicted by floods and disasters would be most surprised at the import of the new clause.
      In any case, regional chambers already exist, many of them with Conservative members. For example, 41 Conservatives sit in regional chambers in the southeast and 30 in the south-west. Those chambers derive some of their revenue from local authorities, but the new clause would prevent that. It would mean that it was Conservative policy to put an end to those voluntary regional chambers, and would be a significant constraint on the freedom of local government to contribute to them.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown:indicated assent.
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is nodding and it seems to be his deliberate intention to restrict the ability of local authorities to contribute to voluntary regional chambers, even though they perform useful functions. We also hope that they will embark on the scrutiny process for regional development agencies, before elected regional assemblies are set up. That will be important work.
      Andrew Selous: The Minister is being disingenuous if he thinks that just because Conservatives serve on regional bodies, we think that they are the most appropriate way to serve our constituents. Conservative representatives will serve on whatever bodies currently exist, but that is not to say that we think that they are the most appropriate.
      Mr. Leslie: That may well be the case. Conservative members do serve in regional chambers, but I was seeking to establish whether that was official Conservative party policy. We know that the Conservatives are opposed to elected regional assemblies and that they would not give people the choice in a referendum to establish them. However, are Conservatives opposed even to the establishment by local authorities of voluntary regional chambers? The hon. Member for Cotswold was nodding about something before. Will he confirm that the Conservatives oppose regional chambers?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall deal with that later.
      Mr. Leslie: I look forward to that.
      I believe that new clause 8 would place a significant constraint on local government, but it is not untypical of the general policies pursued by the Conservative party when in government. In any case, part 6 of the Bill
      884
      to contains no specific provisions relating to precepting, apart from discounts on council tax banding. It is clear that the new clause would have a detrimental effect.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister challenges me to say whether the Opposition are in favour of funding the voluntary regional chambers, but it would be helpful if he estimated the costs being incurred by those bodies—in the north-east, for example—and said where the funding comes from. Is any council tax precept being levied to fund those bodies at present?
      Mr. Leslie: There is no precept as such, but local authorities are free to contribute whatever they like towards regional chambers. New clause 8 would prevent, constrain, inhibit and stop authorities from being able to contribute freely to the perfectly reasonable activities of regional chambers. Local authorities would not be able to use council tax to raise resources for regional bodies. I challenged the hon. Member for Cotswold to say whether or not Opposition policy is to scrap regional chambers, but his refusal to answer speaks for itself.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister explain what he understands is meant by the word "tax" in new clause 8?
      Mr. Leslie: New clause 8 has a number of drafting deficiencies. It is not for me to point them all out. The word "tax" could well mean precept, but it could also mean revenue for those regional bodies. If the hon. Gentleman has a different opinion, perhaps the new clause should have been drafted more precisely. However, the vagaries of the new clause are precisely what caused me to try to gauge from the hon. Member for Cotswold's remarks whether the Opposition were opposed to regional chambers. Again, answer came there none.
      The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) supported new clause 8 for entirely different reasons. I hope that the clarifications that I have given will cause him to reconsider.
      Matthew Green: They will not.
      Mr. Leslie: That is very alarming. If the Liberal Democrats are also saying that council tax revenues should not be used to support regional bodies, they may find themselves in the same pickle as the hon. Member for Cotswold, who said that he would not allow council tax revenues to be used for regional bodies such as flood defence committees. I know that the hon. Member for Ludlow does not like the concept of council tax, but we have no alternative to it at present. The new clause would have a very significant effect, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position.
      Matthew Green: We shall not change our minds on this matter because we believe that council tax should not be used to raise revenue for any bodies, even local councils. Instead, there should be a local income tax.
      Mr. Leslie: Presumably, therefore, the extension of that rather dubious logic is that the hon. Gentleman will oppose any changes to council tax because he disagrees with the tax in principle.
      Matthew Green:indicated assent.
      Mr. Leslie: Will he also refuse to countenance the use of council tax in any local government revenue plans in

      885
      the future? Will he shun that appalling mechanism for raising revenue? I do not think that that is the position of the Liberal Democrat party. Surely there must be some strand of pragmatism among its members? The party will need it if, God forbid, there is ever a Liberal Democrat Government, at some indeterminate point in the future, who want to change the system. The hon. Gentleman must work in the system as it exists at present.
      I am most concerned about the love and enthusiasm for local income tax exhibited by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I would not want to pre-empt the Government's funding review because we accept that there are significant issues around how local government should raise revenue and around making sure that it is tied to local accountability and principles. While not ruling out options which that review might examine, I caution against the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for local income tax. There may be a lot of income in Kingston and Surbiton that could be taxed, but there is less in other Liberal Democrat authorities such as Liverpool—which may find raising revenue through a local income tax extremely difficult. I only speculate because it would not be right to address that particular issue, which is for debate another day.
      Council tax does relate to wealth, albeit capital wealth, and, as many hon. Members will remember, it is more progressive than the poll tax. There are certainly ways in which it could be improved. The Bill makes provision for banding and revaluation, which we believe are the mechanisms that should be used to make sure that council tax is more relevant and up to date—and that it relates more to ability to pay. New clause 8 is wrong in its conception, design and drafting and would have a significantly detrimental effect on some regional bodies—some of which do extremely important work. We need to know whether the movers of the new clause propose to scrap regional chambers and to stop funding regional and coastal flood defence from council tax.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Occasionally when one moves a probing amendment or new clause, one strikes gold. On this occasion, it is clear that we have exposed a huge new revenue-raising power for emerging regional bodies. The part of the Bill to which the new clauses apply is anyway far-reaching. It provides for a mandatory revaluation cycle, and gives the power to change the number of council tax valuation bands and introduce transitional arrangements. There was a lengthy debate in Committee about how to enforce the payment of council tax by some of the poorest people in this country by distress of their assets. Where their assets are insufficient to cover the costs of that distress, the outstanding debt can be the subject of an attachment to earnings order.
      We have suddenly discovered that all the new powers in the Bill can be used to raise money for emerging regional bodies.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Shocking.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That purpose is not in itself shocking but it is not
      886
      transparent. I pressed the Minister several times to state the costs being incurred by the transitional regional bodies but he did not give me one example. I pressed him in respect of the north-east but still he did not give me one example. I have given examples of regional planning and housing bodies—all of which will have staff, expensive buildings and a budget. How will they be funded?
      Mr. Leslie: I suspect that the hon. Member for New Forest, West was describing the hon. Gentleman's contribution. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the millions of pounds raised from council tax precepts towards perfectly reasonable expenditure on regional flood and coastal defence committees, which the new clause would prevent. Does the hon. Gentleman really intend that those regional bodies should be bereft of that funding? Does he say that existing regional chambers should also be wound up and be bereft of funding?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the Minister, who is a pretty straightforward man, he is equivocating. He will still not give us a clear answer as to how much money is likely to be raised through those mechanisms, and for what regional bodies. He has now introduced to the argument the fact that we might have regional arts bodies, regional tourism bodies or regional flooding bodies. How many more regional bodies are we to have? That council tax could be used as a mechanism to fund all those regional bodies in performing functions that are currently paid for from general taxation. We can thus conclude only that there will be an additional tax-raising power for all the functions that those regional bodies will have and which do not currently exist. The Minister has still told us nothing about that.
      We have still not had straightforwardness as to how much of that regional council tax will fund the elected regional assemblies to be set up under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill that is currently in another place. It is all very well for the Government to say that the Bill does not give the detail for each region; I realise that that information will be separate from the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill is the paving measure that will give rise to those elected regional assemblies, if we ever get as far as a referendum and a positive vote in favour of them.
      Mr. Leslie: I repeat that we envisage that elected regional assemblies might levy a precept of about 5p a week from a band D taxpayer. To aid the hon. Gentleman, that amounts to £2.50 a year, not £25. However, before we even get to elected regional assemblies there are existing regional bodies that receive revenue from precepts. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the new clause will stop that, or not? I have asked him about four times and I should appreciate an answer.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: When will the Government be straightforward about their proposals? They are making the decisions; the job of the Opposition is merely to probe them as to their intentions, not to state our policy. We want to know something about the costs of those regional bodies and how they will be funded. Will they be funded from council tax?
      I shall give the Minister some figures so that we can see whether we are in the same ballpark. We already know about the costs for the new Parliament building in

      887
      Edinburgh and the Assembly building in Wales, and that when public sector buildings are needed for the new regional bodies, significant costs will be involved. The abolition of Humberside alone cost £80 million. Extrapolate from that the cost of abolishing all county councils and the sum would run into billions.
      As we advance towards elected regional assemblies, we are entitled to know what sort of sums the Government have in mind and how those bodies are to be funded. Will they be funded in full by the regional council tax or will there be other tax-raising powers?
      We could continue to press the Government and embarrass them further. Suffice it to say that very large sums are involved and it is not clear that the functions taken over by those regional bodies will cease to be undertaken by somebody else—for example, the Minister's Department. Would the departmental budget then be reduced? It would have been useful had the Minister told us about that. Perhaps he will intervene again. If he plans to raise all that money for regional bodies through the regional council tax, will his departmental budget be reduced in lieu? As taxpayers, we are entitled to answers. The Minister shakes his head, but we, as taxpayers in general, are entitled to answers to those questions.
      How many more regional bodies will be set up? The Minister has already referred to regional arts boards, regional tourism boards and regional flooding boards. How many more? Regional planning bodies and regional housing bodies do not yet exist. How much will they cost? How many buildings will be needed to house all those functions? We have not heard a single word from the Minister about the costs of those regional bodies. Council tax payers throughout the land who are likely to have to fund the cost of those bodies are entitled to some answers.
      There has been a singular paucity, indeed a complete lack, of answers from the Government. Taxpayers can only conclude the worst. We may have been told that the amount will be only 25p a week in the first instance, but, by golly, in a year or two that amount will escalate many, many times.
      The Minister laughs, but council taxpayers up and down the land will not laugh when they begin to get increased council tax bills of well over £1,000 for a band D house this year. They will not be laughing; they will be pointing an accusing finger at the Government because those increases are very significant.
      We have heard no answers from the Government this afternoon. I respect the Minister, but it is fairly typical of the Government that they have failed to give us any answers. The only mechanism that we can use to protest vigorously is to press this matter to a vote, and I ask the House to accept new clause 8.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 298.

      Division No. 102]

      [4.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Hammond, Philip

      Allan, Richard

      Hancock, Mike

      Amess, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Baker, Norman

      Heald, Oliver

      Barker, Gregory

      Heath, David

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Barrett, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

      Hermon, Lady

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howard, rh Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Brady, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Keetch, Paul

      Brazier, Julian

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Burnett, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burns, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burnside, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burt, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Leigh, Edward

      Cameron, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chidgey, David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chope, Christopher

      Loughton, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Collins, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Maclean, rh David

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Moore, Michael

      Dodds, Nigel

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Norman, Archie

      Doughty, Sue

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Evans, Nigel

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Flight, Howard

      Flook, Adrian

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Randall, John

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Redwood, rh John

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Garnier, Edward

      Rendel, David

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Goodman, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      889

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Tyler, Paul(TV Cornwall)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spring, Richard

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Bill

      Streeter, Gary

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willis, Phil

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Thurso, John

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Colman, Tony

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Austin, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bailey, Adrian

      Corston, Jean

      Baird, Vera

      Cousins, Jim

      Banks, Tony

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Barnes, Harry

      Crausby, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Battle, John

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Best, Harold

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Blizzard, Bob

      David, Wayne

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bryant, Chris

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Burnham, Andy

      Doran, Frank

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Cairns, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Caton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Efford, Clive

      Challen, Colin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Farrelly, Paul

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Flint, Caroline

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, rh Derek

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Clelland, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      890

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Grogan, John

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Merron, Gillian

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Michael, rh Alun

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mole, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Morgan, Julie

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Mudie, George

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)f

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hutton, rh John

      Olner, Bill

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Perham, Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

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

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Salter, Martin

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDougall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      891

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Trickett, Jon

      Singh, Marsha

      Truswell, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Ward, Claire

      Southworth, Helen

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Spellar, rh John

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Stevenson, George

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Wilson, Brian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 13

      EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
      '.—(1) No employee whose employer is a local authority or local authority company shall be required to work at any time on both a Saturday and a Sunday in the same week if that person has the care and control of a schoolage child.
      (2) Any adult with whom a schoolage child customarily lives as part of his or her family has the care and control of that schoolage child and where more than one adult qualifies under this test each of them has the care and control.
      (3) In this section:
      "employee" and "employer"—

      (a) in relation to England and Wales, and Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

      (b) in relation to Northern Ireland have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

      "local authority" means a local authority in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Common Council of the City of London but excluding a parish or community council.
      "local authority company" means a company through which is exercised a power conferred under section 95.
      "week" means a period of seven consecutive days ending on a Sunday.
      "schoolage child" means a person who has attained the age of five but has not attained the age of eighteen.'.—[Andrew Selous.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is a great pleasure to move this new clause, which has support in all parts of the House. It is a modest but necessary measure as far as local authority employees are concerned. As I said, there is something in this clause that all Members should feel able to support.
      892
      The new clause will ensure that the children of local authority employees do not have parentless weekends. The new clause would mean that local authorities would not be able to force their employees with school-age children to work on both a Saturday and a Sunday. Our constituents would be amazed to learn that legislation is not already in place to prevent that from happening.
      The evidence showing the need to do something about the problem comes from many sources, not least from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation/National Centre for Social Research report that was published in December 2002 entitled "Happy Families? Atypical Work and Its Influence on Family Life". Among other things, it showed that 20 per cent. of working parents with dependent children work on both Saturday and Sunday and that three quarters of them wish that they did not have to work at weekends.
      I am, of course, aware that local authorities have to provide many vital services seven days a week. Local authority care homes immediately spring to mind, and tidy tips, some libraries and leisure centres seek to open seven days a week. There is nothing whatever in the new clause that would prevent local authorities from running services seven days a week. It would not put a barrier in the way of a local authority asking any of its staff to work on either a Saturday or a Sunday. However, it is entirely reasonable not to allow local authorities to force their employees with children at school to work on both Saturday and Sunday. If authorities were allowed to do that, the children would not see their parents at the weekend.
      I have spoken to local authorities in my area and to the East of England Local Government Conference. They have told me that they do not believe that the new clause would create a serious problem for the running of authorities and that it would have only a minimal impact. However, it is necessary, given that 3 million parents work on both Saturday and Sunday. We know from recent events in Stoke-on-Trent, where plans to provide refuse services on Saturday and Sunday were withdrawn by the council, and in Richmond, which recently ran into difficulties with the provision of library services because of the way in which it imposed on its staff, that we need to address the issue.
      Alistair Burt: I have listened to my hon. Friend's argument with interest. Does he not agree that it is a curious feature of modern life that, whereas the many enjoy much more choice, they occasionally do so at the expense of the few? Does he share my hope that, if this modest measure were adopted, private enterprise might see the lesson and introduce, of its own volition, similar provisions to ensure that people in the private sector who work on Saturday and Sunday and whose children endure parentless weekends might enjoy a freedom similar to the one that he is suggesting?
      Andrew Selous: This new clause relates to local authorities, but I am sympathetic to the general point that my hon. Friend makes. He made the valid point that we need to be aware of the costs imposed on the employees who provide the services that we expect from local authorities on Saturday and Sunday. I am fully conscious of the fact that many local authority services have to be provided seven days a week, but this modest

      893
      but necessary measure would provide some protection to local authority employees and prevent them from being pressed to work on both Saturday and Sunday.
      Mr. Paul Goodman: Has my hon. Friend received support from Labour Members for his proposal given that trade unions must be extremely concerned about the problems that he so eloquently describes?
      5 pm
      Andrew Selous: As I said, the new clause is supported by all parties and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should have thought that a Labour Government would want to be associated with it. Indeed, there is an onus on anyone who opposes it to justify why local authority employees with children, whom they would not otherwise see, should be forced to work on both Saturday and Sunday. I hope that the Minister will address that. Although it is up to me to make the argument for the new clause, it is up to the Government to justify the forced working of parents of school-age children on Saturdays and Sundays.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Would it not be strange for the House, which voted for family-friendly hours and mid-term breaks to allow us to be with our children, to vote against the proposal? It is not even limited to the nuclear family, but covers the broader spectrum of family life in which children need adults and adults need children.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and is right. People outside this place look at the conditions that we grant ourselves. Those who work for local authorities are entitled to request and require us to extend the same protections and principles to them in their important work.
      David Cairns: As a non-parent, I have some sympathy with the new clause, although I suspect that more formal consultation will be needed before the Government accept it. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am genuinely curious to know why the hon. Gentleman has limited the new clause to children of school age. In developmental psychological terms, surely the forming of the bond between parent and child is most important in the years up to the age of seven.
      Andrew Selous: I understand that point. It is not that I think that the time that parents and young children spend together is unimportant, but those children who attend primary and secondary schools have fixed hours when they have to be in school. Their only opportunity to see their parents is on a Saturday or Sunday. If the House and the Government intend to deny those children and parents the time to be together as a family on one day a week, that is a sorry state of affairs. I look to the Minister to give us some comfort on that.
      Matthew Green: We support the new clause. It will be interesting to hear the reasons against it. Frankly, we have a 24/7 society and, unfortunately, some people
      894
      have to work at weekends so that the rest of us can enjoy the ability to make choices on Saturday and Sunday. The House would never consider sitting through the weekend. We can all choose what we want to do. No doubt many of us hold our surgeries and carry out constituency work, but we can choose whether to see our children. I am delighted to be the father of a six-week-old child, although I unfortunately missed the chance to serve on the Committee because I wanted to spend time with my child immediately after the birth.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Paternity leave.
      Matthew Green: Indeed.
      It is important for the development of children that their parents should have the right to spend—awful word—quality time with them during the week, not just a snatched half hour in the evening when children are tired and their parents probably are too. The new clause is worthy of support. As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made clear, Members who oppose it will have to come up with interesting reasons for doing so, as most of us would struggle to argue with its worthwhile aims.
      David Cairns: Briefly, I have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying aim of the new clause, and I look forward to the Minister's response. Although the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has researched the matter through contact with his own local authority, other local authorities may not have its flexibility, and their safety critical provisions could be affected by the new clause. That is only a surmise, but perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Government have undertaken a survey.
      At the risk of straying from the narrow confines of the new clause, I should point out that I am currently trying to steer a private Member's Bill through the House that would stop Sunday working being obligatory for shop workers in Scotland, a legal protection enjoyed by constituents of hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies. When legal protection on Sunday working was given to shop workers in England and Wales, Labour's home affairs spokesperson–now the Prime Minister—said freedom to shop on Sunday must go hand in hand with the right not to have to work on Sunday. Shop workers should not suffer so that others can enjoy those freedoms. Surely, then, our freedom to enjoy non-essential council services must go hand in hand with the rights of those who are working to provide those services.
      Most council services, including the more flexible ones, are not provided on Sundays. Those that are provided tend to be essential. When I was a councillor in London, councils adopted more flexible working practices in, for example, the delivery of meals on wheels. People did not have to go out on Sunday, as clients were provided with microwave ovens, steamers and so on. Under the current regulations, it is possible for councils to order their working week so that people are not required to work on Sunday. People staffing certain council facilities may be required to work at times when they would otherwise not have to work if the local authority had a more enlightened attitude as an employer. In the absence of such an attitude, legislation

      895
      may be necessary, so the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire could well be on to something in his new clause.
      I am looking forward to the response to a wide-ranging consultation that the Secretary of State for Scotland is undertaking with businesses throughout Scotland, which will affect my Bill in Committee. A consultation of local authorities to assess the impact of weekend working may not have been conducted. If so, I may not be able to support the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire if he pushes his new clause to a vote, but I am strongly sympathetic to his aims.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: I, too, shall make a short contribution. Someone famously said that you could not buck the market. It is also true that you cannot buck nature. No one can sustain a working pattern of seven hours a day, seven days a week. Families cannot survive unless there is an opportunity outside work for parents and children to spend quality or quantity time together and learn from another. I strongly support the modest measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), as it sends an important signal.
      We enact laws in this place not just for the benefit that the law will bring, but also for the signal that it sends to the wider community. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that although the new clause is a modest measure limited to local government and local government companies by the nature of the Bill, it sends a signal to the wider community. I hope that it sets an example to many private sector companies that want to be good employers and want to learn best practice. It might encourage them to put parents of school-age children at the centre of their thinking when they plan their rotas. For large companies and large organisations such as local councils, that might be a little inconvenient, but they could cope with it. The benefits would be immense.
      We must recognise that family life is under pressure. We all sit in our surgeries and listen to case after case linked to the Child Support Agency, welfare benefits and so on. We think about the children involved in some of those cases, who are denied time with their parents or are subject to some other pressure. For people like me, who had the advantage of growing up in a secure family setting, spending time with parents and learning right from wrong, even if we did not always agree—we all have our moments—it is horrifying to think that so many children today are denied the consistency of parental input. The new clause is an important attempt to put that right.
      We heard, I think, that 20 per cent. of parents work on both Saturdays and Sundays. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that was the statistic that he gave?
      Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is right. According to the Joseph Rowntree study, 20 per cent. of parents of school-age children work on both Saturdays and Sundays, and three quarters of them wish they did not have to do so.
      Mr. Streeter: I find that a terrifying figure. If it is right, when do those school-age children spend time with their parents? We know that children watch a lot of
      896
      television—I do not criticise that—listen to a lot of music, and spend time with their peer groups. They are getting their values and standards from somewhere, and surely that should be primarily from their parents.
      On quality time as opposed to quantity of time, I am fortunate that both of my children are adults and therefore off our hands.
      Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend does not look old enough.
      Mr. Streeter: I know; say it again. I remember a classic example of when my son was a teenager of 15 or 16 and going through some of the things that teenagers go through.
      Mr. Leslie: Bored with his father.
      Mr. Streeter: I hope those comments are being picked up by Hansard. They do not always reflect well on those who make them.
      My son was working on his computer in our front room. I was lying on the floor reading something or other, and for several hours there was little interaction between us, but after a while, because we were in the same room together, he suddenly piped up and wanted to discuss something that had been troubling him. That would not have happened if we had not spent time together in the same room, even though we were not interacting. Time together is important for parents and children. It is not a touchy-feely thing; it matters.
      The measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire is an important improvement to the current law, and I hope the Government will respond positively to it.
      Mr. Steve Webb: Most of that which needs to be said has been said, so I shall be brief. I welcome the new clause and commend the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on moving a modest, limited clause that could do some families sonic good. So often, because we cannot do everything that we would want to do, many of us fail to do anything. I hope it will not be patronising to say that although the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a relatively short period, he is putting to shame some of us who could have done the same thing, and I commend him for his initiative in doing so and for his well researched argument in support of his case.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who has his own private Member's Bill dealing with weekend working, observed that many council services are not provided on a Sunday, but there may well be pressure for that. The hon. Gentleman cited examples of councils that were looking to expand weekend services. We need to put the safeguards in place now, not when the expansion has already taken place and we cannot get the genie back in the bottle.
      I also commend the fact that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about all sorts of families. Essentially, the new clause deals with the welfare of children. Whether children and parents are in lone-parent families, two-parent families or families of any shape or size, it is in their interests to spend time together. This modest new clause would help to achieve that.

      897
      5.15 pm
      A question was properly raised about children of preschool age and their need to spend time with parents. I am aware from experience in my area that bodies such as Ofsted report that children starting at primary school show all the hallmarks of not spending time with parents. The hon. Gentleman is right that those are important and formative years. In a world in which children are increasingly starved of parental attention, often because both parents are working simply to meet the cost of their mortgage, the sort of protections that he is trying to introduce are entirely appropriate. If anything, they are more needed today than ever before.
      I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause. Should there be an opportunity now or in future to support it in a Division, I shall be very pleased to do so.
      Mr. Goodman: I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on tabling the new clause. I know from serving with him on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that he takes a serious and informed interest in issues of social exclusion.
      I want briefly to make a suggestion to the Minister that he may find helpful. I suspect that he is about to tell us that, as matters stand, he cannot accept the new clause. I suspect that one of the reasons that he will give is that the Government cannot single out local authority workers as the new clause suggests. My first suggestion is that he should take up the idea of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and try to see how local authorities would respond to the measure on a wider basis than that which my hon. Friend has so far had a chance to investigate.
      Secondly, if the Minister is going to argue that the Government are unwilling to single out local authority workers, it would be helpful to give some hint of whether they are considering more widely the problem about which my hon. Friend so eloquently spoke with regard to parents and children. Since the Labour party tends to regard the vulnerable and those on low wages as its special property—I profoundly believe that that is an error on its part—he may want to spell out a little more fully how he might give workers generally the protection that my hon. Friend is seeking for local authority workers. I am sure that my hon. Friend would also want the measure to be more widely extended.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has done his constituents who are local authority employees a great service today. Indeed, he has done all our constituents who are such employees a service. I suspect that this will be one of those landmark occasions in the House when the Minister may not accept a proposal—in this case, the new clause—but the idea that it contains will be like a seed, as it will germinate and put down roots and everyone will suddenly become convinced of its merits.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: In anticipation of the Minister's possible response, does my hon. Friend agree that it may be necessary to give thought to circumstances in which there might be an override? For
      898
      example, a particular emergency might require the services of people with family responsibilities. One looks to the Minister not merely to respond that difficulties in respect of one emergency invalidate the important principle that is being floated and established today, and welcomed from the Opposition Front Bench.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters, makes a prescient point, as he alludes to a part of my speech to which I was about to come.
      My hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and others sitting behind me, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), have spoken very eloquently about the need for a more family friendly atmosphere. My children are now in their later teens, but when they were at a more formative age, time spent with them at the weekend, especially over Sunday lunch, was extremely valuable. Even as a Member of Parliament, one was able to make time to spend with one's family. Nowadays, too many children grow up without spending enough time with their parents. They do not have that prime time in which to interact and learn from their parents.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that time at the weekend is even more important for children who have divorced parents?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps if they spend more time with their parents, they will be able to form better relationships. The Minister should take that into account.
      Why is it necessary for local authority employees to work on Saturdays and Sundays? Of course, some emergencies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) alluded, such as flooding, require local authority employees to work. That also applies to some enforcement functions, such as trading standards, some public information services and some payment collection services, such as council tax collection. However, local authorities should generally be able to organise their functions so that employees are not "required." That is a key word in the new clause.
      It is different if employees volunteer to work at the weekend. When they volunteer, and even when they are required, they generally get time off in lieu. However, such time off is not especially satisfactory for people who are required to work, because it is likely to be given during the week when children of school age are at school.
      What research has been conducted on the matter? How many local authority employees work on a Saturday and Sunday? I doubt whether comprehensive research has been conducted, but it would be interesting to know whether, as a result of the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire tabled, it could be undertaken to ascertain the answer to important questions. How many local authority employees who work on Saturdays or Sundays have children of a school age? What would alternative arrangements cost each local authority?

      899
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire will cause the Government to consider the matter seriously. Perhaps local authorities can set a trend that other employers will follow.
      Mr. Raynsford: Our debate has been useful and I understand the entirely proper concern, not only of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), but of all other hon. Members who spoke, about ensuring family-friendly employment policies. However, I cannot accept the new clause.
      The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire called for more protection for workers against being required to work on Sundays so that families can have one shared day a week when they do together what they please. I assume that the new clause intends to further the campaign, but I am unclear about the reasons for singling out the local government sector for special treatment.
      There is no special local government case for such a provision. Existing employment law fully protects local authority workers. Local authorities are generally ahead of the game in promoting flexible working. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions conducted research and produced a report, "Work-Life Balance—A Survey of Local Authorities" in 2001. It found that 94 per cent. of authorities operate job sharing, 95 per cent. operate flexitime and 64 per cent. provide more maternity pay than the law requires. I could cite many other examples.
      In local government, circumstances will always arise in which people need to work at weekends. That would regularly apply to, for example, residential care homes, where care needs to be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Similarly, local authority leisure facilities such as swimming pools, sports centres and parks need to be open at weekends if they are to provide for the leisure needs of local residents, including families who will want to be able to go out to a park or to go swimming together. It would be perverse to deny people that option given that we are trying to encourage family-friendly policies. In less regular circumstances, similar considerations apply to, for example, emergency services, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned. To take a recently topical issue, road gritting in adverse weather conditions or other environmental and security emergencies require staff to be able to work at weekends, often at short notice.
      Alistair Burt: The Minister's argument is taking a curious turn. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) nor any other hon. Member suggests that services should be denied. We suggest that it should be possible to change rosters or other arrangements so that, where two parents are involved in working, their children should not be prevented from seeing them. No one is suggesting that any service should be denied, so that is not a good reason to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Raynsford: If that argument is valid—I can see some force behind it—any provision would have to apply to the whole work force and there would be no particular case for singling out local authorities. That is not within my remit; it would be a matter to press with
      900
      my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. It is important to recognise that some local authority services require substantial attendance because weekends are the times when they are busiest—I particularly singled out leisure-time activities. It might be difficult in some cases to operate a roster that guaranteed such provision.
      Mr. Streeter: The new clause relates to local government and local government companies because we are discussing a local government Bill. As many hon. Members have said, it is to be hoped that it could be the forerunner to a wider application of the law that would in due course protect employees in every sector.
      Mr. Raynsford: I fully understand why the new clause has been framed in such a way as to apply only to local government: it would otherwise be out of order. That does not in any way change the logic that there is no case for singling out local government for differential treatment, especially given that the available evidence suggests that, on the whole, local authorities are ahead of the game in adopting family-friendly policies.
      Mr. Goodman: The Minister is following the line of argument that I anticipated. Can he therefore give any assurance that the Government are investigating generally the problem that the new clause seeks to address?
      Mr. Raynsford: I intend to come on to some of the measures that the Government are taking to promote family-friendly policies.
      Matthew Green: The Minister's argument is a little perverse. He argues that the measure is unnecessary because local authorities are good employers anyway, but then says that it would put a burden on them. It must be one or the other—it cannot be both.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is getting excited about his observation, but I am afraid that, in the usual way of the Liberal Democrats, it is wrong. The case for imposing special obligations uniquely on local authorities, rather than on any other employers, would possibly be justified if they were not operating good policies. However, given the evidence that they are probably ahead of the game, it is extremely odd—although Liberal Democrat Members perhaps do not recognise that—to single them out to impose more onerous obligations on them than on other employers.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will remember that, when we dealt with Sunday trading, provision was made on a specific issue, although it has not always been kept to. Does not the same argument apply now: we are dealing with local government, so we want to secure protection for local government workers? We should also bear in mind the perverse attitude of some employers, who may say to people who work in shops, or in local government if we go down that road, "We can't employ you if you aren't prepared to work every Sunday."
      Mr. Raynsford: I want to avoid widening the debate too far, because we shall be out of order. This is

      901
      specifically about local government. I reiterate that I know of no evidence to suggest that local authorities are unusually unsympathetic to the aspirations of employees who have family responsibilities that would justify the implementation of a special measure in the Bill that did not apply more generally.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Calum MacDonald: We are all sympathetic to the aims of this new clause, but regardless of our views on its merits, should not such provisions be left to local government, rather than being imposed by central Government? For example, my local authority does not open any leisure facilities on Sundays; it takes a policy decision not to do so, and other local authorities are undoubtedly equally free to take such a decision. Is it not curious that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, who advocate local decision making, want to be centralist in this particular respect?
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I was about to come to. Throughout consideration of this Bill, we have heard repeated complaints from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats about the Government imposing unreasonable, centralising obligations on local government. Here we have a classic illustration of their being wholly inconsistent, and yet they look pained when such inconsistency is pointed out to them. When it suits them, they say, "Liberalise, and give more freedom to local government", but when the latest issue reaches their ears, they say, "No—we must legislate to impose an obligation." Then they look outraged when they are reminded that they are being inconsistent. That is absolutely typical of the Liberal Democrats, who never know which way they are pointing, unless they get an indication as to which way electors are likely to vote. Then, they say what they think will please electors.
      The Government are keen to promote family-friendly policies, and we have a commitment to helping to support working parents. On 6 April 2003, a series of new rights specifically for parents will be introduced. They include a new right for parents with children under six, or for parents with disabled children under 18, to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. The law will place a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously, and the Employment Act 2002 specifies only eight business grounds on which such requests can be refused. So there are measures—along with others that are the responsibility of my colleagues in other Departments—to help promote family-friendly policies. That is the right way forward, rather than trying to single out local government for special treatment. I therefore urge the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
      Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful to those hon. Members who have made contributions on this new clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for his support, and I noted with interest the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that we could usefully have emergency override provisions where a local authority had a specific need to bring them into effect. I am also
      902
      grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his response. He, like other Members, called for a period of consultation on the full effects of the provision; indeed, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) said that his private Member's Bill made a similar undertaking. I would be sympathetic to having such consultation before we make further progress.
      I have to say that I was extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply. He pointed out that local authorities operate seven-days-a-week services, but so did I when I moved the new clause. There is nothing in it that would prevent local authorities from providing such services. All that this modest measure would do is to prevent local authority employees from having to work on a Saturday and a Sunday. For the Minister to say that playgrounds and leisure services would be denied to the broad mass of the population within a local authority area—
      Mr. Raynsford:indicated dissent.
      Andrew Selous: The Minister was getting quite close to doing so.
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I did not say that, and that he accepts that that is a misrepresentation of the position that I adopted.
      Andrew Selous: I apologise if I misrepresented the Minister—I was trying to listen carefully to his argument. Of course, all of us in this House want leisure services to be open seven days a week, and I very much include myself in that. I am simply asking the House to agree that we should extend the same right to local authority employees themselves, who would perhaps like to go to a local park or to a playground with their children on a Saturday or Sunday and spend time with them. Some of them cannot for want of a clause such as new clause 13. I do not think that that is overstating the case.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister had said that local authorities should voluntarily adopt working rosters so that people with children of school age would not be required to work on a Saturday or Sunday unless it was absolutely necessary, it would at least have been a start. Does my hon. Friend think that we could have expected that from the Minister?
      Andrew Selous: Of course, I would have welcomed encouraging remarks from the Minister.
      I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald). He asked why we could not leave these matters to local authority discretion. He comes from a part of the country with a long cultural tradition under which such matters are taken very seriously. I quite understand the decision of his local authority; I respect and applaud it. However, he will acknowledge that many of us come from parts of the country without such traditions. This Parliament must deal with matters on a national basis.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I endorse what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has said. Employment law

      903
      is national and has never, under any party, been decentralised to local authorities. The Liberal Democrats would never wish to decentralise employment law to local authorities. There have to be minimum standards and the hon. Gentleman's proposals are along those lines.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has summed up the situation fairly and accurately.
      Mr. MacDonald: This is not an employment Bill but a local government Bill. We are changing local government law. My point is still valid. If my local authority wanted to carry on doing what it does and close leisure facilities on a Sunday, and this House passed a law that said, "No—you have to open leisure facilities on a Sunday, for the benefit of the rest of the public," the hon. Gentleman would be the first to object. The issue is between centralising principles and local democracy.
      Andrew Selous: I will come on to the point about local authorities, but the example that the hon. Gentleman raises is not one that would come under the new clause. The new clause is not about forcing local authorities to open particular services; it is merely about giving some protection to local authority employees so that they too can enjoy those services.
      The Minister asked, "Why local authorities?" and then answered the question himself: this is a local authority Bill. I see absolutely no reason why local authorities could not lead the way in this area, setting an example to other employers.
      I understand that my noble Friends in the other place, with support from other noble Lords of all parties, will seek to reintroduce a similar amendment.
      Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was not only the words of the Minister's reply that were disappointing but their tone? It seems that he has misunderstood the spirit of this debate. Here we are, trying to do our best for parents, children and families—the very people the Government say that they want to support—but the Minister has not taken up that spirit. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will reflect on this debate and perhaps encourage his noble Friends in the other place to be more gracious in their response to this proposal?
      Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend has made a fair point and has just reminded me that the new family-friendly measures to which the Minister referred do not, as far as I am aware, address the specific points that would have been remedied by the new clause. Those points are significant and the Minister did not address them.
      I will seek leave to withdraw the new clause, but I serve notice to the Minister that this will not be the last time that the Government hear about this matter. My noble Friends, with support from noble Lords of all parties, will seek to revisit this matter in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 18

      COUNCIL TAX ON RESIDENTIAL CARE ACCOMMODATION
      '. Care and nursing homes registered with the National Care Standards Commission shall be counted as one unit for council tax purposes.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would remedy an injustice in the law by relieving small units in residential and nursing homes from being separately assessed for council tax. At present, accommodation units that have the rudiments of self-catering facilities are in danger of incurring full council tax, even though the occupants are residents of a home and dependent on the care of that home.
      The issue was brought to my attention by the residents of the Kathleen Chambers home in my constituency. It is a home run by the Royal National Institute of the Blind to a very high standard. In October 2001, 19 residents of the home wrote to me about their imminent assessment for full council tax. I raised the matter in the House on 20 November 2001, and the then Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), invited me to write to him and undertook to look into the matter. I then engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Department and I was assured that
      "we are aware of the problem you highlight and are presently reviewing the regulations to see if they can be updated to reflect new forms of residential care."
      The RNIB also supplied a large amount of background information to the Department.
      The problem has arisen only because of the high standards in that home and others. I know that the Kathleen Chambers home is not the only one affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has also raised the matter in the House, and I know that other hon. Members have similar problems in their constituencies. The Kathleen Chambers home was rebuilt in 1996—I had the honour of reopening it—and the RNIB followed Government guidelines and used the social services inspectorate to set the standards. Those guidelines include the provision of facilities for people to prepare snacks and drinks for themselves. They state that the units should include
      "small kitchen facilities, near or in their own accommodation."
      It was precisely because the home did that that the residents were separately assessed for council tax. The problem will increase. As more homes are updated and meet the higher standards in the regulations, more will be in danger of having separate assessments made.
      I eventually received an assurance that the matter was being looked at and that legal changes were being considered. On 26 March 2002, I received a letter from the Minister thanking me for some information that I had provided and saying:
      "This will be helpful to my officials who are currently reviewing the issue to see whether any changes in legislation need to be made".
      I would have thought that the Bill would be an obvious vehicle for any changes that needed to be made to remedy the problem.

      905
      Meanwhile, the RNIB appealed against the assessment. On 18 February this year, it appeared to win the case, having appealed against the verdict of the valuation tribunal and won. However, their celebrations were premature, because the Inland Revenue intends to appeal the decision. The whole matter is therefore back in the melting pot. A great deal of money has been spent on it—charitable funds that would have been spent much better on caring for the blind.
      The people in the Kathleen Chambers home have considerable spirit. I visit the home at election time, and the people there are well versed in current affairs. They know exactly what is going on but are bemused and baffled as to why the matter has been allowed to drift on for more than 18 months, despite reassurances from the Department.
      The people in the home clearly depend on the home—they would not be there otherwise. They have enough problems in life: they are blind, and many are of very slender means. They cannot understand why the Government look on while these unjust assessments are made. They seemed to secure a win in court, but that decision is now subject to another appeal.
      Great anxiety has been caused in the Kathleen Chambers home, and the problem needs to be resolved. I look to the Government to do that by accepting the new clause. There are safeguards in it, because only care homes registered under the care homes regulations would qualify. The matter is therefore policed automatically. If a care home ceases to be so registered, separate assessments could be made for each small unit, as appropriate. There is therefore no possibility of leakage into other dwellings.
      I hope that the Government will bring the matter to a conclusion. It is very regrettable that the Bill as drafted does not do that, despite the written assurances that I received. It is about time something was done, and I await the Minister's response with great interest.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I rise to support new clause 18. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) got to the Table Office with the new clause just before I got there with my own proposal. I am glad it happened that way, as the House has been well instructed by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Constituents have not raised the matter with me, but the RNIB and voluntary organisations representing disabled people in general have. However, there may be wider implications for all elderly people, given that standards of care in homes are rising, as a direct result of Government policy. The Government should consider the new clause, because the council tax legislation is ambiguous.
      5.45 pm
      The ambiguity arises from the way in which care homes and domestic and sheltered accommodation are defined. It appears that the people who assess whether a home fits into the care home category or the domestic and sheltered accommodation category think that the addition of some small extra facilities—such as cooking facilities—to a room will have a specific effect.
      906
      They deem that those facilities can change what was always intended to be a simple room in a care home, where a person may enjoy the care provided by staff, into a place where the resident can be independent, and therefore liable to council tax.
      We could be at the beginning of an issue that will grow and grow. As care standards improve and facilities are enhanced, what in the past was deemed unnecessary will become more common. Disabled people and residents of RNIB homes may be more affected than others, as they may be more able to make drinks and food for themselves, even though they still need extra care. By contrast, frail, elderly people may not have a need for such facilities. That might be a narrow point but there is the potential for growth. The Minister has been lobbied and received letters on the issue, so he is aware that there are many ways around it. I am informed that he could utilise town and country planning use class orders—such as the C2 order that currently applies to care homes—and tie council tax tests to part of the planning
      system or to the Care Standards Act 2000, as new clause 18 seeks to do.
      This is not a party political issue but is about making sure that the tax system is updated to reflect the way that care homes are developing and standards are changing. If the Minister cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will have his solution presented in this House or another place.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his presentation of new clause 18. If Parliament is to serve any purpose, his arguments will succeed. The new clause deals with a small anomaly that has cost some charities a great deal of money trying to resolve—and it could be sorted out quickly and precisely if new clause 18 were adopted. The vast majority of registered care homes are not affected by the anomaly but are regarded as one rating unit. Only a tiny number of care homes are affected. One of them is Dolphin Court in my constituency—which I invite the Minister to visit, to see for himself the facilities it provides to people who are desperately disabled.
      I spend a lot of time visiting residential homes. Some of them can be acutely depressing; a group of elderly people are to be seen sitting in a circle looking at each other. Others—such as those run by the Abbeyfield Society and John Grooms—go out of their way to provide disabled people with independence and dignity. Not to regard Dolphin Court as a single unit is ridiculous. The individuals who reside there are not independent although they have separate accommodation, together with enablers and facilitators who actively encourage and motivate residents to be less dependent. Guidance is given to each residence on acquiring the skills needed to achieve personal goals. Group meals and activities supplement the individual's living programme. Communal meals are provided, but such care homes try to provide the kind of independent accommodation that encourages disabled people to be more independent.
      The tribunal that considered Dolphin Court stated that while the residents were not able to live independently, their individual flats constituted separate living accommodation and should be assessed accordingly. Uncertainty has existed since 1993. In case after case, evaluation tribunals have decided not to

      907
      proceed, while others—as in the case of Dophin Court—have proceeded. Charities have spent a great deal of money on professional advice. I have pursued the issue with various Ministers—including the delightful lady who was Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, from whom I received a letter on 19 January 2002, in which she stated that there would be no overall change in rates payable by classifying the property as separate dwellings. She said, "Don't worry. There'll be no financial impact."
      I then took the matter up with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in a question on 13 November and he said that he would look into it. However, I would like to tell the Government what it means for John Grooms, Dolphin Court, Southend-on-Sea. The council tax payable rose from £700 a year to £4,000, which is a substantial increase and a large amount of money.
      Of course, individuals can apply for rebates. There are 20 residents and the majority receive rebates, but is it really fair that a residential home providing limited basic accommodation is regarded as a single unit while worthwhile organisations or charities such as John Grooms, which try to help people to become more independent, to have more dignity and to widen their contribution to society, are hammered? We are telling those homes to pay £4,000 instead of £700.
      Only a limited number of homes are affected. They are the ones that go out of their way to provide better facilities for people. I am sure that that is the last thing that the Government would want to stop. The Minister should consider the matter seriously, and not just blether, as he sometimes does in these debates. Is he saying that if a home provides people only with meals and the opportunity to look at each other the Government will give them a benefit, but that if a home tries to provide separate accommodation and opportunities that give people more facilities for an independent and dignified lifestyle, they will hammer it? That is what the measure will do. If a home goes out of its way to improve things for its residents, it will be hammered; if it does nothing, it will be okay.
      It is simply a question of logic. The independent valuation tribunal's report on Dolphin Court stated that the residents were unable to live independently, but that it had to regard the accommodation as separate units. I am sure that the Minister will accept that the measure is unfair and unreasonable, and discriminates against people who are trying to provide better facilities, so I hope that he will accept the excellent new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The vast majority of homes are okay; we are simply trying to ensure that all registered homes are treated in the same way.
      As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend and I, and other MPs, have been troubling him with this issue for quite a while. We have said that something is wrong, and that the situation is unfair and should be put right. Charities have spent a great deal of money to try to resolve the problems. They feel strongly that they are being hammered for going the extra mile for disabled people who require assistance. I hope that the Government will put things right; that is only fair and reasonable.
      908
      If the Minister has any doubts, I hope that he will visit Dolphin Court to see for himself. When people with great disabilities are not merely being looked after but helped to improve their opportunities and to do better in society, that deserves encouragement. However, instead of getting that encouragement, the charities are being hammered. I hope that the Government will do something about it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Opposition strongly support the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I congratulate him on pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents at Kathleen Chambers House so diligently over such a long period. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor).
      Since my right hon. Friend drew the matter to my attention, I have been contacted by the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which produced a brief for this debate for Members of Parliament.
      We seem to be moving into the more enlightened regime envisaged by the Care Standards Act 2000 whereby people who are blind or physically disabled can lead as near a normal life as possible. As other hon. Members have said, guidance was issued under the 2000 Act so that facilities would be upgraded to allow residents to live as independent a life as possible.
      6 pm
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, the accommodation needs to be brought up to modern standards. Those people need a sink, a cooker and other kitchen facilities to live a more independent life, but that does not mean that individual residents could live a completely independent life if it were not for the general, overarching care provided by the home. The problem is that the individual units become subject to council tax when those minimum care standards are achieved.
      The RNIB makes the point that there is a high degree of regulation and inspection of care homes, so the valuation tribunal has less grounds for concern about illicit operation in care homes than in the housing stock at large. One of the grounds that the Minister might use in rejecting the new clause is that there would be council tax leakage. However, the RNIB also makes the point that, if the premises ceased to be used as a care home, the registration would automatically cease, which would effectively reinstate the exemption from residential care accommodation that used to exist under community charge regulations.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has said, it seems totally wrong that the law should be unclear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, said, cases have gone to valuation tribunals way back as far as 1993. The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify the law. Even if he does not accept new clause 18, I hope that he will accept the principle that my right hon. Friend has established and say that the detailed drafting required to amend the law on council tax regulations will be prepared so that an amendment can be introduced in another place.
      The Opposition support my right hon. Friend's new clause, and I hope that he will press it to a vote and encourage the Government to introduce regulations in another place.
      Mr. Leslie: May I first put on record my appreciation of the fact that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has raised this issue today? We have had a useful debate and a number of important issues have been raised. I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will at least give me the opportunity to say my piece and then reflect on what I have to say before drawing his conclusion about whether to press the motion to a vote.
      I have to admit that this is clearly an issue, and the right hon. Gentleman has clearly come up with a possible solution in new clause 18—a proposal that would ensure that care and nursing homes registered with the National Care Standards Commission were counted as one unit for council tax purposes. The RNIB has also deduced that that option is a possible solution, and that issue has been raised in correspondence with my Department. Again, I should like to put on record my appreciation of the work done by the RNIB—not just its work on this issue but the wider beneficial work that it does for people with visual impairment.
      Residential homes have traditionally been interpreted in council tax regulations as essentially a series of bedrooms with communal facilities, but, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, such accommodation is becoming increasingly self-contained—units have their own kitchens and bathrooms, for example—precisely to facilitate more independent living, and many hon. Members support that as standards are raised. However, that type of accommodation traditionally falls under the definition of separate chargeable dwelling. That is why such accommodation has been billed separately in certain circumstances.
      I was very interested to hear what the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) said about Dolphin Court and what the right hon. Member for Wells said about Kathleen Chambers House—the home in his constituency. Indeed, I have no reason to challenge what they have said about the circumstances that they have reported to the House. The chargeable dwelling can either be a complete dwelling—for example, a house—or part of a building with self-contained units such as flats. The definition tends to focus on whether there are kitchen and bathroom facilities either in or outwith the unit. The specific test is whether the units have been adapted for use as separate living accommodation; that is the definition in the regulations.
      However, as care homes establish more self-contained units, that can result in residents in the more modern units receiving separate council tax bills for the first time. Obviously, that can be surprising and unwelcome for those residents, and also awkward for the local authorities that have to administer the billing process.
      I want to put on the record the fact that I am very sympathetic indeed to the rationale behind the arguments of the right hon. Member for Wells and the others who tabled the new clause. I hear the suggestions by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about other mechanisms, such as planning classification, that might be used.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold says that the Government should not be thinking about the loss of council tax revenue, but that is not the reason why I
      910
      shall, I am afraid, have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause. There are drafting issues that mean that the new clause would not fit into the Bill as it was intended to. Moreover, it is not needed, as the changes to the regulations defining a chargeable dwelling can be made by secondary legislation under section 3(5)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. There are also other issues affecting application to the National Assembly for Wales, which mean that new clause 18 is technically deficient.
      The Government may well decide to exercise our powers to change the regulations and treat all registered care homes as single dwellings. We are considering that in great detail now; the valuation of care homes is being carefully examined and evidence is being collected to see how widespread the problem is. If need be, we will use our legislative powers to remedy the problem.
      The right hon. Member for Wells specifically mentioned that he had written to previous Ministers on the subject and that the attention given to the issue had not been as swift as he would have liked. I have raised the matter with my officials, and I intend to ensure that we can resolve the problem satisfactorily over the coming months. After the useful debate that we have had, which has put everything on the record, I shall go back and redouble our efforts to ensure that we can resolve the problem. In the light of that commitment, I hope that hon. Members will accept that the time has come to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition of the problem, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) for his powerful support, based on another real case. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who is clearly concerned about the problem too.
      The Minister said that he was "very sympathetic" to our case. I think that in parliamentary parlance, that means that he will definitely act. He also said that there were avenues for remedying the defect through secondary legislation. He recognised that his Department had been somewhat dilatory in grasping the issue, which has been around for at least 18 months— if not a great deal longer, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East.
      A great deal of expense has been incurred. In the case that I have described it was incurred by the RNIB—a body which I much value, and which I am sure would rather have spent the money on front-line care. As I said at the outset, the problem has also caused much anxiety among vulnerable people for whom life has already created a good many difficulties.
      In the light of the Minister's remarks, however—I take his assurance at face value that he will find a remedy, and that his Department will grasp the issue with the urgency that it deserves—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 19

      ABOLITION OF CAPPING POWERS
      '.— Section 30 and Schedule 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27) are repealed.'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Davey: 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 amendment No. 49, in page 112, line 7 [Schedule 7], leave out 'and 31' and insert
      ', 30 and 31 and Schedule 1'.
      Mr. Davey: It is not often that one gets the chance to react with a legislative proposal so soon after a Minister has made a particular threat. At the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister, in answer to various journalists' questions, said that the Government were considering capping certain local authorities that were increasing their council tax by large amounts. I was particularly concerned to hear that, as it went against much of what Labour said in opposition and in government with respect to capping powers. I therefore felt that it was appropriate, as we had the chance to do so today, to probe this issue to see whether we could help the Labour Government put on the statute books the policy to which they subscribed in opposition: rightly, Labour in opposition was against capping powers. When the Conservatives were in power, the Liberal Democrats, with the Labour party, used to criticise the way the Conservative Government, time after time, used capping powers to stop local authorities reacting to the wishes of their electorate to invest in services, whether services in our schools, services for elderly people, services for vulnerable children or services more widely in the communities that councillors were elected to represent.
      It is therefore disappointing that, when this Government came to power, they slightly changed their policy. They kept some reserve capping powers, and, to use the Deputy Prime Minister's words, they got rid of "crude" capping and somehow introduced "sophisticated" capping in the Local Government Act 1999. Some of us feel that that type of capping is still not right. The reason for that is simple: these issues should be decided by the electorate in the areas of the councils concerned.
      We have some concerns, of course, that councils may be using opportunities to rack up the council tax. When I raised the issue at questions earlier today, the Minister—I think that he had Wandsworth borough council in mind—responded that some councils had cut the council tax before the election and were now raising it significantly. He has a problem with that case, as he well knows, because while I would not wish to support Wandsworth's methods—the way in which it cut the tax before the election and has now put it up is outrageous—the people who should judge that are the electors of Wandsworth.
      The Minister has another problem: the comprehensive performance assessment of various councils has for some reason rated Wandsworth an
      912
      excellent council. The Government, under their policy of freedoms and flexibilities, have said that they would not apply capping to those sorts of councils, so they have a real problem with the way in which they approach the matter. It would be simplest to get rid of capping powers altogether, which is the effect of new clause 19. I hope that we will have some support from Conservative Members on that.
      Matthew Green: Has not the new formula in fact created a situation in which some councils, in order to move up to what the Government suggest they ought to be spending at formula spending share, would have to introduce large council tax rises? Bridgnorth district council, for example, set a band D rate of around £65 last year, although the assumed national council tax level is £185. The figure is used in the calculation of how much Government grant the authority receives. However, if the authority were to spend at the formula spending share—the level that the Government suggest might be appropriate—it would have to put in a 200 per cent. council tax rise. It has not done that; it has put in a 13 per cent. rise. However, this case illustrates the problem that the Government have created.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right, in the sense that the grant changes this year have been part of the problem. Therefore, it is not right for the Government to blame individual councils. The Government's policy of reforming the grant distribution formula has led in some cases to the large council tax increases. Ministers will say that they have protected local councils by the introduction of floors. However, we all know that those floors were not high enough for many local authorities. Those authorities faced significantly increased costs, such as the national insurance increase, above-inflation salary increases for many local authority employees and increases in insurance costs that were way above inflation. We therefore know that the floors were not sufficient.
      When we take into account the effects of ring-fencing and passporting, particularly in respect of education—which is often a large part of the budgets of unitary authorities and county councils—we understand how local authorities have arrived at this position. Not only have they received insufficient grant and faced large cost increases, but they have been given no room to manoeuvre because much of the grant that they receive has been predetermined by central Government diktat. It is the fact that there is no wriggle room or ability to move the budgets round to meet communities' needs that has created the problem.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I have much sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's views, not least because my authority—as he knows, it is led by the Liberal Democrats, even though they are somewhat ashamed to admit it—increased the council tax by a small amount before the most recent local elections and subsequently increased it by massive amounts in the following two years. There is a good case for removing the power of council tax capping, but it is difficult for local authorities

      913
      to set a rate that is decided locally when they are subject to national pay bargaining and do not have discretion over whether they implement that.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman repeats a point that I was making. Local authorities face such problems even when they are given, as the Government keep saying, grant settlements that are above inflation.
      The Minister must recognise that, because of what is known as the gearing effect whereby authorities raise only a small proportion of their total revenue locally, a 1 per cent. cut in the grant sometimes translates into a 5 per cent. increase in the council tax so as to replace lost revenue. That is one reason for the large increases in council tax. When the gearing effect is added to cost pressures and ring-fencing, that means that the council tax has to rise by a large amount for an authority to meet the demands on it. That is one reason why we oppose the council tax and want it abolished. The other reason is that it is such an unfair tax.
      The Government should not use capping powers even though the council tax is such an unfair tax. They should introduce a policy that would cut the council tax by £100 per council tax payer and use central Government money to fund that. If capping powers were used, there would be arbitrary cuts in services such as education and social services. We do not want that. By providing money from the Treasury—our alternative Budget showed that the Government could do that in the forthcoming Budget—we could ensure that councils were able to deliver cuts in council tax and maintain services. That is surely a much better approach than going ahead with capping.
      Mr. Turner: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman believes that the introduction of a local income tax would remove the gearing effect. Surely a local income tax would have to be supported by Government grant in some authorities to a lesser extent than in others. How would that remove the gearing effect?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to pick me up on that. A local income tax gives us the potential to get rid of the gearing effect. Income tax is fairer than council tax. A local income tax would allow us to cut national income tax and increase local income tax penny for penny, so reducing the grant and the gearing effect. It is a mechanism by which we could reduce the gearing effect, although obviously not immediately. Council tax does not provide us with that potential. That is the problem. In the balance of funding review, the Government are trying to discover whether they can put more demands on the council tax, but because the tax is so unfair, it cannot bear that weight. So the gearing effect will never be abolished or even reduced while we have such an unfair tax. By replacing it with a fair tax, we have the chance radically to reform local government finance.
      In most other western democracies, local government finance is not the bugbear that it is in Britain. The prime reason for that is that many of them have a fair local income tax. Their local authorities are able to raise more of their revenue locally and are accountable to the local
      914
      electorate. We should follow that model. People have been debating it for many years and it is about time our Government faced up to it.
      Mr. Turner: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but surely a 1p reduction in income tax would reduce the money that the Government receive and they would then reduce the local government grant. A 1p increase in income tax imposed by the hon. Gentleman's local authority would generate far more money than a 1p increase in income tax imposed by my local authority, because people in his area have much higher incomes. How would that reduce the gearing effect?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. We want to increase the revenue that is raised locally from 25 per cent. to 70 or 75 per cent. That would reduce the gearing effect hugely, but we would always need an equalisation grant—a redistribution grant—for the reasons that he outlines. We would not want poor authorities not to have resources because they have a lower income tax base. Similar aspects of the grant system have existed before. However, by having a fair tax, such as a local income tax instead of council tax, we would enable that shift to be achieved over time—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been generous enough in allowing the debate to be shaped this way. I remind the House that we are discussing a new clause on capping powers.
      Mr. Davey: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Only time will tell whether the Government will use capping powers this year. I hope that Ministers will tell us that they have decided not to use them. I also hope that the Minister will go further and tell us that, with cross-party support, capping will end altogether. We should take one step towards reviving local democracy and improving local accountability. Let us build on that in the next stage by reforming the local government finance system entirely.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The debate has been interesting and I listened with care. I fully accept that Conservative Governments in the 1980s used capping powers against some of the most profligate authorities—mostly Labour controlled—that were wasting taxpayers' money outrageously. There was, and is, another problem—in some authorities, the majority of council tax payers do not pay the full amount of council tax, so they have an interest in their council providing ever more subsidised services. One could argue that those who pay the council tax in full need the protection of capping. On the other hand, the Conservatives strongly support the principle of devolving as much power as possible to the lowest possible local level. Provided that the ratio of the highest to the lowest band of 3:1 is maintained so that council tax cannot be unfairly skewed to the top band or two, the Government have plenty of powers to force poorly performing authorities to restore their services to a reasonable and cost-effective level. Many more powers, for example, have been given to the Secretary of State in the Bill.
      We have complained about the Bill's centralising tendency, but one consequence is that the Secretary of State has many more powers to deal with councils that

      915
      overstep the mark, waste money and provide poor services to local people. The Government have powers, including one involving the Audit Commission, over the comprehensive performance assessment and star rating that have been introduced, and ultimately they can send in officials to run council functions or, indeed, the council in cases of grossly incompetent management. Such powers have been exercised over Walsall council. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see what the Government will do about one of the top-performing councils—Wandsworth. It would be nonsense if a top-rated council in the Government's new comprehensive performance assessment and star rating were capped because it tried to maintain local services.
      While we fully support the Liberals' aspiration and aim of getting rid of capping, it is difficult to see how they can do so under the Government's unfair and skewed mechanism for funding local authorities. We are keeping an open mind, and I must tell the Liberal Democrat spokesman that although I have considerable sympathy with his new clause, regrettably I cannot support it tonight as we need to consider the matter in greater detail. With those few remarks, I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Luff: I have considerable sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said when he moved the new clause. Local government functions are effectively controlled from Whitehall and three-quarters funded by it. To meet the targets effectively imposed on it by the Government, my county council is obliged to increase council tax by 14 per cent. or so just to stand still. West Mercia constabulary, one of the precepting authorities, gave a demonstration to hon. Members from Worcestershire, Shropshire and Herefordshire of the impact of the Government's grant, which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) attended. He and I heard a convincing reasons why a 12.9 per cent. increase in the precept was necessary just to stand still.
      I am therefore worried about the capping powers available to the Government. Worcestershire county council could be in an invidious position if the Government used those powers, and might have to cut services, including social services inspection and teachers in schools. Yet it has to impose a monstrously high council tax increase because of the Government's treatment. Quite outrageously, it is between a rock and a hard place.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making an important case. His police authority is in exactly the same position as mine in Gloucestershire. It has had to impose a double-digit precept for the past three years because of the funding that it has received from the Government. Had it not done so, the only alternative was to cut the number of police officers in Gloucestershire.
      Mr. Luff: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern, and am glad that he made that point. Last year, West Mercia constabulary increased its precept by 33 per cent. to enable it to have a useful increase in the number of police officers on the streets and in the villages of my constituency, but I imagine the Government were tempted to use their capping powers. Large increases are
      916
      being forced on local authorities, police authorities, county councils and district councils by the Government's funding arrangements, which have skewed money away from "leafy" shires to northern Labour strongholds. No wonder we see that council tax increases are typically highest in a line south of the Severn and lower north of the Severn. If the Government used their capping powers on authorities such as Worcestershire county council, it would be an outrage.
      Although I have sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, I recognise that there is a need for the Government to have reserve powers to use against outrageously profligate authorities, but not authorities like Worcestershire, which is put in an invidious position by the Government's own policies. If the Minister can reassure us about the use of capping powers this year at least, that would provide some comfort while more careful, calm consideration is given to the long-term future of the powers.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate. I can say that as there have now been three speakers. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) described it as an interesting debate after we had heard just one speaker. That raises the interesting intellectual question of whether a debate can take the form of a monologue.
      The fact that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton introduced the new clause today strikes me as bizarre. It is surely a strange sense of timing to choose to make the case for the abolition of capping powers on the day when the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has published provisional figures suggesting that council tax demands from local authorities will be up by some 12.9 per cent. next year.
      At a time when many people all over the country are naturally worried about the prospect of large council tax bills landing on their doormat, it shows an extraordinary degree of insensitivity on the part of the Liberal Democrats to suggest the abolition of capping. That sends a message that anything goes, and indicates that their priority is not the poor council tax payer, but the local authority—the producer interest, rather than the public. That, I am afraid, is all too often characteristic of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell us how he intends to use the powers this year? Which councils will he cap?
      Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will take him through the policy and its implications. We made our position on council tax capping clear in our 2001 local government White Paper. That built on the Local Government Act 1999, which abolished the crude and universal capping provisions introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government, about which they now clearly feel a little guilty. The hon. Member for Cotswold could not quite bring himself to admit the errors of the Thatcher period, but he clearly indicated a shift in the Conservatives' position.
      We have done away with those provisions and accepted that it was wrong to have those blanket powers, which were used in an insensitive and

      917
      inappropriate way. However, we retained more selective reserve powers that can be used, if necessary, in cases where local authorities impose an unreasonably high council tax demand. We can cap a budget increase in-year; we can pre-set a maximum budget which an authority can set in subsequent years; or we can set a notional budget requirement against which future years' capping decisions can be taken.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested that the Government were being inconsistent in our approach. We are not. We do not wish to use capping powers, but we believe, as any responsible Government should, that it is right to have reserve powers against circumstances where a local authority has behaved in a dubious way and imposed an excessive council tax increase for no good reason. That is the right policy stance to protect the interests of the public.
      As regards this year, we are still waiting for all the information on council tax rises. The CIPFA figures to which I referred are based on approximately two thirds of local authorities. It will be a while yet before we have received all the data for all local authorities. It would be wrong to make any decision on the use of the powers just yet. We do not rule out their use, but we have no current plans to apply the capping powers. We do not wish to use the powers, but we recognise that in certain circumstances that may be necessary. The retention of the powers is important to send a message that local authorities should always act responsibly and should have proper regard for their council tax payers—for ordinary people who have to pay the cost and who would see a bill increasing by rather large amounts, as some, I am afraid, will do this year, as a very serious imposition and a cause of deep concern.
      Looking at the figures for the current year, it is clear that there are some very wide variations in the council tax demanded in different areas. For example, the west midlands has a number of metropolitan authorities that are of roughly similar size and are getting roughly similar levels of Government grant. However, their council tax demands range from 4.4 per cent. in Coventry and Birmingham and 5.8 per cent. in Sandwell and Dudley to 14.4 per cent. in Conservative Solihull. I do not know why Solihull finds it impossible to budget for a modest council tax increase just as Birmingham and Coventry do, given that its grant increase was in line with those received by other west midlands authorities.
      The Tory party has tried to pretend that the Government grant is responsible for council tax increases this year. That is an outrageous suggestion, because this is the first year ever when every local authority in the country has received an above-inflation grant increase. That has never happened before. During the years when the Tory party was in government, councils more often than not saw a reduction in their grants in real terms and sometimes in actual terms. This year, every council in the country has had an increase. The overall increase has averaged 5.9 per cent. in general grant. When special and specific grants are added, the average is 8 per cent. That is a good settlement that is substantially ahead of inflation.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have heard the Minister repeat that assertion several times on the radio, but it is simply
      918
      not true. Out of the average increase of 5.9 per cent., at least 3 per cent. has been taken up by Government-imposed taxes—increased pension contributions in respect of advance corporation tax changes, increased national insurance and non-funded increases for public sector employees. Those increases take up 3 per cent. of the 5.9 per cent. average. In addition, many councils have received an increase of only 3.5 per cent. under this Government's settlement. How are they supposed to maintain services with such a grant increase and such increased costs?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman can bring himself to say that with a straight face. When his Government were in power, councils got cuts in the grant. They saw reductions and cuts, but while this Government have in been in power local authorities have seen year-on-year grant increases. This year, they are getting an increase averaging 5.9 per cent. in general grant and 8 per cent. when specific grants are taken into account—a total of £3.8 billion. Let me deal with one or two of the points that he raised about that. Does he know how much is taken up by national insurance?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Roughly, out of the 3 per cent. cost increase that I have just mentioned, 1 per cent. relates to the issue of ACT and pension contributions, 1 per cent. to underfunded public sector pay increases and 1 per cent. to national insurance changes. Those costs mean that 3 per cent. of the Government's so-called 5.9 per cent. average increase is immediately taken up. Furthermore, they do not fund the amounts passported through education. How are local authorities supposed to maintain services without increasing council tax?
      Mr. Raynsford: In an earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman gave us an interesting insight into his mathematical skills by suggesting that an increase of 5p a week was equivalent to an increase of £25 a year, rather than £2.50 a year.[Laughter.] That is true; it is an indication of just how out of touch the Opposition are. He is out of touch once again in respect of the figures that he has just given to the House. The total increase attributable to national insurance increases is £230 million, which compares with £3.8 billion of additional grant. That is the reality. That is what the Tory party is trying to hide, as it is Tory authorities that are increasing council tax unreasonably this year. When the full analysis is carried out, he will have to explain why Tory councils are making the largest council tax increases by far this year. It is not because of the grant. As I have pointed out, many Tory councils have received a very similar grant to that received by Labour councils, and they include Solihull, which, although its grant is similar to that of Labour Birmingham or Coventry, has introduced a council tax increase of four or five times the size. Why is that? Why is Tory Wandsworth, which reduced its council tax by 25 per cent. last year— an election year—imposing a 55 per cent. increase this year? Tory authorities are taking such cynical action because they are trying to blame the Government for their decisions.
      Andrew Bennett: What would be the implication for local councils of the 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure that Conservative Members are considering?
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, knows only too well that if the Conservative party ever came back to power, we would return to the days of cutting Government grant year after year. A Conservative Government would do that even more savagely if they fulfilled their leader's pledge and made a 20 per cent. reduction in overall public expenditure. A 20 per cent. reduction in council grant would lead to huge increases in council tax.
      Mr. Luff: Indeed, it would. However, there is no such plan and I wish that the Government would stop talking such nonsense.
      Will the Minister do Worcestershire county council the kindness of accepting a delegation from the relevant portfolio holder and the director of finance and reassure them that spending will be not be capped? Receiving such a delegation would enable him to understand why the council is obliged to increase its council tax by so much simply to deliver standstill services.
      Mr. Raynsford: It is slightly odd that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) takes that view. Worcestershire county council has received a 6 per cent. grant increase from the Government. That is more than twice the level of inflation. There is no basis on which a council that receives that amount of grant can justifiably claim that it has no option but to impose an unreasonably large council tax increase.
      If one considers the council tax that different local authorities set this year, one realises that it is possible for prudent and sensible authorities to budget in a way that does not impose unreasonable demands on their council tax payers. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, who is so keen to support the county councils, a few home truths. Two years ago, in an election year, the average increase in county councils' council tax was 6 per cent. Last year, when no elections took place, it increased to 9 per cent. This year, the provisional figures suggest that increases will be 13 per cent. That is far greater than the increases of most other authorities.
      Why does that happen? County councils have the same social services and educational responsibilities as other authorities—I referred to some in the west midlands—which have set substantially lower council tax increases. There is no good reason for unacceptable council tax increases.
      Earlier, I referred to Wandsworth, but let me give one more example to kill for ever the myth that Government grant is somehow responsible for council tax rises in a year when all councils have had an increase in grant that is above inflation. The district council of Weymouth and Portland in the south-west threatens to impose a council tax increase of more 50 per cent. Yet Government grant to that authority has increased by 12.5 per cent. What does it need to avoid imposing an unreasonable increase on its council tax payers? It raises serious questions if 12.5 per cent. is not a sufficient increase on which to budget prudently.
      920
      All the evidence suggests that authorities can budget prudently. This year, authorities that are getting good Government increases should be able to impose a council tax demand that is not unreasonable.
      Against that background, it is clearly inappropriate to accept the amendment this year. As I have already made clear, we do not wish to use capping powers. We want local authorities to budget but we expect them to act prudently. We cannot turn a blind eye to authorities that not only impose unreasonable tax increases on their residents, but act in a way that appears to be motivated by electoral considerations or profligacy. Every hon. Member should condemn that.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton must surely have learned a lesson from the fate of Richmond upon Thames council, which last year had an unenviable reputation for imposing the highest council tax of any authority in the country. Not surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats no longer control Richmond upon Thames council. I therefore put it to him, in the nicest possible way, that it might be in the interests of his party if he were to take a more prudent and rigorous attitude towards those members of his party who do not believe that they have a responsibility to moderate their council tax demands. If we do not send out from this House the message that we expect local authorities to act prudently, the public will take a very dim view of our responsibilities—our serious responsibilities—towards the ordinary people who ultimately have to pick up the tab.
      We cannot accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it and send out a message that authorities should act prudently and responsibly.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Ministers will not blind council tax payers with science. Even "The World at One" today ran an item on whether the Government were skewing the local government finance distribution system through resource equalisation, taking money away from prudent and well-run southern councils to give it to their friends in the north. People are tumbling to that, and they will certainly tumble to it when council tax bills fall through their letterboxes.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that the louder he shouts, the better his chance of persuading people. I have to tell him that usually the opposite is true—if one has a sound and strong case, one needs only to put it across in a sensible and modest voice. In a year when every local authority in the country has had an above-inflation grant increase, there is no justification for some of the profligate council tax demands that are coming through, particularly from Conservative authorities. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman—who, in his opening remarks, referred to the Government of the party of which he is a member taking action in the 1980s against councils that, in his view, were acting unreasonably—cannot bring himself to condemn those Tory authorities that are imposing wholly unreasonable council tax increases on their residents.
      We cannot accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will withdraw it, but, if not, that the House will reject it.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am afraid that the Government's argument will not wash with the electorate. They know that the blame for many of the high council tax rises lies with this Government. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that every council has had an above-inflation increase. He should look at analyses that show the effects of ring-fencing, or of the passporting requirement that his colleague, the Minister for School Standards, imposed in respect of the education grant on the ability of councils to manage their budgets. The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he will have heard many local authority councillors and council officers make this argument, that although they may have had an increase, their ability to manoeuvre in using that money has been sorely limited. Therefore, in areas where they have not had sufficient grant, where there are huge demands and huge cost pressures, they are having to make good the lack of grant through council tax increases. The Minister knows that, owing to the effects of gearing, a small shortfall in grant revenue means that council tax has to increase significantly to make amends. His argument does not wash under analysis and it will not wash with the electorate.
      Andrew Bennett: To make it clear, it is Liberal policy, then, to make sure that some of the extra money that was to go to education does not go to education. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us which schools will face the cuts that will result from that policy?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a typical centralist argument. As the normally very good Chairman of a Select Committee, he should be ashamed of doing so. His Committee is supposed to stand up for local government, and the whole point about local government is that local democracy should determine such issues, not Ministers in Whitehall. He should be aware that there was a huge row in Whitehall when the Minister for School Standards sent a letter to every head teacher in the country telling them exactly how much money they should expect from their local education authority, because that was not the message that was coming from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. When Ministers are quizzed about that, they are very embarrassed by what their colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills said. The hon. Gentleman's Committee made that very point, so he ought to know that. He should also know that this problem will not go away until the Government refund the local government finance system more effectively.
      The Government will have to come clean in the next few weeks. When they have the full figures, rather than the two thirds that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy reported on today, they will have to decide whether they are going to use the capping powers. The Minister gave us no real answer, but what he did say is that they do not really want to. If they do not want to, they should accept new clause 19. They should return to what they said in opposition—that capping powers are undemocratic and unfair, and that the judgment on how a council is performing in managing its budget should be made by the electorate, not in Whitehall.
      922
      We will not withdraw the new clause. We will push it to a vote, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider whether they believe local democracy to be important. If they do, I hope that they will vote to get rid of these centralised capping powers, which have been on the statute book for far too long—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point clearly.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 290.

      Division No. 103]

      [6:50 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Baker, Norman

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barrett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Burnett, John

      Burnside, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Calton Mrs Patsy

      Russell Bob(Colchester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey David

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

      Cotter, Brian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Doughty, Sue

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Thomgs Sjmon(Ceredigion)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thurso John

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Tonge Dr Jenny

      Hancock, Mike

      Tyler Paul(N Cornwall)

      Heath, David

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Hermon, Lady

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Keetch, Paul

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Alan Reid and

      Lamb, Norman

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Allen, Graham

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cairns, David

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caplin, Ivor

      Austin, John

      Casale, Roger

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Baird, Vera

      Challen, Colin

      Banks, Tony

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clapham, Michael

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beard, Nigel

      Benn, Hilary

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Best, Harold

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Colman, Tony

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      923

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Hutton, rh John

      Crausby, David

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Denham, rh John

      Knignt' Jim(S Dorset)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Lammy, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dodds, Nigel

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Doran, Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Linton, Martin

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lloyd, Tony(Mancnester C)

      Eagle, Angelas(Wallasey)

      Love, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Efford, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McCabe Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fisher, Mark

      MacDonald, Calum

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      MacDougall, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McFall John

      Flint, Caroline

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Follett, Barbara

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mahmood, Khalid

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Mahon Mrs Alice

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mann Jonn(Bassetlaw)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marris Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Miller, Andrew

      Healey, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Mole, Chris

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Heppell, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mudie, George

      Heyes, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hodge, Margaret

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Olner, Bill

      924

      O'Neill, Martin

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Soley, Clive

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Southworth, Helen

      Perham, Linda

      Spellar, rh John

      Picking, Anne

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stevenson, George

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Straw.rh Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase Ken

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Trickett, Jon

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Truswell, Paul

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Reid, rh Or. Jonn(Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Wareing Robert N

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Watts David

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      white, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Williams rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Joan Ryan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have timetabled this afternoon's proceedings in such a way that we have discussed only six out of the 13 groups. We have had no opportunity for the Minister to put on record what Governoment amendment No. 24 is all about, and therefore I request on behalf of the Opposition a separate vote on it, so that we may have an opportunity in future to discuss that matter.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to concede a vote on that matter. It will follow immediately.

    Clause 77

      STATUTORY REVALUTATION CYCLE
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 40, line 10, leave out 'each House of Parliament' and insert 'the House of Commons'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 176.

      Division No. 104]

      [7:5 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Allen, Graham

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dawson, Hilton

      Austin, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bailey, Adrian

      Denham, rh John

      Baird, Vera

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Banks, Tony

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Battle, John

      Doran, Frank

      Beard, Nigel

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Benn, Hilary

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flint, Caroline

      Follett, Barbara

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hodge, Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hutton, rh John

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      926

      Jamieson, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Jenkins, Brian

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Rammell, Bill

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

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

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lammy, David

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ruddock, Joan

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sawford, Phil

      Linton, Martin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Southworth, Helen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Spellar, rh John

      McKechin, Ann

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Timms, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Martlew, Eric

      Trickett, Jon

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Miller, Andrew

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Moran, Margaret

      Ward, Claire

      Morley, Elliot

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mullin, Chris

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Watts, David

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      White, Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Winnick, David

      Olner, Bill

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Woodward, Shaun

      Perham, Linda

      Woolas, Phil

      Picking, Anne

      Worthington, Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wright, Anthony D,(Gt Yarmouth)

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Joan Ryan

      927

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Heald, Oliver

      Bacon, Richard

      Heath, David

      Baker, Norman

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Baldry, Tony

      Hendry, Charles

      Barker, Gregory

      Hermon, Lady

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Barrett, John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Howard, rh Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Brady, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Keetch, Paul

      Brazier Julian

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burnside, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Cameron, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cash, William

      Lewis, Dr Julian(New Forest E)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Chidgey, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clappison, James

      Loughton, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Collins, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclean, rh David

      Cotter, Brian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden

      Moore, Michael

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Donaldson Jeffrey M.

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Dorrell rh Stephen

      O'Brien Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Doughty, Sue

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paice James

      Fallon, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Price Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Flook, Adrian

      Prisk Mark(Hertford)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Pugh Dr John

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Redwood, rh John

      Garnier, Edward

      Reid Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Rendel, David

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Greenway, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gummer, rh John

      Selous, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hancock, Mike

      Shepherd, Richard

      928

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

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

      Tyler, Paul(TV Cornwall)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spring, Richard

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wiggin, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Willis, Phil

      Syms, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, rh Sir George

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Thurso, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 32

      ANCILLARY POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 15, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.
      7.19 pm
      Mr. Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the Committee stage, the Government tabled what is now clause 118, which will be considered by the House on Monday. At that time, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions was unable to provide the Committee with draft guidance and indicated that he hoped to be able to do so by the Report stage. The Opposition have tabled an amendment that would remove clause 118, but we did so only for the purpose of creating an opportunity for a discussion of the draft guidance on the Floor of the House. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any indication that such draft guidance will he available before Monday's debate?
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may help the House if I indicate to you, as I have done privately to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), that I have written to him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), sending them the guidance, and I intend to make it more widely available by placing copies in the Library and by giving a copy to any hon. Member who would like to see one before next week's debates on the Local Government Bill.
      Mr. Anthony Steen:rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am obliged to both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman. No further ruling from me is required.
      Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During Monday's

      929
      sitting, when we were discussing the prevention and suppression of terrorism, the Home Secretary said:
      "I do not believe that there is a problem with people approaching their general practitioner for the smallpox vaccination."—[Official Report, 3 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 596.]
      The Select Committee on Science and Technology has just heard evidence from, among others, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which said that that is not the case, cannot be the case, and should not be the case, and suggested that the reference by the Home Secretary should be retracted. Has the Home Secretary indicated to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether he intends to come to the House to make such a retraction, because it is very important that clear advice be given on those important counter-terrorism matters?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer is that no such approach has been made, but the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, however serious, is a matter for debate, and I am sure that it can be pursued in other ways now that he has put it on the record.
      Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for interrupting while you were on your feet;
      I thought that you were about to sit down any second. Please forgive me for any discourtesy.
      I want to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question of the ministerial door that leads from the Star Chamber Court up the back entrance to the Table Office. As a matter of course, that door is always open during Divisions. It was not open this evening. I am afraid that, with this modern technology, a lot of the plastic cards do not work effectively. I came a long way
      930
      for that Division—from Norman Shaw North—but I had to miss the vote because the door was locked. I wonder whether you could ensure that that door is left open in future, as it has been in the past.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that we are all very pleased to see the hon. Gentleman now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will ensure that the matter is investigated by the Serjeant at Arms, so that Members are not obstructed in future.

      CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
      That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 4th March 2003, the programme order of 4th December 2002 in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill shall be further varied as follows—

      Consideration and Third Reading
      (1) Paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of the Order (Consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
      (2) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in three days and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the last of those days.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      SEA FISHERIES (RESTRICTIONS ON DAYS AT SEA)
      Ordered,
      That the Sea Fisheries (Restrictions on Days at Sea) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 299), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Derek Twigg.]

      Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
      7.23 pm
      Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to have been successful in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction will reply, because he is sympathetic to mining communities and he has been very helpful in obtaining the current aid package for the mining industry.
      This debate is about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and its funding. CISWO, as I shall refer to it, came into being after 1 January 1947, when the industry was nationalised. Although a mosaic of welfare and social provision had existed previously, CISWO brought it together and was able to roll out the provision right across the United Kingdom coalfields.
      CISWO has a national framework, with a regionally devolved structure, fitting the organisation into different coalfield cultures in a way that allows it to engage with the community. It offers advice and help to those who organise the welfare facilities and ensures that management skills are on hand to assist local initiatives. In addition, CISWO organises local initiatives and helps to organise sports and brass band concerts, as well as providing bursaries for the sons and daughters of miners and former miners who go on to further or higher education.
      Perhaps the most important services provided by CISWO are those for the disabled and frail in the mining communities. It administers the miners' paraplegic centres and provides assistance and counselling for their families. The organisation's social workers assist ageing and disabled miners and their widows; 19 social workers work for it within the UK coalfields, and CISWO social workers now carry out about 10,000 visits a year, in response to a range of issues such as poverty, ill health, bereavement, social exclusion and income maximisation. Those services are invaluable to mining communities.
      I remind the House that the coalfield communities stretch from Scotland through the north-east, the Midlands, south Wales and Kent, and that the population of those mining communities is about 5 million—roughly equal to the population of Scotland.
      Much has been done to regenerate and renew former coalmining communities, but there is still a long way to go. Many of the men who were made redundant after the economic dislocation caused by the colliery closures in the 1980s and 1990s have never found employment. Indeed, a report published some time ago by the Coalfield Communities Campaign suggested that 44 per cent. of miners made redundant at that time had not found alternative employment. That creates social problems of its own, which are peculiar to mining communities, and CISWO helps them deal with some of those.
      The deep coalmining industry has left mining communities with a legacy of disability. I know that the Minister has been extremely helpful in ensuring that the
      932
      COPD—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—scheme has made money available. Although when the scheme was first initiated and the lawyers devised the handling agreement it was extremely problematic, my hon. Friend has worked hard to ensure that the scheme has been made practicable, and money is now coming through to the mining communities.
      Nevertheless, the high level of disability imposes a burden on local authority social services, which find it difficult to provide, often to remote communities, the kind of specialist help that former miners and their families require. I should point out that the coalmining industry is not an urban industry but a rural one. Many of the small communities dotted around the towns require the special help that CISWO provides.
      David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that now that there is not one deep mine left in Scotland, CISWO's role is more important than ever? When the pits were still running, we had trade unions and miners clubs that could organise in local communities, but these days CISWO's role is unique. It fills the gap, and delivers the information that it is so important to let people know.
      Mr. Clapham: That is a relevant point. When collieries close, the service provided by CISWO becomes more important.
      Let me give the Minister an example from my community that highlights the degree of disability. The local economy in Barnsley was dependent on coal mining, and little diversification took place through the 1980s. Of course, when economic dislocation occurred as a result of colliery closures, enormous job losses followed. It had always been known that there was a high degree of disability in the Barnsley community. In 1997, the local authority carried out a survey in the town that showed that nearly a third of households in the borough had a disabled person: generally, a father or a grandfather crippled with a respiratory disease as a result of working for years underground. CISWO provides special services for those families. Many of the former miners and their families live in mining villages that are dotted around outside the town. They often require the specialist assistance that, I feel, only CISWO workers can provide.
      As the Minister will be aware, following a successful campaign in 1993–94 at the time of coal industry privatization—a campaign that was actively supported by many Labour MPs—CISWO was preserved. The then Conservative Government provided, through British Coal structures, a £10 million endowment fund, and a £2 million special expendable fund was also made available. The mining companies that had bought the British Coal mines augmented that: they were contractually obliged to provide £1 million per annum of revenue income for a maximum of five years.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, for the last three years CISWO has been in discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for British Coal, about the need for it to revisit the initial funding package. In the autumn of 2002, the Department announced that it was prepared to make £200,000 per annum available for three years, in recognition of some of the historical liabilities that

      933
      CISWO would inherit from British Coal, particularly those concerning the appointment of local trustees of mining charities. It is clear from what I have said that the Department's offer to CISWO is inadequate to enable it to maintain the services that the UK's mining beneficiaries desperately require. Using figures from both mineworkers' pension schemes, there will be about 300,000 beneficiaries in that area. CISWO services are therefore badly needed by that group.
      CISWO has engaged with many Government initiatives such as the one on lifelong learning. It has been working in mining communities to tackle social exclusion and social enterprise, as well as helping with capacity building. That is in addition to the work carried out by social workers to which I have referred. The organisation's operational staff also work closely with the trustees of local mining charities, of which there are more than 350. Recently, many of those have launched initiatives of the type needed in mining communities, some of which involve miners' institutes providing IT classes. Some of those IT classes are being attended by three generations of former mining families. In addition, other educational opportunities, luncheon clubs, crèches and after-school clubs are provided, all of which are special services required in communities that are adjusting to renewal.
      The coalfield taskforce report, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, set out 80-odd recommendations for regeneration and renewal of mining communities. Besides setting up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the report set CISWO the challenge of developing mining charities as one-stop shops. There has been a magnificent response to that challenge, and in the last five years CISWO has accessed more than £37.5 million from external funders for community development projects. CISWO has done more than any other single organisation to help to redress the problems facing coalmining communities by dealing with their needs and through local capacity building and developing social enterprise. Funding CISWO provides value for money. The figures that I have mentioned show that it is levering more into mining communities.
      CISWO has enormous social and economic value to mining communities. Over the years, it has become indispensable in addressing the needs of former miners and their families and in assisting the rebuilding of mining communities. It is difficult to understand therefore—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to this—why the Government are not supporting the organisation.
      I have referred to the contractual commitment of the mining companies to CISWO when the industry was privatised. The cessation of that commitment has resulted in CISWO losing half its annual income. The reserves that it had built up have been used, particularly in the period of the long discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry about funding. So desperate has the situation become that the trustees met last Friday and decided that, given the lack of funding, they had no alternative but to consider a plan for reducing service provision to beneficiaries and mining communities to less than half its current level. This is
      934
      extremely disappointing and will impact detrimentally on mining communities at a time when the demand for service provision is increasing.
      Mining communities are aware that the package put in place by the Conservative Government at the time the industry was privatised was worth £17 million. Since then, CISWO has been offered just £600,000 over three years. That is despite the enormous amount of money that it has levered into mining communities to support community projects.
      I know that my hon. Friend is sympathetic to mining communities, but the situation is gravely disappointing and the consequences of the DTI not properly funding CISWO will be paid for by mining communities and by the sick, the disabled, and the disadvantaged in those communities. CISWO provides an invaluable service to the mining communities and former mining communities of the UK, and I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider the Department's stance on this issue and to make the necessary funding available for CISWO to maintain its previous level of service provision.
      7.38 pm
      The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate. I welcome it. As is often the case with Adjournment debates, it provides an extremely useful vehicle for focusing on an issue of real concern.
      The issue is familiar to me, as it will be to all the Labour Members present. For the sake of the mining communities who will study the debate, may I point out that only Labour Members are present? That is as one would expect. I fully understand the interest in CISWO's future, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the current position to the House. I shall obviously take account of my hon. Friend's eloquent remarks.
      I certainly appreciate and recognise the important work that CISWO has done over a long period. We are not discussing the desirable ends for mining communities, as we all agree about the desirability of regeneration and the valuable activities that CISWO has carried out. Instead, we are talking about the mechanisms of delivery, and I shall detail later that, since 1997, the Government have put in huge sums of money under different headings to these communities. We are dealing with the narrow question of CISWO's role in delivering that and the nature of the services that it provides. I could not help noticing that, almost without exception, the activities listed by my hon. Friend share the characteristic that they are not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.
      CISWO is a product of nationalisation. It was established as a limited company under the Miners' Welfare Act 1952. The funding and functions of earlier organisations, which had a less comprehensive network, were transferred to the umbrella of CISWO. Besides providing direct services to miners in their communities, it presided over the network of more than 400 miners' welfare schemes, including miners' institutes and recreation and social centres. It was also involved with welfare committees, trusts, funds and convalescent homes.
      The funding for CISWO's activities was allowed under section 13 of the 1952 Act. The National Coal Board, and latterly the British Coal Corporation, made

      935
      payments to CISWO which allowed it to meet the costs of carrying out its activities. Up until 1987, British Coal's annual contribution to CISWO was in the region of £2 million per annum. In 1987, an agreed scheme provided that its funding would take the form of a levy on British Coal's production at 2p per tonne of total output of saleable coal. British Coal, CISWO and the mining unions were party to that scheme, which continued up to the privatisation of the coal industry in 1994. CISWO also derived other income, mainly from grant aid from outside bodies, interest receivable and recovery of social work costs.
      My hon. Friend accurately portrayed CISWO's history. At the time of privatisation, CISWO became a charitable trust and consideration was given to how it might continue post-privatisation. A financial package was put together that allowed CISWO to continue with its activities in the mining communities. That was in two parts: British Coal, not the Government, provided a cash endowment totalling £12 million, and a covenant arrangement was put in place whereby the successor companies would provide CISWO with funding of £1 million a year up to and including 1999. That made a total of £17 million, which is not an insubstantial sum in a period of transition. The package up to 1999 was designed to give CISWO the time, resources and manoeuvrability in which to build up its grant and fundraising capabilities in the charitable sector—something that it had been unable to do as a company.
      Over the years, CISWO's main activities have changed and evolved. They now include assisting coalfield communities to access other funding streams, such as the regeneration programmes, while continuing to support miners' welfare organisations and undertaking social work-type activities in coalfield areas. Its role is inevitably a response to the way in which the mining industry has changed and contracted. It is true that, over the past two years, CISWO has approached the DTI for new funding of £1 million a year to replace what was previously provided by the post-privatisation employers. I have met Vernon Jones from CISWO, as has my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I am aware that the organisation is having difficulty in generating funding to cover its costs, including its support for regeneration-related activities. Perhaps I should clarify that CISWO intends to protect, and is able to protect, its core social work functions.
      The issue is not new. All Governments have limited budgets. On that basis, we are unable to continue to provide the £1 million a year that CISWO wants. However, I am able to provide support for CISWO's activities that relate specifically to those unique responsibilities that it performs in relation to the management of miners' welfare trusts which might otherwise fall to the residual British Coal contribution.
      David Hamilton: The Minister spoke earlier about the miners' convalescent homes, which are a big asset to CISWO. Numerous people in Midlothian and throughout Scotland use those homes. If CISWO is forced into a position where it has to look at its own resources and sell off assets to try to keep its service
      936
      going, those homes could be a casualty. Will the Minister assure us that that will not be allowed to happen?
      Mr. Wilson: I certainly do not want CISWO to be forced to sell convalescent homes. My information is that CISWO can protect its core functions and social provisions under the proposed financial arrangements. If that is not the case and if I am told authoritatively that it is going to be forced to sell convalescent homes, I shall certainly look at that, but I obviously need hard information rather than a hypothesis. We have offered £200,000 per annum for three years, which would enable the organisation to develop and put in place a long-term strategy to deal with the issues and responsibilities that I have described.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone rightly spoke about CISWO's role in regeneration activities, for which huge amounts of money are available. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has approved grants of over £40 million to more than 500 projects to support coalfield communities. The national coalfields programme has a budget of over £390 million, which is currently creating 3,680 jobs. The sixth round of the single regeneration budget awarded over £180 million to 16 schemes in coalfield areas. We have allocated an extra £28 million over three years to local authorities to tackle housing problems in coalfield areas.
      That is an area where there is no disagreement. My hon. Friends who are here tonight have been extremely active in making representations on behalf of the coalfield communities. In response, the Government have introduced all those programmes that are of benefit to coalfield and former coalfield communties. I therefore emphasise that it is not about money. If we are going to start talking about all the money that has gone to coalfield communities, I would point out that coalfield health schemes are enormous and unprecedented. We are talking about a narrow subject—CISWO's role in the midst of that activity.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: If it is not about money, what is it about? We are talking about a third of the Lord Chancellor's furnishings. Every morning, you used to pay a sum of money into CISWO, but that has all gone now, except for about 7,000 or 8,000 people. It is not only the contribution from the old Coal Board, it is the miners' money as well. We even have a post office in a miners' welfare office in my constituency—it came up with an offer when the post office closed. It also looks after paraplegics. We are not talking about a great sum of money. Will my hon. Friend remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the millions of pounds that go to the Treasury as a result of the 50 per cent. clawback from the miners' pension fund? We are asking for a tiny bit. Yes, the Government have ploughed money in, but I urge them not to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Let us get that little bit of money that we need for CISWO.
      Mr. Wilson: I was relieved to hear my hon. Friend suggest that we approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not the Lord Chancellor. I am alert to the point that he made—a lot is going in, but some things are more difficult to do and justify than others.
      It is not as if we are turning our back on CISWO—we

      937
      are offering £200,000 a year. It is not as if the functions that have been described will not be funded in other ways, including the substantial provision from the Government that we all agree is justified.
      I do not regard the purpose of our debate as putting the lid on this. I am listening to the arguments.
      Mr. Skinner: The Minister is not putting the lid on, and the ink is not dry.
      Mr. Wilson: I never put the lid on things; the lid is never on till the fat lady sings.
      There is a real debate to be had. I responded to the point about convalescent homes, for example. If I thought for a moment that such work was in danger, I would be every bit as concerned as everyone else. To some extent, CISWO must look to itself. It is not as though the present situation has crept up on it. There was never any understanding, as far as I am aware, that the 1994 settlement was a guarantee of £1 million a year continuing. With that sort of notice, CISWO has had the opportunity to transform itself, as other organisations have done, into a body that accesses money on its own behalf, as well as accessing money for mining communities.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend says that he would re-examine issues such as convalescent homes if they ever came under pressure. We all appreciate that. CISWO runs many organisations. In my constituency, in the village where I live, there is the Maltby widows' club. Those are all miners' widows. CISWO runs an administrative service for such clubs. There is every likelihood that that club
      938
      would fold if it did not get that service, which CISWO has been providing for decades in coal communities, although probably no one knows about it. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep his eyes open to all the activities that may come under pressure as a result of the reduction in funding.
      Mr. Wilson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree that it is a bit odd that all those activities, which are not specifically mining-related or DTI-related activities, are funded by a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry. We have said that we will continue to provide money for those functions that are specifically related to the responsibilities of the DTI. Perhaps we should all work on other potential sources of funding. Ultimately, nobody is interested in where the money comes from, as long as it is available to sustain activities that I recognise are necessary in mining communities.
      At a time when so much has properly gone into mining communities, as the nation repays its debt to mining communities, I do not want the positive outcomes and impressions to be negated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested, because of a grievance. We all know that there are small historical issues that continue to niggle away. We have tried to deal with them one by one, in a way that is fair and which addresses past problems and past history in the industry. Our position is that £200,000—[Interruption.]
      Perhaps I should move on. I recognise that a number of organisations, including—
      The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

AIDS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I take this opportunity to raise one of the most important issues facing the world community—the crisis caused by the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is wreaking destruction in much of the world and which threatens to do so in much more of it. This is not the first time that the crisis has been raised in the House of Commons and I am sure that it will not be the last.
I pay tribute to the many hon. Members present, whose interest in the issue goes back over many years. It is particularly appropriate to raise it again now given the greater public awareness and concern that I have noticed in the past few weeks. That development was no doubt stimulated by some of the excellent media coverage. Hon. Members may have read the reports in The Guardian, and The Sun has also run an excellent campaign on the issue. Furthermore, there has been considerable coverage on the BBC and I am sure that other media sources have recently covered the issue.
It is also appropriate to raise the subject again now because the world's attention is understandably focused on events in the middle east. We must ensure that the same attention continues to be paid to crises such as that caused by the spread of HIV/AIDS. The AIDS crisis could have even more wide-ranging consequences for the world community, not least because of the insecurity that could threaten the entire world. Only a few weeks ago, Colin Powell rightly described the AIDS crisis as being as serious a threat to global security as international terrorism.
The basic facts about the crisis are well known and I do not intend to repeat them at length. However, I want to highlight some of the latest figures on the extent of the crisis. The most recent figures from UNAIDS—the joint United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS—appeared a few months ago. In 2002, the epidemic was estimated to have claimed more than 3 million lives and an estimated 5 million people became infected with HIV, 800,000 of whom were children under the age of 15. That is estimated to bring the total number of people in the world living with the virus to 42 million. Life expectancy in some countries has now fallen by 20 years and UN estimates for world population growth have been revised downwards because 300 million people are expected to die from AIDS in the next half century.
The situation is much worse in some countries and the estimates in southern Africa are particularly severe. About 29 million people now live with HIV/AIDS and infection rates in some countries run at more than 30 per cent. of the adult population. Botswana, for example, is expected to lose one fifth of its population by 2050. Those are staggering figures.
254WH
The crisis is not only developing in southern Africa and the epidemic is undergoing fast rates of growth in Russia and the Caribbean. In Asia, in countries such as India and China, the figures are already high and estimates suggest that there are 6 million HIV/AIDS sufferers. The figures suggest that the sub-Saharan rate of infection could be replicated in Asia in the next few decades. The International Development Committee recently reported to that effect.
As hon. Members know, the consequences of the spread of HIV and AIDS are found not only in health programmes, health policies and the health of the individuals affected; the crisis has major implications for development programmes in general because of its impact on economies and social systems. It is estimated that by the end of the decade the per capita gross domestic product in the countries hardest hit by the disease may drop by as much as 8 per cent. AIDS has the knock-on effect of increasing the number of people living in poverty. For example, if a family's main breadwinner becomes infected, that clearly affects the entire family.
There is a real fear—or rather an expectation—that the objectives of halving extreme poverty as part of the millennium development goals may be jeopardised. Key Government workers in developing countries are being lost to the disease and AIDS is reducing the ratio of healthy workers to dependants. In agriculture, AIDS is severely affecting the ability of countries to invest in, or sustain, capital-intensive methods of production. That is exacerbating the food shortages that are being experienced in many southern African states. Farming skills are being lost. Craft skills are no longer being passed from parents to children. A new generation must struggle to find a livelihood. Irrigation schemes are not being maintained. Farms are being abandoned and families are returning to subsistence farming. All that is contributing to the present famine in southern Africa.
The effects go beyond agriculture into the social sphere. The spread of HIV/AIDS, as well as overburdening the health and social security systems, is having a serious impact on education services. Teachers and students die and older children must leave school to look after siblings. The millennium development goal of ensuring universal primary education is also at risk in the worst affected countries.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Has the hon. Gentleman reflected on the number of AIDS orphans in the world? That will cause a huge social problem in developing countries.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Indeed it will. Another of the awful statistics is that in Africa alone there are more AIDS orphans than there are children in the United Kingdom.
What action is needed from the world community—and from this country—to tackle the crisis? They know what needs to be done. The question is whether the world community will exercise the common will to tackle the crisis. There are three priority areas. First, education is vital. A greater awareness of how to prevent the transmission of the virus is crucial to the successful combating of the disease in the developing world. I welcome the emphasis that the Department for International Development has placed on support for

255WH
education programmes in the worst affected countries. It is commendable that it directs its efforts in particular at the 15-to-24 age group.
Money is also a vital question. Above all, there is a need for commitment to a major programme of multilateral funding. All hon. Members in the Chamber must welcome the setting up of the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That is the most important initiative in this context since the crisis developed. The global fund has certainly enabled greater attention to be focused on fighting those diseases. The Government's support of the fund, which comes in addition to their significant spending on bilateral HIV/AIDS programmes, is very much to be welcomed. Although the UK's commitment is welcome, however, and the £138 million that the Government have committed to the fund for the next five years is a positive step, it still needs more money. A severe funding gap is opening up and serious questions are being raised about its future. After all, although $10 billion was called for, only $2.2 billion has been pledged to the fund by countries and only part of that has been delivered and allocated to programmes aimed at tackling HIV/AIDS. More money is needed from the world community, but also from this country as part of that community.
The third problem is access to necessary drugs. Every hon. Member who has been following the issue will be aware of the continuing failure to reach agreement on measures to allow developing countries access to the cheap drugs that they need to tackle HIV/AIDS and a range of other diseases. I am sure that we would all agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what needs to be done. He said:
"It's time that all recognise the responsibilities to help avoid unnecessary deaths and that means we've got to get an agreement for the trade round."
He said that the problem
"is a terrible indictment on a world that has the technology, the drugs and the resources to be able to solve these problems—and when you think of the hurt that any infant death causes you've got to understand that so much more could be done".
The Chancellor was absolutely right when he said that and I am sure that he speaks for most people in the country.
I mention in passing that even though we hear talk about the growing transatlantic divide, one matter on which there is a lot of agreement, especially where it concerns some of the big pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA, is the view that there is a reluctance to reach a fair settlement on the issue in question. I do not have time to go into the debate about the failure to reach an agreement on access to cheap drugs in detail. All I shall say is that only two weeks ago there was yet another failure to reach agreement in the World Trade Organisation. Every day that that agreement fails to be made is a day less in the lives of millions of people in developing countries who cannot afford the drugs that they need for their condition.
Once again, although I praise what the Government have done to take a lead on the issue and want to express my backing for what they have done so far, I should like them to do more. The Government certainly cannot take on the burden for the entire industrialised world.
256WH
However, even allowing for that point and the welcome sums that they have pledged, the sums are relatively small. Without going into the rights and wrongs of events elsewhere in the world, I observe that the sums that we are pledging to the global fund are a drop in the ocean compared with those that we have put aside for contingencies for possible events elsewhere.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall end my contribution by posing a number of questions to the Minister about the Government's future policy on the international HIV/AIDS crisis. I hope that he can give some positive responses to those questions, so that we can underline today the country's continuing commitment to playing a leading role in the international community's efforts to tackle the crisis. First, there are fears that money is drying up and that the long-term future of the global fund is not secured. The international community should not wait for results from the fund before making contributions. I should therefore like to hear from the Minister what the Government's plans for financial commitments to the fund for the next five years are and, if possible, what their long-term attitude is.
Secondly, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS have a target of treating 3 million people who have HIV/AIDS by 2005. Does the UK see itself as part of the partnership aiming for that target? How do the Government envisage achieving it?
The third question is on the way in which the health systems in developing countries can deliver the service and the drugs to those who are affected. Bearing in mind that drugs on their own are not enough—there has to be access to the relevant services as well—what are the UK Government's plans for supporting health systems in developing countries and, more importantly, will there be a trend in the financial support from the Government to encourage support for the health systems in the countries that are affected by HIV/AIDS? My fourth question relates to the third. How will the UK's bilateral programmes link to global fund programmes?
Fifthly, what monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that the DFID money goes to supporting the health systems? Do monitoring systems exist in all the countries to which we give financial support? My sixth question concerns another important matter. How can the global fund ensure that the country co-ordinating mechanism enables the civil societies in the countries affected to participate not just in making proposals regarding funding, but in their implementation over the years?
Finally, what long-term commitments can we give to the countries worst affected by the crisis? We all know that for a health ministry in a developing country to plan a proper anti-retrovirals programme, it must have commitment from international donors, not just for short periods of, say, three or five years, but for up to 10 years. What commitment are we going to make on long-term contributions to the global fund and to our own bilateral programme? Without long-term commitment, we will not be able to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis and by failing to tackle it we shall allow it to become more serious throughout the world.
We need a long-term commitment and more funding, and we need them on a continuing basis over many years. I hope that the Minister can give some commitments today.
9.48 am
Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) has done us all a service in introducing this debate so well and so succinctly. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) here. I appreciate that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary from the Department for International Development are doubtless overseas on Government business, but I am glad to be able to thank the Minister, on behalf of the International Development Committee, for the incredible help that ambassadors and high commissioners give us in our work around the world. They are unfailing in their courtesy, support and good humour, notwithstanding the various demands that we place upon them. Foreign Office Ministers do not often take part in these debates.
I hope that I shall not repeat anything that has been said. The US Government have announced a $15 billion dollar programme over the next five years to combat HIV/AIDS. It is a go-it-alone fund, which will work on its own terms and only through US aid agencies. It will ignore existing structures, relationships and action plans already in place in those countries, especially Africa, already affected most by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As the Financial Times recently observed,
"As a recent convert to the war on Aids, the US administration has latched on to a simplistic vision of what to do, based on the example of a single country—Uganda. It knows little of the measures in place in different parts of the world and has not recognised that each country needs to shape the best local response. It is here that the Global Fund plays an important role."
I would go further. The issue is not just the global health fund, but the European countries' response to the United States' proposals. Although the US effort is a bold part, it is only a part of the total financing needs. Its limits are implicit in the fact that it is directed only at HIV/AIDS. It does not deal with malaria or tuberculosis and the American fund will he operational in only 14 countries.
The global fund will require new donor support of about $7 billion this year and next—roughly $3.5 billion a year—to meet the needs of the high-quality proposals that it is considering. A reasonable financing framework is thus clear and I believe that Europe collectively should match the US initiative with our own $3 billion a year contribution, while Japan and other donors should contribute at least $1 billion a year in addition. That would make a total of at least $7 billion a year during 2003 and 2004. Half of that should be devoted to the global fund and the other half should be spent on programmes that would indirectly bolster, rather than undermine, the fund.
As the same article in the Financial Times noted,
"Silence from Europe at this moment would be deadly for the Global Fund. If the US is the only country to put up large new sums for the war against Aids, then it will be a US programme. On the other hand, with a bold European response to Mr. Bush's daring initiative, the transatlantic alliance—under great strain over Iraq—would prove to the world that it continues its historic commitments to freedom and human betterment. Impoverished and dying people around the world await a clarion call from the US and Europe together."
258WH
International partnership to combat an international problem is imperative, but what has been the UK Government's response? I appreciate that this is not the Minister's brief and I hope that he will prevail on the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to respond to any questions raised in the debate that he feels are worthy of a more detailed response.
I do not doubt the commitment of the Treasury and the Department for International Development to fight HIV/AIDS, but a recent interview given by the Chancellor is telling. He has, rightly, said that there needs to be far faster progress on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—at the current World Trade Organisation negotiations at Doha, which means Governments, such as the US Government, doing much more to make drug companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, allow their drugs to be patented. Disappointment about the fact that a recent vaccine for AIDS has failed is well understood, but the Chancellor also alluded to the Government's new idea of an international financing facility.
Dr. Tonge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would hate to give the impression that the vaccine initiative had totally failed. Only one vaccine was being developed for the western strain of the virus and many other trials are taking place in the world.
Tony Baldry: I was simply pointing out that there must be disappointment about the fact that the present vaccine trial has failed.
The problem with the international financing facility is that it does not have the support of the United States. It does not necessarily have the support of UK non-governmental organisations, because it does not make clear where the UK will stand on overseas development investment after 2015, nor what will happen to the UK's commitment to reaching a target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income for overseas development investment.
In sub-Saharan Africa, 30 million people are victims of HIV/AIDS and as many as one in four people in countries like Zambia have AIDS, so Africa will not necessarily meet the United Nation's 2015 goals even with the international financing facility. Africa is the only continent going backwards as we speak and although the world is ravaged by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Africa is at its epicentre. The World Food Programme estimates that 14 million people face serious food shortages in southern Africa this year, with the same number in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, partly because hunger begets AIDS as AIDS begets hunger.
What is needed is not an international financing facility for HIV/AIDS but a straightforward commitment to the facilities and mechanisms that already exist. We do not need to invent or create new financing mechanisms; we need to support those mechanisms that already exist, such as the global health fund. I recognise that that fund has its problems. I suspect, however, that those problems are not caused by the structures that it offers, but are a result of the financial commitments that it receives from us and from our partners in the European Union.

259WH
I hope that I can prevail upon the patience of the House by sharing a letter that I recently wrote to The Independent, in which I stated:
"Sir: Prior to the International Aids Conference … the devastating report from UNAids demonstrated the urgent need for renewed policies on HIV/Aids in both the developed and developing worlds to combat the pandemic in poorer countries.
On the part of richer countries to prevent HIV/Aids, it is clear that the Global Health Fund simply isn't working. Whilst such trust funds act as a good mechanism to raise the profile of a specific issue it is less good when the issue's profile is high but only a lowly third of money pledged is actually reaching the Fund. Money surely would be better invested direct to African countries' administrations and local NGOs. On treatment also there is a need for further commitment from countries like the US, Canada and Japan at the forthcoming Doha trade round to ensure that poorer countries are given the capability to copy patented HIV/Aids drugs produced in other better equipped countries.
Nonetheless, on the part of some poorer countries themselves, if more aid is to go to their governments, then still more needs to be done to recognise the extent of the pandemic. No doubt the recent South African court case was a massive move forward but ambiguities still exist in their approach and until these are removed treatment and prevention will stagnate.
The reward would not only be preventing the HIV/Aids crisis escalating ever more; recent estimates also suggest that the economic boom for everyone would be US$186bn each year. I suspect this would benefit African countries more than the recent G8 summit."
I hope that the Government will give the global health fund every possible support. More importantly, however, I hope that they will encourage our European Union partners to match what the Americans are putting into the fund to ensure that it has the requisite funds necessary to do over the next two to three years what it was set up to achieve.
9.59 am
Tony Worthington: As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, this is a timely debate, particularly as President Bush has announced a huge expansion in AIDS financing—£10 billion is a lot of money and in normal circumstances, it would be welcomed enthusiastically. Apart from anything else, as the hon. Gentleman said, it will put great pressure on other countries, including ourselves, to increase our contribution to work on AIDS, particularly the global health fund. However, the way in which Bush is doing it raises great doubts.
I want to raise two issues. First, as the hon. Gentleman said, why has the President virtually ignored the global health fund and allocated only $1 billion of the new money to that fund? That represents only $200 million a year from 2004; he has decided to disburse $9 billion unilaterally. I also want to talk about links between the treatment of AIDS and reproductive health services. By doing so, I shall demonstrate how Bush's decision to keep money out of the global health fund and his attitude to reproductive health are linked.
Initially, the United States embraced the global health fund and although it was criticised for not giving enough, its contribution was far in excess of any other donor. Why is it turning its back on the global health
260WH
fund as a disburser, setting up its own administrative procedure and limiting its funding to 12 sub-Saharan countries and two Caribbean countries? That is happening when the global fund does not have money for a third disbursement of grants in October, which leaves most sub-Saharan countries, including several badly affected countries, such as Malawi, out in the cold. That also has major implications for the global health fund's choices about the distribution of its funding. It also implies disaffection with the fund. That is even odder when one knows that Tommy Thompson, who is Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, was elected to the chair of the global health fund only a couple of days after Bush's announcement on the $10 billion. Of course, Thompson would have known that he was to be elected before that date because his only opponent had withdrawn.
Part of Thompson's job is to be chief fundraiser for the global health fund. His task is surely more difficult if his Government do not put their major resources into the fund. It is even odder that Thompson did not travel to the board meeting in Geneva to take up his position as chair. I quote from the apology that he sent to the meeting:
"I am sorry that I am unable to be with you in Geneva today but President Bush has asked me to be with him when he addresses his Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS in Washington".
That sends a clear message: America first, the world second.
It is extraordinary that Thompson was not allowed to organise his diary so that he could attend the board meeting when he was supposed to take over as chair of the global health fund. It is stranger still because Thompson's lengthy message to the board expressing his joy at taking over the chairmanship made no mention of Bush's huge increase in funding for international AIDS work, which was announced only a few days before in the state of the union message.
The situation is odder still because the chief executive of the global health fund, Dr. Feachem, made no reference to the $10 billion from Bush in his report to the board. He also came here to talk to the all-party group on AIDS but did not mention Bush's $10 billion until I asked him about it. It is surreal; there is an earthquake going on in AIDS funding yet the chair and the chief executive of the global health fund pretend that the ground under their feet is steady.
A further oddity about Bush's announcement is the fact that his figures for numbers of people to be treated with anti-retroviral drugs are achievable only if there is access to cheap generic drugs produced outside the United States. However, the US has been blocking such access in the Doha talks. Additionally, the new initiative is to be administered by USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—which, in its present statute, requires products supplied as foreign aid to be made in the United States. There are also doubts about the American bureaucracy because promises are made but it takes a long time for money to be channelled in a way that meets with the approval of Congress. I hope that the Minister will explain what is going on—I wish him good luck.

261WH
During International Development questions last week, the Secretary of State for International Development, who is on the board of the global health fund, expressed some disaffection with the fund's operation. I hope that the difficulties can be sorted out because the global health fund is a first-rate idea. The issue is far too important for those difficulties to be allowed to persist.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who chairs the Select Committee on International Development, that Europe should match the commitment of the United States to the global fund is one way of emphasising to the United States the world's commitment to the fund? Would he therefore agree to endorse the European Union making a similar contribution to the fund as the USA?
Tony Worthington: I hope that we and the EU make a much greater contribution to the global health fund than the USA: that is the point of what I am saying. The USA's contribution is $200 million per year for five years from 2004.
I also want to raise concerns about the relationship between AIDS work and reproductive health services. I am sure that Bush's decision to distribute funds bilaterally rather than through the global health fund is related to his appalling actions with regard to reproductive health. If he allocated money to the global health fund, it would be more difficult for him to keep the peace with the religious obsessives who back him.
Bush is in debt to, and under the control of, a small group of southern fundamentalist Christians who are obsessed with abortion and contraception. The way for a country to reduce the number of abortions—particularly unsafe ones—is to follow the example of Belgium and Holland. They have liberal abortion laws, thorough education about relationships and total access to family planning services. Belgium and Holland have the lowest abortion rates in the world, but Bush's followers support policies that push up the number of abortions—in particular, unsafe ones—and contribute to the appalling rates of maternal mortality in many countries.
The fundamentalists who programme Bush want to ban abortion and access to reproductive health services. Following their orders, Bush withdrew all funding from the United Nations Population Fund on the pretext that it was supporting the Chinese Government's one child per family project and coercive abortion. That was contradicted by his own investigating team and a group of hon. Members from this House. The UNFPA is working in 20 counties in China: it is weaning the Chinese away from compulsion and lowering abortion rates, but the zealots had their way with President Bush.
At meeting after meeting, the Bush Government are now trying to destroy the pace-setting Cairo conference, which found a worldwide consensus policy in this contentious area. It includes the explicit statement that abortion is never an acceptable method of family planning. The bedrock of the Cairo conference is that women throughout the world should have access to reproductive health services and that is under attack from the Bush Government.
262WH
The Americans are urging on the poorest people in the world policies that would create a riot if they were tried in the USA. Can anyone imagine the consequences in America and Britain if their Governments said that they were going to withdraw access to family planning? The American Government's policies go against the American constitution's statements on freedom of information. The consequence of their policy is that they have withdrawn their supply of condoms from many parts of the world. When the first President Bush was in power, America supplied 800 million condoms to the developing world: it now supplies only 300 million condoms per year, which means that the average Botswanan would have access to one condom supplied by the international community per year.
By cutting the number of condoms, they are condemning to death thousands of people who could be protected if that very cheap method of prevention were available. I do not usually quote the words of the Mozambique bishops, but this is their advice to their flock:
"If you are HIV positive and you have unprotected sex and you infect someone you have in the eyes of God, committed murder. Or if you are HIV negative and you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected and they infect you, you have in the eyes of God, committed suicide. So my children, wearing a condom is not a sin … but not wearing one is."
That is the voice of sanity. In the words of the Mozambique bishops, Bush's policies stimulate murder and suicide. Now, during Bush's $10 billion AIDS initiative, his AIDS policy is running slap bang into a collision with his reproductive health policy. Will his AIDS policy allow condoms to be used as the only means of preventing that disease, but not for family planning? That would be absurd, but it is likely to happen.
American policy on AIDS would prohibit the sending of money to integrated health clinics offering AIDS treatment and family planning with information about abortion or abortion counselling. However, under the same policy money could be sent to a clinic treating only AIDS. In a country like Tanzania, which can spend only $3 or $4 a year per person on health care and where health clinics are sparse, American policy will require that the AIDS service is in a different place and run by a different agency from the health clinic. That is official.
This is not United States imperialism—it is worse than that. Under imperialism, an empire imposes its own way of life on another country. Bush would not dare impose such a policy in America because he would be ridiculed out of Washington. However, he is trying to impose just such a policy on the poorest people in the world and through it he is causing their deaths. That is one of the reasons why he has steered the money away from the global health fund and why he will distribute it bilaterally.
The tragedy of all this is that reproductive health services and AIDS policy should be much more closely linked than they are. That was said in the Cairo + 5 document, as follows:
"Governments should ensure that provision for STIs"—
sexually-transmitted infections—
"and AIDS are an integral component of reproductive and sexual health programmes at the primary health care level."

263WH
That is also the policy of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and, in the words of its director general, Steven Sinding:
"The same systems that enable people to space and limit births and protect themselves from STDs"—
sexually-transmitted diseases—
"are essential to halting the spread of HIV."
The family planning association movements practically invented sexual and reproductive behaviour change and they went a long way towards establishing community-based services throughout the world. Both of those are essential in the fight against AIDS. However, the AIDS community and the family planning community behave as if they had nothing to do with each other. AIDS activists place emphasis on treatment and family planners often act as if they had no role in HIV/AIDS prevention. The donors have a major role to play in bringing the two groups together.
Bush's actions drive people in exactly the opposite direction. In the developed world, HIV transmission was regarded initially as being largely restricted to the gay and illicit drug-using communities, rather than through heterosexual transmission. Treatment was also captured by the large pharmaceutical companies, who saw that more money could be made from keeping wealthy people alive than from preventing people from dying. There was a lack of resources for vaccines or effective barrier methods controlled by women. There are still people who are obsessed with giving people in the poor world access to expensive retrovirals and they are failing to provide the resources for prevention through changing sexual behaviour or barrier methods, such as condoms.
It makes common sense to combine reproductive health services and HIV services, especially in terms of gaining access to young people. That is where the trained staff are and where the infrastructure often exists. Bush's emerging policy of providing condoms in HIV clinics but not to family planning services is counter-productive, both for family planning and for the treatment of the AIDS pandemic; we should wake up to what he is doing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a most compelling debate, but I remind hon. Members that it is common practice in 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches no later than 30 minutes before conclusion, which will be at 10.30 am. Hon. Members should take that into account when contributing and making or giving way to interventions.
10.15 am
Hywel Williams: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on an extremely important subject. The brevity of my remarks does not reflect the importance that my party colleagues and I place on the issue.
"HIV AIDS is a modern apocalypse which dwarfs everything that has gone before.?
264WH
Those are the words of Stephen Lewis, the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. "Dwarfs everything" are the relevant words. As I am a relative newcomer to such debates, I shall briefly try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House by considering some of the figures, because they beggar belief. The number of people living with HIV/AIDS totals 42 million—5 million people were newly infected in 2002 and about 800,000 of those were children. Those figures are from the World Health Organisation. AIDS deaths in 2002 totalled 3.1 million and 610,000 of those were children. I find it difficult to comprehend those figures.
The vast majority—95 per cent.—of HIV/AIDS sufferers are in the poorest countries. In some African countries, 20 per cent. of adults are HIV-positive. In sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly 30 million people are HIV-positive, there were 3.5 million new infections in 2002. Those are astonishing and horrifying figures. The AIDS epidemic is increasingly entwined with wider humanitarian crises, such as the food crisis in southern Africa and the social disruption caused by the need to migrate to find work as people become more involved in the cash economy. Also, conflicts in Africa have caused an increase in HIV/AIDS. The ability of those countries to deal with HIV/AIDS is reduced by crises in the political and economic systems.
As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) noted, HIV/AIDS is open to attack through health education and the increased use of barrier methods. I was interested to see evidence of a decline in HIV/AIDS among inner-city women in Ethiopia as a direct result of such factors. There has also been a decline in HIV/AIDS in parts of Uganda among young pregnant women. Those are encouraging signs. I shall not refer to the availability of cheaper pharmaceuticals, which clearly is important. A decline in HIV/AIDS needs human intervention, which must be funded. That is my one and only point, and it is that on which I shall question the Minister.
The UK is making contributions to fighting HIV/AIDS. According to my figures, we furnished $215 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria from 2001 to 2003. The fund was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, whose target is $10 billion per annum. I accept that we are also making other aid contributions, as well as making significant contributions to conflict resolution and development in countries suffering severely from HIV and AIDS. Politics is a matter of priorities, so I shall briefly refer to two of our priorities, without trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Based on the Government's figures, we are prepared to spend £1.75 billion on the forthcoming war. That sum has already been committed and I understand that at commencement, the figure may be £2 billion. As far as I can see we are spending £2 billion on war and $250 million on HIV/AIDS.
I do not want to play down the Government's commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS, particularly when one compares their attitude to that taken by some other rich states. We are often told that the demands for health services are infinite, as near as damn it. I am not asking for a comment from the Minister on the potential global demand for services related to HIV/AIDS, but I ask him to consider whether we are spending enough.

265WH
Let us not allow people throughout the world, especially those in the poorest countries in Africa, to die because of our indifference, or because our priorities lie elsewhere.
10.21 am
David Cairns: I will try and follow the good example of other hon. Members and be brief so that we can give the Front-Bench spokesmen maximum time.
I cannot accept the slightly spurious comparison that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) made between the money set aside for possible international conflict and that set aside for HIV/AIDS. One can take any section of Government spending at any time and compare it to another section to make a particular point. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this important debate. As a relative newcomer to such debates, it has been a great pleasure to listen to the expertise of colleagues from the International Development Committee. I shall not rehearse the numbers and figures that we have heard over and over again today, numbing though they are.
It is a cliché to say that countries throughout Africa and Asia are simply being ravaged and paying a terrible price due to HIV/AIDS. It is not just individuals—hundreds of thousands, tens of millions of individuals—but entire families and communities that are devastated by the illness, including people who do not even have the infection. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned orphans; perhaps she might expand on that point in her speech. The challenge is not just to cure individuals of a disease, but to mend broken townships and cities and entire regions and countries.
Before I turn briefly to African and Asian issues, I want to talk about HIV/AIDS in the west. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) touched on that subject. When the disease broke and awareness of it had its first impact, there was a sudden and welcome demise in unsafe practices, which had the predictable result of slowing the growth and spread of the disease. We have to remind ourselves that that happened about 20 years ago and an entire generation has grown up in the post-AIDS era. The doomsday adverts that we remember from the late 1980s increasingly have no bearing on the sexual practices of the current generation.
Complacency is the great threat in the west. Some sexual practices and venues are being reintroduced that closed down 20 years ago, which will increase the spread of the disease in the west at the very time that we are trying to do something about it in the southern world. We must not take our eye off the home front, as we concentrate—rightly in this debate—on the southern world. We all pay tribute to the health organisations, statutory bodies and others, but they need to refresh the message in this country that AIDS is still around, incurable and a killer. People suffering from HIV/AIDS will die as surely in Greenock as they will in Mozambique. Perhaps it will take longer in the west, because of access to palliative medicines, but it is still a killer and we should not take our eye off that ball.
On the global scale of the challenge, in Zambia, HIV prevalence is about 27 per cent. of 15 to 49-year-olds. In certain parts of Africa, one is always on the lookout for
266WH
new ways in which the disease is spreading. I understand that one particularly virulent means is the interaction between long-distance lorry drivers and prostitutes. That is spreading the disease rapidly and non-governmental organisations are working on education programmes to try to do something about that.
The position is gloomy for much of the world and the messages that we are portraying today are dire. However, there are positive signs, including some evidence of increasing awareness of AIDS, which is the first step. We must pay tribute to the organisations spreading an educational message. The focus of today's debate is to emphasise that much more needs to be done. My hon. Friends and Opposition Members have highlighted means of doing that and I shall not go through those again. More money is the cornerstone. There must also be support for the global fund, greater access to drugs and a new approach to patenting important life-saving pharmaceuticals.
I shall briefly mention the international financing facility, although I shall not go into it in depth. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned it in what were, unfortunately, slightly disparaging tones. I have great hopes for that facility. It is not an international financing facility to combat HIV and AIDS—there is much more to it than that—but the scale of the figures mentioned in the document of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considerable. The figures go up to the £100 billion mark. That is a step change. My right hon. Friend is worried, and rightly, that we are nowhere near meeting the millennium targets. If we carry on at the same rate, we shall miss them. The hon. Gentleman implied that if something is not broken, we should not fix it, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to be worried and to be considering other ways of achieving the step change needed.
I shall finish, if I may, on a personal point, which picks up on the second part of the well made speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Since my election to this House in 2001, I have deliberately steered clear of all issues relating to the Church. That is for personal reasons, relating to my previous career as a priest. I spend much time turning down offers of television interviews inviting me to give forth on issues varying from who should be the new Archbishop of Canterbury to war and peace matters. However, this issue is too important to allow such niceties to stand in the way. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that the Catholic Church does throughout the world. Men and women from comfortable western families have given up a life of luxury to go to the most inhospitable, unfriendly, barren environments on the planet. They have given their lives and put themselves on the line to do work on which we stand here, in our comfortable Westminster surroundings, and opine. Their work in orphanages, schools, education and running programmes is magnificent. I know many such people personally and I make no criticism whatever of their commitment or that of the Church to helping the needy, the impoverished and those ravished by sickness and disease.
But—here is the "but" and my hon. Friend was absolutely right about it—it is incontrovertible that the use of condoms slows the spread of this killer disease. The whole argument about contraception has been

267WH
swept aside by the need to prevent a further genocide—genocide caused by an illness. We know how we can stop that and we have to stop it. The Catholic Church, quite simply, must change its view on the use of condoms. It must change its view on the explicit nature of sex education. Sex education such as that I had at school, which involved looking at sea urchins, is simply not fit for the purpose in the 21st century. The Catholic Church must have a complete, Copernican revolution in its attitude to sex education and its attitude towards gay men, in particular. This issue is too important. Lives are at risk. People are dying. The Church is a church of compassion. It must show that compassion and change its course.
10.29 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on introducing the debate. I do not think that we can debate this topic often enough. If ever there were a weapon of mass destruction, AIDS is it. It may well kill far more people over the next 20 years than the bubonic plague ever did. People all over the world face an absolutely horrific scenario. Perhaps that is not so much the case in the west—yet—but if we become too complacent, it may affect us just as badly. Mother nature has provided her own weapon of mass destruction.
We have had some excellent speeches. We have been told about figures: the number of victims and the billions of pounds that are being spent on the issue—it is figures, figures, figures all the time. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) talked about the USA's efforts to combat the disease, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith talked of the problems of financing the global fund and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) stressed the importance of the figures.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns). I assume that he is a Catholic and was a Catholic priest. I admire him for the way in which he spoke. We need more people to say what he said.
As always, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) gave a powerful speech. I spent 25 years in reproductive and sexual health in my professional life before I became a Member of Parliament, and I would have been proud to deliver that speech. I agreed with every word, dot and comma. I commend the speech to the House; it should be printed and put up on the wall of every hon. Member's office. I will not go on, because I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but it was a seriously good speech.
Several points have not been emphasised quite enough. To start with, there is the availability of drugs. Developing countries need anti-retroviral drugs—particularly, to prevent mother to child transmission—but the problem is not an easy matter of simply providing drugs, however cheap they are. That will not conquer the epidemic or do the trick. The drugs are far too complicated to take and need to be backed by things that are simple for us in the west, such as good nutrition, if they are to work. How many people in developing countries can we honestly say are fed properly
268WH
nowadays? I am sad that the global fund and the American contribution, about which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talked, are concentrated primarily on drugs.
I am sad that not enough emphasis is being placed on health systems. Some countries have not got the necessary roads and, even if there were a clinic, people would not be able to get to it. We have to deliver clinics and nurses. We do not need doctors, but we do need health workers who are educated in the delivery of AIDS drugs if those drugs are to be any good at all. If we do not have such workers, the drugs will be taken improperly, resistance to the disease will develop and we will have to start all over again. I feel passionately about that, and I am sick of hearing people castigate the drug companies when we are not placing enough emphasis on health systems.
Some recently published research is quite damaging in that it gives the wrong message. It is claimed that people in the third world use dirty needles and that health systems are inadequate and dirty and do not follow good practices. Those factors will certainly contribute a small amount to the spread of AIDS, but no one should make the mistake of thinking that they are the reason for its spread. It is not so, even if those things may be a small contributing factor.
We have not heard much about vaccines—although something was said by the hon. Member for Banbury. Vaccines are the ultimate weapon against any infectious disease, and the global fund, the Americans, the Gates Foundation, which has contributed a lot, and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative have done sterling work. Trials of AIDS vaccines are going on all over the world, but there are not enough of them. We must ensure that funds enrich research into AIDS vaccines because that will lead to the end of the epidemic, as it did for smallpox and as it soon will do for polio.
The other thing that has not been mentioned is the effect of debt on developing countries. In passing, we should remember that African countries spend $14 billion a year on servicing their debt. The global fund has estimated that those countries need about $10 billion to do something that will have an impact on the AIDS epidemic. AIDS destroys economically active people in the population and will destroy the ability of any country to service its debt because fewer people will be working. As I mentioned during an intervention on the opening speech, AIDS orphans are becoming a huge problem, and developing countries will have to spend a lot of money on those children who have never known a family or a mother and a father. They live rough on the streets, not receiving an education and at risk from all sorts of factors. We expect countries in Africa to service their debt to the tune of $14 billion a year when less than that amount would greatly help the fight against AIDS. That is crazy. Giving with one hand and taking away with another is nonsense.
Finally, I shall compare the amounts of money that the world likes to spend on various things. I said that the AIDS virus is the most powerful weapon of mass destruction in the world. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon that the USA is thinking of spending about $200 billion on war with Iraq, against which its contribution to the fight against AIDS pales into insignificance. Far less than 1 per cent

269WH
of that amount goes into expenditure to tackle AIDS, and that includes the ear-marked $15 billion that the Americans are spending independently on the AIDS crisis. It is a disgrace that that is going on in our world.
I am pleased that a Foreign Office Minister is here to answer today's debate. If we truly have a wonderful special relationship with the United States, and if our Prime Minister is prepared to follow blindly whatever the President of the USA says, what return are we getting? Let us see some action on the other fronts that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie mentioned, and let us see action on all those international treaties from which the USA is pulling out.
We learned from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the USA's expenditure on AIDS is entirely cynical. It is making jolly sure that reproductive health and abortion services are not being funded. As a professional in that area, let me say that there is no way that an AIDS epidemic can be prevented unless reproductive health and abortion are also tackled. All those subjects are as one. Another reason why the USA is behaving in that way—this also explains its actions in the World Trade Organisation—is that it is funding the drugs industry.
I am getting black looks from Mr. Deputy Speaker so I shall finish by mentioning just one more thing. We were told that the distribution of condoms from the USA amounts in Botswana to one condom per annum per man. Who in the Chamber could cope with that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Member for Salisbury?
10.39 am
Mr. Robert Key: I could cope quite simply; I had a vasectomy years ago.
Of all the debates that you and I have sat through over many years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this must have been one of the most interesting. It will present the Minister with a challenge when he makes his wind-up speech.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for giving us another opportunity to debate this important issue, which has been debated with great success over many years. I was elected back in 1983—the dark ages of AIDS. The foundation of the all-party group on AIDS was a milestone at a time when ignorance was rife in a era of Government health programmes involving tombstones on television to impress on the public the consequences of an AIDS epidemic.
One of the first things that we had to learn was that it is no good being judgmental about AIDS and adopting a high moral tone. It is no good blaming everything on lifestyle choices, as some hon. Members did in the 1980s. One hon. Member said to me: "A plague on them; they made a choice; let them die." That was in line with wide public perceptions at the time, and it is fortunate that things have moved on.
It remains a mistake in 2003 to be judgmental about AIDS, particularly in developing countries. Being judgmental when considering such an important matter is a temptation that we should resist. We simply cannot
270WH
apply European and American cultural stereotypes to entirely different social and cultural situations elsewhere in our world. I would like to sit some of President Bush's advisers under a mango tree in Gambia on a Saturday morning—I have done that—to talk to the village imam and elders about AIDS, contraception, family planning and so on. That usually results in uncontrollable mirth on the part of listeners and, I regret, very little comprehension.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith was right to discuss the consequences of the situation for the entire world, and Colin Powell was right when he said that it is as serious a threat as international terrorism. The Bush Administration's record on frustrating the work of the United Nations Population Fund is not good. I want to say to the President, as one Christian to another, that there is no evidence that the fund promoted coercive abortion in China or anywhere else. Does the President understand the consequences of his policy? The UN has estimated that cutting the USA's $34 million contribution to the fund will lead to 800,000 more unsafe abortions and the death of 4,700 mothers and 77,000 children under the age of 5. That is not a happy outcome from a change in presidential policy.
Another unfortunate consequence, particularly in countries in Africa, is that orphans are created, and there is terrible suffering and enormous medical need. Yet what do we do? We recruit their nurses for the national health service of the United Kingdom. Last year, 2,114 nurses were recruited from South Africa, 473 from Zimbabwe, 432 from Nigeria, 183 from Zambia, 195 from the Gambia, 155 from Kenya, 100 from Botswana and 75 from Malawi, in addition to the 994 recruited from India. That is not a good idea. It may be to the advantage of the nurses, and we cannot blame them for wanting to enhance their careers, but should that be the public policy of the United Kingdom Government?
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the UK's commitment after 2015. I wholly endorse what he said about giving the global health fund the support that it needs to persuade the European Union to match US funds. There is an EU problem in that there is increasing evidence that the American Administration seeks to influence European parliamentarians to oppose development work and, therefore, development money for southern Africa if it involves reproductive health care issues. We must take that on board very seriously.
My hon. Friend also mentioned vaccines, which are hugely important. I hope that Government agencies, such as the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, will encourage work on vaccines in partnership with our universities and their pharmaceutical partners.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) discussed the importance of Cairo and gave the Mozambiquan bishop's magnificent quote, which I shall use often. However, as a Christian who has a huge respect for the Roman Catholic Church, I would go further and say that the best thing that could happen to it would be that it accepted married priests and women bishops very soon. They might inject a little of the sense that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) introduced into our debate. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams)

271WH
discussed the huge impact on children as something that particularly affected him, and I salute him for making his comments.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde is a Member for whom we changed the law of this land. I spoke passionately in the debate on that occasion. It was a very good debate, which I suspect the hon. Gentleman read. If he did not, he can always check my website and find it there, because I am proud of what I said and proud that I voted to change the law so that he could come along this morning to tell us how the Catholic Church should be reformed and, furthermore, to do so while wearing a purple shirt. I congratulate him on that particular flourish.
The Minister must answer some serious questions. If he cannot do so now, he will in due course find someone who can. What total amount of money has our country given to the global fund? I am keen to know what our Government are doing to encourage other international donors to give more money, and our influence should be used to that effect. From where does the money for the global fund come? Is it from additional funds—perhaps from an unusually generous Chancellor of the Exchequer—or is it from the budget of the Department for International Development?
The Vice-President of Malawi, Justin Malewezi, who runs that country's campaign against AIDS, has raised a problem. He said that there is an upper ceiling for proposals and that any proposals
"over $300 million would be thrown in the bin".
Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Is there an upper limit on proposals for expenditure from the fund?
The commission on intellectual property rights, which is funded by DFID, is an initiative of the United Kingdom Government that I warmly welcome. Will the Minister confirm whether its report reflects official Government policy? It is important to know that, because it makes some very significant suggestions. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue.
In conclusion, we must not forget that we, too, are a part of the debate about the international impact of the crisis. I wish to draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 691, which is entitled "Contraceptive awareness week 2003". It points out that there is still great cause for concern in our country, in which 41,200 people are living with HIV, 31 per cent. of whom are undiagnosed. The number of people living with diagnosed HIV is rising each year. We should be careful before throwing stones in our own glass house.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I should genuinely like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for securing this important debate. It is a long time since I have heard such well argued and passionate comments from so many Members. They demonstrated genuine understanding. It is also a first for me to hear in a debate about the personal contraceptive practices of Front-Bench Members, although I am sure that that practice will continue.
272WH
This is an important debate. Tragically, the scourge of AIDS is reversing the development gains of the past few decades, at a time when 46 per cent. of Africans live in extreme poverty. The Government are therefore committed to encouraging the entire international community to play a full part in tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which is having a huge impact in many poor countries on health, social development, education, food security and, as my hon. Friend argued, economic growth. The epidemic hits agricultural activity extremely hard and contributes to the tragic famine that is unfolding in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the brief time available, I want to focus on the Government's important work on tackling the epidemic in developing countries. The Government's response to the epidemic covers many vital issues. It includes supporting state-of-the-art interventions in prevention, care, impact mitigation, access to treatment, which is crucial, research and—many hon. Members have referred to this—mobilising the additional finance required to tackle HIV/AIDS.
Last year, the Department for International Development invested more than £200 million in HIV/ AIDS-related bilateral work, which is an increase from £40 million in 1997. In anybody's book, the increase is both substantial and welcome. That money is being used to fund several specific tasks. First, it will support national plans to reduce the epidemic's impact. Secondly, it will ensure that national responses are multisectoral and are sustainably embedded in national budgets. Thirdly, it will enable countries to build capacity to deliver high-quality preventive treatment and care for people living with HIV/AIDS and for orphans. Fourthly, it will address underlying causes of vulnerability, particularly human rights, stigma, discrimination and gender inequalities.
To support that programme, the value of DFID's overall programme in Africa is set to increase from £640 million to £1 billion by 2006, which is a genuine indication of the Government's commitment. We want a major element of that money to be used for preventive purposes. For example, we are supporting innovative multi-media work in South Africa, where the HIV message is relayed through television soap operas and on the radio, which is often the most effective way to get the message across.
In Russia and China, we are working to reduce the incidence of HIV infection in injecting drug users. In Mozambique, we are trying to improve users' lives through life skills programmes aimed at HIV prevention. In Kenya, we are working with community-based organisations to care for AIDS orphans. As well as that important bilateral support, we are providing important contributions to support HIV/AIDS programmes run by multilateral agencies, which include the United Nations. Our work on prevention is extremely important.
Although we face a huge task, we should be optimistic: there is initial evidence, particularly from Africa and Asia, that HIV can be beaten. Examples include Cambodia, Uganda and Thailand, where condom use has significantly increased, and Senegal, which has been a model of good practice in HIV/AIDS prevention for some time. Progress can be made, but there is an urgent need for other countries, in which political leadership is essential, to learn from those

273WH
successful countries. This week, Nelson Mandela said that one of his regrets from his time as President of South Africa is that he did not give sufficient priority to the issue. Everybody needs to respond to that message from someone who is enormously respected, particularly throughout the developing world.
Many hon. Members have called on the Government to do more. We are not complacent, and we are making a significant contribution, particularly through our actions through the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We have pledged $200 million over five years, and $80 million of that has already been disbursed.
I pay tribute to the work undertaken by the Chancellor in conjunction with the Department for International Development, especially in creating the new international finance facility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, that the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) were somewhat disparaging, and unjustified if one considers the case being advanced. We are not resiling from our commitment to increase our aid financing effectively and eventually to move towards contributing 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. However, that does not contradict the focus of the programme in trying to establish a partnership with businesses and civil society to increase those funds significantly, and that should be welcomed.
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that we should not neglect or decry the work being done to find a vaccine for AIDS. In the longer run, that is the most effective contribution that we can make. Although the first candidate AIDS vaccine in widespread trials was unsuccessful, HIV is a complex virus; many other candidate vaccines are in the pipeline, and we must support them. DFID has already committed £14 million to international AIDS vaccine initiatives and £16 million to the Medical Research Council's initiative.
In the short time remaining, I shall respond to points made by hon. Members. First, on the status of the UK's contribution to the global fund raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, we support the call for increased funding from the rest of
274WH
Europe. We will take up the case and argue it strongly; the UK is one of the largest Government donors to that fund, and we want it to continue.
My hon. Friend also raised the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS' target of 3 million people in developing countries on anti-retroviral therapy by 2005, asking whether the UK was part of that partnership. We are not partners, but we support the goals of the international HIV treatment coalition in respect of increasing access to treatment of HIV/AIDS. We are funding work in support of the goals and will continue to look at the strengthening of health care systems within developing countries.
My hon. Friend asked about monitoring mechanisms to ensure that DFID money goes to support health systems. There are annual reviews in countries to assess the programmes and to ensure that they meet those goals. We are working closely with UNAIDS and other international agencies to monitor the efficacy of the countries' responses, and we will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the contribution and role of civil society, with particular reference to implementation and monitoring. The full and genuine participation of civil society at country level in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of proposals is vital to the fund's success.
I wholeheartedly agree with many of the points made in the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). The financial initiative recently announced by President Bush should be welcomed, as it is a substantial financial contribution. However, there are some legitimate concerns that that money will be diverted from family planning services. We must look carefully at that and raise it with our American partners.
It is worth my underscoring the fact that the initiative is at a very early stage of development and has not yet been approved by Congress. There is a long way to go, and many of the points made today need to be considered in that context.
Finally, the hon. Member for Richmond Park professed passionate opposition to disarming Iraq. There will be no hope of tackling the AIDS crisis if we do not tackle proliferation and if weapons of mass destruction are used, the institutional order of our world will be in ruins. That should concern us all.

Coroners Courts
11 am
Mr. Chris Bryant: Again, it is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Over the past couple of days, several hon. Members have asked me why I called for a debate on such a recondite and obscure subject as the coroners' courts. I explained that there are many and good and strong reasons why we should have a full debate about the role of coroners in society, and how they operate, and I am delighted to see a former deputy coroner in the Chamber.
I wanted to raise the issue partly because of my experience as a curate in the Church of England. My first visit, which the vicar had asked me to make, was to an old lady who had been bedridden for several years. She died two minutes after I arrived. That regularly happened to me when I was a curate; people often died the moment that I visited them.
During the five years that I worked in the church, I saw how much extra and unnecessary grief the whole process of certification and dealing with inquests and post mortems can cause bereaved families. In cases of suicide, especially, when the family are already particularly distressed, a post mortem can cause even more grief when it is clear that the person has taken their own life and the family already face such complicated issues as how to explain it all to the children.
In the 20 months since I have been a Member of Parliament there have been 28 drugs-related deaths in my constituency alone. That is a very large number, by anyone's reckoning, but an accurate recording of the number of drugs-related deaths in the Rhondda. Each death was a tragedy for the person, their family and their community. In a valleys community in south Wales, unlike in a major city or conurbation, everyone in the street knows about the death of an individual, and a drugs-related death affects the whole community.
Under the current system, there is no room for the investigation of a series of deaths because there is no higher court, and the coroner stands alone and relatively unaccountable. An individual coroner might do a perfectly good job, but it is difficult to determine trends throughout the United Kingdom because there are no standard guidelines or rules on how a drugs-related death should be recorded.
In 2001, there were 532,500 deaths in England and Wales, 322,200 of which were certified by doctors without reference to the coroner, and 202,350 of which were reported to coroners. Of the cases reported to coroners, 121,100 led to post mortems but only 25,800 to inquests. In other words, 121,100 families went through the additional process of a post mortem. Almost one in four deaths in England and Wales led to a port mortem in 2001, which is a very high number in comparison with figures for other European countries. In Northern Ireland, where the coroner is allowed greater discretion as to whether to hold a post mortem, fewer than one in 10 deaths—9 per cent.—led to a post mortem.
I do not think that that is because there are more suspicious deaths in England and Wales or more deaths due to industrial disease that need greater investigation.
276WH
I do not think that it is because people see their doctor less frequently or further from the moment of death. It is simply because the system in England and Wales has long been due for review. After all, most of the way in which coroners in England and Wales operate goes back to the Coroners Act 1887. The 138 coroners plus their deputies—roughly 375 individuals—operate in a miasma of fragmented legislation, which genuinely makes it difficult for people to have confidence in the system.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this very important subject. He is right to say that far too many post mortems are ordered for no apparent reason. They should be confined to deaths in suspicious circumstances and genuinely sudden deaths for which there does not appear to be a medical cause.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to bring the coroners' system up to speed, part of the reason for that, in my experience as an ex-deputy coroner, used to be that many coroners were part-time. However, that is not the case now. The situation has changed considerably, and now may be the time is right for better instruction from Government—for example, as to when post mortems should be ordered.
Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right about when post mortems should be held, and I shall come to that. However, a large number of coroners and deputy coroners are still part-time. I should like to see a far more professionalised service. Currently, a coroner has to have either legal or medical training. We should be able to guarantee both medical and legal training throughout the coroners' service. That is one of the issues that we need to consider.
I called for the debate because no society can truly value life unless it honours death properly. The traditional obsequies in different communities are important, and they vary enormously. Much of the 1887 law was written at a time when cremation was coming into use, but was still used by only a small minority of people in England and Wales. Now, however, 70 per cent. of funerals involve cremation. I shall deal with the three-tier certification process for cremation in a moment. In the multi-ethnic society in which we now live, and with the changing perceptions of death and how it should be honoured, it is important to review and renew the coroners' service.
Why on earth do we need a coroners' service in the first place? Obviously, we need it to detect and prevent foul play. I think that part of the reason why the Government initiated the review of the coroners' service that is being conducted at the moment—it should report finally at the end of the month—was the Harold Shipman case. It was clear that the certification process did not make it possible for us to detect and prevent further foul play in that case.
It is also important to determine trends in pathology and disease. One problem with a fragmented service is that it is difficult to provide the Office for National Statistics with clear and unambiguous reporting that is consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
An increasingly important aspect of the coroners' service is adjudication on cases of industrial disease. As a Member of Parliament for a former mining

277WH
constituency, I know that for many widows what is on the death certificate is vital. A death certificate that refers to emphysema and chronic bronchitis results in a very different response from IRISC with regard to the miners' compensation process than does another certification, so it is vital that people have confidence in the process.
It is also important to adjudicate on whether a suicide has taken place, which may have significant legal and financial implications for the family concerned on mortgages, life insurance and so forth. Many implications stem from the determination that a suicide has taken place.
Finally, one important aspect of the coroner process and certification of death that is seldom mentioned is that it provides reassurance and support to families and next of kin. Knowing how and why someone died—especially after protracted illness in hospital when it has been disputed whether the treatment was right and proper, or in cases of mental illness—can be crucial for the family and the coroners' service carries out no more important role than providing secure and understandable reasons for cause of death.
At the moment the system is failing, partly because of fragmentation. To the vast majority of people, the system is incomprehensible. Until the moment when people have to go through the process of certification, they do not understand how the coroner relates to the registrar and the pathologist, or why a post mortem is carried out at some times, but not at others. Often there is no requirement to tell families that a post mortem is going to take place; sometimes they are not told about it.
Remarkably few rules and guidelines are in place to ensure consistency across the United Kingdom. One part of the country might have a meticulous and diligent coroner, but a coroner in another part of the country might work to a different set of assumptions and standards, and that must be wrong. Although a court of appeal exists in theory, in practice, few people have been able to go through the higher courts because the coroner service has no structure for appeal.
As I said earlier, too many post-mortems are carried out in England and Wales. The system is still under investigation, but the certification process seems to lead to many errors in adjudicating the cause of death. Some estimates suggest that more than 30 per cent. of deaths are incorrectly certified. The process for the certification of cremations was devised in 1887 and amended in the 1920s; it is open to abuse, not least because the second doctor is often nominated by the first doctor or by the funeral director, so is clearly not genuinely independent. Furthermore, the medical referee at the crematorium often receives the papers so late that he is deprived of the opportunity to say no and insist on reference to the coroner.
Most importantly, the current system has little sensitivity to the needs of the bereaved. A mechanistic approach is customarily adopted—a point reinforced yesterday when an hon. Member told me that families should get used to the fact of post mortems because they are important to society. However, for many people, the thought of their relatives and loved ones being dissected unnecessarily—particularly a double dissection of the bodily cavity and the skull—is profoundly upsetting. The system should be able to honour grief that naturally arises.
278WH
What would I like to see happen? Above all, I would like a single national coroner service for England and Wales, responsible to the Home Office rather than to the Lord Chancellor. Superior courts should be used for contentious cases or for the review of multiple cases—for example, a raft of drug-related deaths in a particular locality. I should also like clearer rules on how coroners operate—not just the legal procedures used for an inquest or in a coroners court, but a clear set of rules governing every aspect of when there should and should not be a post mortem. Of course, there should be a presumption that there will always be a full public inquest into deaths in custody or in prison and also perhaps in psychiatric hospitals or under psychiatric care. However, there should not be a presumption that there should be a full post mortem with double dissection in as many cases as there are now.
Thirdly, there should be clear national guidelines on the recording of deaths as drug related and in particular on when to require a toxicology report. Toxicology reporting across the UK is very patchy. I pay tribute to my own local coroner who does a good job in that respect, but it is uncertain whether that is equally true around the whole country. We should have an end to the three-tier certification process for cremation, which many doctors refer to as the ash-cash system. Instead we should have a robust system to support and monitor the certification of death to ensure that we have fewer errors in the attribution of the cause of death and clearer prevention of any foul play.
The coroners' review has already suggested that there might be a medical auditor. The Government should look at that. Undoubtedly we need to move towards roughly the same processes for burial as for cremation. We also need clarification of responsibility for the disposal of human tissue. It is not just the Alder Hey case that has provoked a great deal of concern in the UK about that. There is great uncertainty about whether it is the responsibility of the NHS trust, the pathologist or the coroner. That needs clarifying. We also need the active involvement of the family in the process of post mortem and inquest. As I said earlier, sometimes families do not even know that a post mortem is taking place.
Yesterday in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport we were told the tale of a couple whose son had died in a contentious case that was widely and incorrectly publicised in the media. They were required to pay £300 for a copy of the transcript of their son's post mortem. That is wholly unnecessary. We should make the full coroner's report available to the families and the next of kin in such cases, and we should interpret the concept of families or next of kin in the broadest sense to mean not just married partners but unmarried partners.
Finally, I believe that there should be training for all coroners and all their officers. Dealing with bereaved families is complex and sometimes doctors or lawyers—with all respect to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—have not had training that is necessarily relevant to that process. Many coroners also need training in dealing with the media. Often in contentious cases families will be gobbled up by the media and spat out at the other end. With just a simple element of sensitivity to the issues around the media and how to respond to them, coroners could make lives much easier for the bereaved.
11.18 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this debate and more importantly on his speech. It set out in an exemplary fashion the range of issues that society needs to address in relation to the coroners' service. It has made my job of responding that much easier. I also acknowledge the expertise of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), of which I was unaware until this morning. I do not know of any other hon. Members with that knowledge, and it is good that he has joined us for the debate.
First, I should like to address the question that my hon. Friend touched upon, which is the purpose of the coroners' service. It is an ancient office that has existed since the middle ages and which, particularly since the early 19th century, has evolved into the current mechanism for trying to ensure that violent and unnatural deaths are properly investigated on behalf of society.
Coroners' inquests serve four main purposes. First, as my hon. Friend said, they reassure the public that any untoward or uncertain death will be investigated impartially by an independent judicial officer, and secondly, they enable any rumour or suspicion surrounding that death to be dispelled. Thirdly—I shall return to the point—they assist in maintaining the integrity of data on causes of death in the interests of public knowledge and public health. Fourthly, they underpin arrangements for detecting and deterring crime.
The coroners' service also has to answer, and rightly so, the natural questions asked by society and relatives when someone dies about what happened and why. However, in recent years, the coroners' service has also been subjected to the pressure of determining how coroners courts fit in with the other mechanisms being developed to try to answer the questions of why, how, and whether someone was to blame for what happened. That is important with respect to the review that is being undertaken. Coroners courts are only part of that overall process. However, some of the pressures on them have been due to the fact that people have sought, when they have lost a loved one, to use the coroners' service to answer some of those broader questions. We should recognise that other mechanisms, such as public inquiries, have been developed to try to deal with those broader issues, particularly when a large number of deaths have occurred.
The second issue, which my hon. Friend touched on from his experience in his former profession, is society's approach and attitude towards death. In the 19th century there was a formal system, structure and rituals for dealing with death. In the 19th century, people were much more familiar with death—one only has to walk into any graveyard and look at the ages of those who died at the time to see that that was the case. The real truth—and I speak from personal experience—is that although we now seem to be able to talk openly about a wide range of things to do with people's personal lives, society still has some difficulty in grappling with death, although it is the most natural of occurrences. Some of the issues that I will discuss later arise from that attitude.
280WH
I feel strongly that we should be open about death and what it involves. For example, we need to provide open information for people on the arguments for carrying out post mortems, both in respect of the coroners' service and advances in medical knowledge. For the best of motives, people in the medical profession used to talk about taking tissue samples, but we have learned from a range of experiences since then, and that approach will not work in the modern age. People are entitled to receive information and to hear the arguments, so that they can then take decisions.
Coroners have always been local to the communities that they serve. They are still appointed and supported by their shire county councils, unitary authorities, or consortiums of metropolitan districts or London boroughs. The coroner's jurisdiction is quite different from that of the criminal or civil courts. The justice that they dispense is not one of arbitration between different parties. It is an investigation of those deaths which society rightly considers should be the subject of a judicial inquiry held in public.
Coroners are independent of the Government and are answerable in their judicial decisions only to the courts. That is an important feature of the system if they are to investigate deaths fully. Nevertheless, as a public service, coroners have to operate with many Departments and agencies that have an interest in their work, and the Home Office provides general support and direction, working closely with the Coroners' Society of England and Wales.
As my hon. Friend said, about 12 per cent. of deaths reported to coroners result in inquests. Although the inquests will report all the relevant details of how the deceased came by his or her death, much attention is of course focused on the verdict. Coroners and their juries are not restricted in the verdicts they may bring in, but for the sake of statistical consistency—a point to which my hon. Friend referred—a number of formulae have been recommended to coroners, including accident, unlawful killing, and suicide.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of drug-related deaths, in which I know he takes great interest. In 1984 new verdicts were suggested to coroners in respect of such deaths: death from dependence on drugs or nondependent abuse of drugs. The truth is that these drug-related verdicts are not entirely satisfactory. Coroners believe that accident or other verdicts may more closely reflect the circumstances of the death. It is not always easy to separate the different contributory factors in trying to reach a verdict.
In view of the need to improve our information about the number of deaths due to drugs, work has been proceeding on finding the best way to use the information from coroners' inquests in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Coroners' Society of England and Wales. I pay tribute to their contribution to this work. We aim to issue guidance to coroners in the next couple of months, although it is in part linked to the coroners review. The suggested definition will be:
"deaths where the underlying cause is poisoning, drug abuse or drug dependence and where any of the substances listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as amended, were involved".

281WH
As an illustration I shall give statistics published on the total number of drug-related deaths in England and Wales. In 2000 it was 2,968. Within that total only 622 were recorded by coroners' verdicts as coming within the two 1984 definitions, of which 309 resulted from a dependence and 313 from non-dependent use. Yet the Office for National Statistics information on the total number of drug-related deaths draws heavily on the further information that coroners provide. Most coroners provide it in a form that the ONS has requested, but not all, which raises questions about the data's consistency to which my hon. Friend referred. This is part of the Government's national programme on substance abuse-related deaths.
My hon. Friend made the case for change in the coroner system with great skill. It has evolved over 800 years but the need for fundamental change has been highlighted by a number of recent events, of which the Shipman case is of course one. A separate inquiry into that is being led by Dame Janet Smith. One issue for the House after the inquiry will be balancing the arising recommendations, which will be important, with a recognition of the extraordinary nature of those crimes.
The Marchioness disaster highlighted the treatment of the bereaved. As Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry showed, it was easy for professionals who in good faith considered their practice as acceptable to fail to realise that it was not acceptable, particularly when it came to the concerns of the bereaved and the need to deal sensitively with families. I am particularly concerned, and I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is passionate about it, to ensure consistency of care and compassion across the board in the coroners' service. I have seen with my own eyes such care and compassion being exercised in the coroners court. I have also, as a Minister, received correspondence from families who felt that the opposite was the case. We must also take account of the issues arising from the Alder Hey affair.
The review of coroner services has been established to look at these issues. The Government are clear that we need to reform the system. In its consultation document, the inquiry said:
"The prevailing impression we have is of people managing to give committed, professional, and compassionate service through obsolete and neglected structures".
That sums it up. We have committed and professional people but a structure that does not necessarily work. That is why the Government established the review, and we look forward greatly to its results, which are expected shortly, so that we can put the coroners' service on a new footing for the new century and meet the objectives that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda so ably set out.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Rwanda and the Great Lakes
2 pm
Norman Lamb: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to highlight what is happening in one part of the Great Lakes region, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I want to focus on the report by the UN panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in that country. However, I am pleased that the debate also gives an opportunity for others, with a much longer track record than mine, to raise important issues relating to the region. I know that other hon. Members applied for an Adjournment debate on the same subject.
The all-party group on the Great Lakes region and genocide prevention produced its own report on the exploitation of mineral resources in the DRC. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who chairs the group, in pointing out the challenges that the region presents for the international community.
The DRC has been ravaged by conflict since 1998. It is pretty clear that the cause of the continuing conflict has in large part been the desire of countries or groups to get their hands on the country's rich natural resources—gold, diamonds and other rare metals such as coltan, in particular, which is used in mobile phones and is probably present in this Chamber. Six foreign armies have been involved in this war-ravaged country: Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Burundi.
Back at the start of the events in question, in 1998, there were already 50,000 troops from various countries engaged in the conflict. Child soldiers have been used on all sides. In February a BBC news report suggested that the DRC was "awash" with child soldiers. A report on the north-eastern Ituri region cited aid workers as saying that children formed the bulk of the troops in some armed groups.
The conflict has left between 2 million and 3.5 million people dead—that is the scale of the disaster that has afflicted the country. Disease and abuse are widespread. There have been recent reports of cannibalism practised by the Movement for the Liberation of Congo. A report in January suggested that there was a UN investigation into claims that rebel groups send pygmies out on hunting expeditions and, if they come back with nothing, kill them and feed on their sexual organs. There are also reports that pygmies are forced to eat the remains of their colleagues who have been killed.
A peace process was begun in 1999 and stepped up in 2002. I do not underestimate the progress that has been made in bringing peace to the country, but it is a long way from completion, with trouble continuing throughout the DRC. In 2002 peace accords were signed in Pretoria by the DRC and the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda. However, atrocities have continued. In the past few days there have been reports of a massacre near the Ugandan border, committed by pro-Government forces, including members of the Ugandan army. Estimates of civilian deaths in that massacre range from 250 to 467. Some 150,000 people have been displaced by the latest violence.

283WH
The Guardian has reported that both Rwanda and Uganda have denied breaking the peace accords. However, many believe that both countries are still intent on exploiting diamonds, gold and other minerals in the DRC.Africa Confidential, a London-based newsletter, has accused them both of delivering fresh arms to proxy militias, in defiance of the South Africa-brokered peace accords of last year.
The UN panel of experts was first established in June 2000 to consider the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and to consider in particular the link between that exploitation and the continuation of the conflict. Foreign armies were using the conflict as an excuse to continue exploiting resources. The first report was issued in April 2001 and concluded that illegal exploitation of mineral and forest resources was taking place "at an alarming rate." It considered two forms of exploitation: looting on a mass scale, and systematic, systemic exploitation of those resources. It identified key individual actors,
"including army commanders and businessmen and government structures",
as
"the engine of this exploitation."
The report also referred to the enrichment of top Ugandan military commanders and civilians—remember that we give millions of pounds in aid to Uganda. It noted the emergence of illegal networks headed by top military officers and business men, and recognised the
"opportunistic behaviour of some private companies and influential individuals."
Its recommendations included sanctions against both countries and individuals.
On 19 December 2001, the UN Security Council requested a renewal of the expert panel's mandate for a further six months. The panel was asked to provide an update on the situation and to make further recommendations. Its final report came out in October last year. Its conclusion was that there had been a
"multi-billion dollar corporate theft of the country's mineral assets".
The panel looked at politically and economically powerful groups involved in exploitation activities which had become "highly criminalised". It looked further at the concept of an elite network of senior military people, business men and government officials in the various foreign Governments and in the DRC Government, all acting together to continue that exploitation.
It is important to state that various parties who are named and shamed in the final report heavily dispute aspects of it. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the process, because the panel's remit came to an end when it published the report. When the Governments concerned sought further evidence to support the allegations in the report, they were told that the panel's remit had come to an end and that it was unable to respond. Thankfully, the panel's remit has been re-established through another UN resolution, but we are still waiting for further supporting evidence. That
284WH
is wholly unsatisfactory, especially for people who have been wrongly named in the report, quite apart from the need to bring the illegal activity to an end.
The latest report describes the operation of criminal groups linked to the armies of the countries to which I have referred. It describes how the groups do not disband as the armies withdraw, which is why this important issue continues to be unresolved. The report describes how such groups
"have built up a self-financing war economy centred on mineral exploitation."
As the armies withdraw,
"the Governments of Rwanda and Zimbabwe, as well as powerful individuals in Uganda, have adopted other strategies for maintaining the mechanisms for revenue generation, many of which involve criminal activities."
The Ugandan defence forces have been training local militias to take over where they leave off, and Rwanda has engaged in similar tactics.
Senior Zimbabwean officers have enriched themselves by exploiting the DRC's mineral assets under the cover of arrangements to repay Zimbabwe for military services provided to the DRC Government. The Zimbabwe defence force has set up new companies and contractual arrangements to defend its economic interests. The report refers to the criminal activities that have been indulged in, which include theft, the embezzlement of public funds, the under-valuation of goods, smuggling, false invoicing, the non-payment of taxes, kickbacks and bribery—it is a pretty wide range.
In the Government-controlled area, the elite network that the report describes is made up specifically of Zimbabwean politicians and members of the military. The report says that the
"key strategist for the Zimbabwean branch of the elite network"
is the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament, Emmerson Mnangagwa. It also refers to Air Marshal Perence Shiri, who is a long-time ally of Mugabe and who helped to turn Harare into a significant centre for the illicit diamond trade. The report names several other Zimbabwean politicians and military people.
I want to deal now with an individual who has a base in this country and who, according to the report, has been very active in this disaster. John Bredenkamp must be a serious concern for the British Government. He denies the allegations against him, but serious questions have been asked, and it is important that progress is made with the investigation. His British business is based in Sunningdale, and he has extensive interests in the UK. His estimated personal wealth is $500 million. The report says that he
"is experienced in setting up clandestine companies and sanctions-busting operations"
and
"has a history of clandestine military procurement".
It is alleged that he was involved in sanctions busting for Ian Smith before the end of white rule in Rhodesia and, of course, before he transferred his allegiance to the Mugabe regime. It is alleged also that he supplied arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.
In March 2001,The Observer reported close links between John Bredenkamp and the Mugabe regime, and critics claimed that he was making significant sums as a supporter of that corrupt regime. There were also

285WH
reports that his companies were major suppliers of arms in the DRC war and that he had taken over the management of Zimbabwe's mining concessions in the DRC to make money from the exploitation of the resources to which I referred.
It is said that Bredenkamp favours one Emmerson Mnangagwa—the Speaker of the Parliament—as a successor to Mugabe. As I have already described, Mnangagwa cropped up as a key strategist in the Zimbabwean operation in the DRC. Bredenkamp operates through various companies, including Aviation Consultancy Services. ACS represents BAE Systems and has supplied Zimbabwe's air force with BAE Systems parts. Bredenkamp claims that that stopped when sanctions were imposed on the country, but the report refers to his discussions with senior officials and says that he
"offered to mediate sales of British Aerospace military equipment to the Democratic Republic of the Congo."
It also claims that BAE Systems spare parts for the Hawk 60 aircraft were supplied to the Zimbabwe air force early in 2002, in clear breach of the sanctions. I have tabled numerous questions about that, and we still have not got to the bottom of exactly how those parts arrived in Zimbabwe. It is reported that the Zimbabwe air force has used Hawks for attack operations in the DRC.
I want to refer now to British business man Andrew Smith, who is a former Royal Engineers captain. He manages Avient Air, which supplied six attack helicopters to the Kinshasa Government and contracted to perform bombing raids over the eastern DRC between 1999 and 2000. The report also highlights transactions between Avient Air and the accused arms trafficker, Leonid Minim, an unsavoury character by all accounts.
What concerns me are the responses that I have received to my questions to Ministers about contact between Bredenkamp and Andrew Smith and UK Government officials. Given the alleged involvement of both men in profiting from the conflict in DRC, there is, understandably, serious concern about the extent of that contact. A parliamentary answer of November last year confirmed that, in the previous 12 months, two meetings and two telephone calls had taken place between John Bredenkamp and British high commission officials in Zimbabwe, but when I subsequently asked what was discussed at those meetings and who was present, I was told that the Government were not prepared to answer my questions. Why not? These seem to be perfectly legitimate points.
Concerns about the activities of the high commission in Harare were underlined by a report in the Zimbabwean Financial Gazette in March 2000, which stated that the then British high commissioner in Harare, Peter Longworth, had dispatched a confidential memo to the Foreign Office arguing for the lifting of an embargo on arms exports to Zimbabwe. As recently as 2000, the Ministry of Defence appears to have supported arms exports to Zimbabwe, and it is alleged that another batch of spare parts for the BAE Hawk was supplied via Kenya in 2000. Was that done with the knowledge of the MOD and BAE Systems? No one knows.
I was also told in parliamentary answers that Andrew Smith has had several meetings with British diplomats in Harare during the past two years. In October 2001, he
286WH
met the defence attaché. Why? What was that meeting about? The Government are not prepared to say. The previous political councillor at the British high commission in Harare apparently met Smith on several occasions. Officials met Smith at several social events in 2001 and had several telephone conversations with him during the same year. As with Bredenkamp, the Government refuse to provide information about who was present at meetings and what was discussed.
I understand that the Minister is, in a sense, a stand-in today, so if he is unable to answer my questions, I would very much appreciate it if he would undertake to ensure that they are answered by whoever is responsible for the matter at the Department for International Development. First, have the Government specifically investigated how those BAE Hawk spare parts got to the Zimbabwe defence force last year? In a written answer of November 2002, I was told that the Government were urgently seeking details from the UN and would have to investigate. What is the result? In letters to me, the chairman of BAE Systems, Sir Richard Evans, claimed that the company did not know where the spare parts came from. What is the truth of the matter? Do the Government accept that assertion?
Secondly, on the contact between UK officials and Andrew Smith, what has been revealed by the further investigations that were promised in a parliamentary answer on 5 December? Further investigations about John Bredenkamp were promised in another parliamentary answer. What have they revealed? Furthermore, given the fact that Bredenkamp has a business base in this country and Andrew Smith is a British citizen, what is the Government's assessment of their role and that of their respective companies in the massacre in the Congo?
When I asked who was present at those meetings, I was refused an answer. Can that be justified? Surely we should know who was present and what was discussed with those characters, given the allegations against them in the report. Will the Minister confirm what investigations are under way into the allegations in the report, in particular those about companies and individuals based in this country and named in the report?
Has there been a further request to the panel of experts for evidence since the new resolution was passed in January? What has happened since then? It is important that progress is made on the matter but from my perspective, there seems to be an absence of it. That may be the UN's fault; it may be the UK Government's fault, but we need to know what logjam is preventing anyone getting to the bottom of the scandal.
In a written answer dated 11 December 2002, Clare Short specifically said—
Mr. Robert Key: The Secretary of State.
Norman Lamb: I apologise. The Secretary of State said that the report contained "notable and deeply regrettable" inaccuracies. That may well be the case, as I said earlier, but what are those inaccuracies? What are the UK Government's concerns about the report? A written answer dated 4 November 2002 stated that the Government were considering a substantive response to the report's findings. When will that response be given? Will it be in the form of a statement to the House of Commons? What progress is being made?

287WH
For future action, the UN report recommends, among other things, travel bans on individuals identified in the report. It also recommends freezing their assets and imposing banking restrictions. Given the extensive business connections with this country, that is an important question, and the Government must deal with it. What action are the Government taking to follow those recommendations about individuals closely connected to the UK, and what is the time scale for that action?
How do the Government respond overall to the report's recommendations, specifically in considering how the actions of the countries involved in the conflict in the Congo will affect future grants of development assistance? Will those grants be conditional upon proper conduct regarding the DRC? On 13 November 2002, the chairman of the panel of experts, Ambassador Kassem, recommended a five to six-month grace period to allow individuals and companies to change their working practices. What is the Government's assessment of the position three or four months on from that recommendation?
Again in a parliamentary answer, we were told that the behaviour in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda would be factored into future assessments for development assistance for those countries. What does that mean? How will compliance with the recommendations be measured? Is it already taking place? Will the Government agree to the all-party parliamentary group's proposal for a regional strategy paper on the Great Lakes region and for a regional conference?
The whole matter has been an absolute scandal. When 2 million people or more are massacred in one country in four years, it is important for the international community to treat the report's recommendations with the utmost seriousness and to ensure that action is taken. We recently heard about the loss of 1 million lives in Iraq; we are talking about the loss of far more lives in Africa. There is a tendency for us in the west to put to one side the loss of life in Africa, but that is not acceptable. It must be taken extremely seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
2.23 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate and on his very illuminating introductory speech. As one who had the privilege of leading the interparliamentary group to Rwanda about five months ago, I came to the debate for an update on the situation. He has helped us by referring to that very important report, which was published since the IPG's visit, and with the questions that he asked.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who were members of the delegation, are present. During the delegation's time in Rwanda, as during a debate in this Chamber initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on 18 December 2002, we inevitably focused on the terrible issue of genocide, which was, in many ways, the reason for our visit. We saw the appalling evidence of what had taken place in 1994 and we were keen to see how the process of reconciliation was
288WH
progressing and to ensure, in so far as we could influence matters, that never again would anything like that take place in Rwanda or anywhere else in the Great Lakes region. We were concerned then, as we are today, about the evidence of activity in the DRC. When we met President Kagame, he was not able to reassure us—he said that he had pulled out his troops but that if there were any suggestion of a threat to his borders, they would return.
We have no more reason for optimism today than we had then, particularly if, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, we consider the problems in Burundi as well. Three million people have perished in the DRC since 1998 and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development reminded us in the debate on 18 December, there are still people in gacaca courts who want genocide to continue in the region. We still have great worries.
It is right, given the focus on international events, and the possibility of conflict elsewhere, that these terrible issues in Africa should not disappear from our thoughts. That is one of the reasons why I am delighted that the debate is taking place today. I welcome the Minister for Europe and look forward to hearing his views. When members of our delegation met President Kagame, we discussed with him three important issues, based on the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Uganda: respect for human rights, media independence and transparency. Those three issues remain at the heart of everything that we are trying to achieve in Rwanda and in the wider region.
It is right that we should put on record our questions and our concern about the achievements of the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. A lot of funding and resources have been made available, there is a great deal of good will, and the nations of the European Union have given their support to its activities, but there is not as much action or as much evidence that long-standing problems are being dealt with as many of us might wish. Many people who should have been brought to justice have not been. That cannot be acceptable, given the knowledge that we have.
We discussed with the President and others the role of the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has a great interest in that, as well as in our own contribution towards conflict solution in the region. We were told, not least by the president, that in 1994, the international community stood by, aware that genocide was taking place, and did not respond in the way that that dreadful situation invited. My hon. Friends in the delegation, as recently as five months ago, saw some of the evidence. We visited the church where 5,000 people from both tribes had perished: men, women and children—babies as well. We visited Giterama prison, which holds 7,000 or 8,000 people. That visit reinforced our belief that reconciliation, welcome though it is, requires the speeding up of the legal process. People have waited far too long to see justice done.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill spoke here in December she reminded those of us who were on the delegation of a very poignant visit to one of the gacaca courts. When eventually one of the prisoners was called forward, the proceedings were conducted in a very humane way, despite the dreadful backdrop. A woman walked out of the crowd,

289WH
comporting herself with great dignity. She asked the prisoner a few questions. He responded by admitting to killing 13 people, including three of her children. None of us, shocked as we were, wanted to rush to judgment. When we saw that woman's dignity, we wanted to be sure that such things could never happen again. We supported the endeavours of the people of Rwanda to co-operate with such hearings.
We came away disturbed, but not without hope. Despite Rwanda's dreadful past, its lack of opportunities, its poor prospects for prosperity in tourism and agriculture—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was firm on that point—the country does have opportunities. Commodity prices are falling, and we saw the problems that the country has in exporting coffee and cocoa, and market conditions in the EU are not helpful.
We had then, and still have, great hopes for the development of pluralism in Rwanda. We look forward to the elections that have been promised for July this year. If they do take place—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will bring us up to date on them—I hope that all the political parties will have access to the voters; that the process will be seen as free and fair; and that when the results are declared we will see a society that is moving further towards genuine democracy. It will be able to inspire not just its own people but neighbouring countries in that vital region. It will offer them hope—
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Gentleman has very noble aspirations for Rwanda and the Great Lakes region, which we all share. Would he not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk and me that unless we do something about the legal and illegal—especially the illegal—exporting of arms to those countries we shall make little progress?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady is right. I know that she worked tremendously hard during the delegation's visit. She raises a fundamental point. We cannot speak about the dreadful things that are happening while we continue to export arms to Indonesia, East Timor and African countries. We must ask why we are doing that. Her point is a profound one, and I am happy to end on it, because it raises a number of ongoing questions. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Norfolk.
2.34 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). He ably led the parliamentary delegation to Rwanda in October, a group that I was privileged to join, as was the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), whose skills extended to treating me when I became rather ill there. Thanks to her help, however, I did not miss much of our visit.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on initiating the debate and speaking so knowledgeably on the subject of Rwanda and the Great Lakes. I shall confine my remarks to my experience of Rwanda. The right hon. Member for
290WH
Coatbridge and Chryston covered much of what I wanted to say, and I shall not repeat it. However, he was right to say that although we were aware of what was going on in Rwanda, the world stood by and watched.
I understand people believing that politics is a hypocritical business. At the moment, we are rightly concentrating on what is happening in Iraq. After that, perhaps, we shall consider what is happening in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran; but we stood by and watched while 850,000 people in Rwanda were being massacred in the most horrific way.
We visited a church in Rwanda where people had taken refuge, and had literally to walk through piles of skulls and human bones. We laid flowers on massive collections of human remains, which brought home the horror of the genocide that had taken place only a few years before. Unlike a previous parliamentary delegation, we did not find out more about how those people—men, women and children—had been killed. However, it was the most horrific thing that I have ever seen, and I am sure that I shall never experience anything like it again.
It got worse, however. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we visited the court and saw what was described as justice on the grass. I happened to meet a woman who had lost her father, her husband, her sister and three children in the massacre. Her dignity was incredible. She told me that she did not want retribution. She did not want to see the young man who had just confessed to the crimes being put to death, because that would have added to the carnage. She wanted justice, but also the reconciliation to which people in Rwanda now seem committed.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that that reconciliation needs the help of the international community. Although people there are determined on reconciliation because of the horrors that they have experienced, the situation in Rwanda is fragile. Indeed, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, that fragility extends to the countries that surround Rwanda: when we arrived, we found that conflict had broken out on Rwanda's borders, albeit briefly, which was a reminder of how fragile the situation is.
The right hon. Gentleman graphically analysed what we found in Rwanda. I shall not repeat what he said, but shall finish by saying that although we concentrated on the carnage and the desperate genocide that took place there, it is too easy to forget that the country is poor and diseased, that it has no infrastructure and that it suffers under European Union trade rules. We need to address all those issues: we should not forget that side of Rwanda.
A short while ago, I had the privilege of leading a delegation to Ethiopia, which is facing drought and the possibility of starvation. However, people there can survive—they probably will—with the help of the international community. In Rwanda such help is necessary. I support the Prime Minister's stance against certain countries, but I ask the Minister to remind him that, in addition to the threat from Iraq—we must never take our eye off that ball—murders on the most massive scale have been committed elsewhere, right under our noses, in what is supposed to be a civilised age.
2.40 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Government on their engagement with and support for the region. I have attended meetings with Ministers and officials, and I have seen a shift in policy. There is now a determination not to run away from the region's problems, but to remain engaged and to help to solve the problems that still have a devastating effect on millions of lives.
There are strong relationships between the countries of the Great Lakes region. For many years the all-party group has acknowledged a major issue: the need for a regional policy that recognises those inter-relationships. Although the UK Government initially did not seem to be persuaded of the need for such a policy, I understand that they have since recognised it and that there is now a regional policy paper. However, that paper is not a public document. There is much instability in the region, and there will be uncertainty about the impact of donor countries—supporter countries—such as the UK.
Sometimes it is in the interests of one of the Great Lakes countries to claim that the UK is biased in its support for another in the region. That does not help to produce a peaceful solution to problems. A public document—a published regional strategy—could show that the UK policy is focused not only on Rwanda and Uganda, but on peace, stability and fairness throughout the region.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk concentrated on the Democratic Republic of the Congo; he spoke on the involvement of the arms trade in that country and the illegal export of natural resources. I share his concerns about those issues. On the arms trade, it is right that we should consider the big issue of weapons of mass destruction, but we must also consider the minor weapons and the huge damage that they can cause. The UK is a large producer and exporter of arms and unless we make serious attempts at defence diversification, which we could do, there will always be concern because we fuel employment in this country by our continual sale and export of arms. We have many talented people working in the arms trade in this country, and they could be using their skills in other ways. It would be a better use of taxpayers' money if the subsidies that go into arms exports and other endeavours were used to diversify.
On illegal exploitation, I would urge the Government to respond publicly to the findings of the UN panel of experts. Is British and European bilateral aid likely to be linked to the cessation of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and to the implementation of the Lusaka accords? The all-party group welcomes the UN initiative to introduce certification schemes that detail the country of origin for diamonds; it also recommends that there be similar certification schemes, if that is possible and appropriate, to address the exploitation of other precious resources in the region. I also urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that an evenhanded approach is adopted towards all the parties involved in the illegal exploitation of resources. Appropriate pressure must be brought to bear to end the suffering that has escalated, especially around the mineral-rich areas.
292WH
I hope that the Government will recognise that a sustainable peace in the DRC will not be possible without a solution to the crisis in Ituri and the Kivus. We must maintain the pressure on the Governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda fully to implement the Pretoria and Lusaka accords. Primarily, those Governments must withdraw all foreign forces from DRC territory. We could guarantee the future territorial integrity of, and cease supplying the armed groups in, Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the Government will do what they can to press all the parties that agreed to the political settlement on 17 September last year. The settlement has not yet been fully ratified to create and implement a full transitional Government in Kinshasa, which is needed as soon as possible.
The involvement of the MONUC forces is incredibly important. We must work with the United Nations to ensure that there are sufficient resources so that the forces can have a stronger mandate and an enhanced peacekeeping role. There must be protection of civilians because there is still a huge amount of rape and sexual violence in the region. I hope that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Governments of the DRC and Uganda to ensure swift effectiveness of the Ituri pacification commission.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) rightly pointed out the real issues in Rwanda. I ask the Government to take more action on specific issues. The Rwanda-UK memorandum of understanding needs to be redrafted to strengthen the language on human rights and conflict prevention and resolution, especially in relation to the DRC. Concerns have been raised that Rwanda is getting away with human rights abuses and conflict in the DRC, although I understand that the UK Government have not seen evidence of that. However, if it is occurring, neither the UK Government nor the Rwandan Government should have any worry about strengthening the memorandum of understanding—indeed, they should welcome it.
Clearly, if the Rwandan Government are to withdraw troops fully and permanently from the DRC and ensure that there is no supply to the rebel groups involved in the unrest in the Kivu and Ituri region, we must play our part by showing the importance of that. Things could start to move forward if Rwanda were at least pressed to answer the allegations of serious human rights abuses that have been made, such as allegations in the report by the United Nations panel of experts.
Burundi has not been mentioned much today although it is an equally important part of the great lakes region. A ceasefire was agreed in December 2002 between the Government of Burundi and CNDD-FDD, but that has not come into force. Both sides have repeatedly violated the ceasefire, although of course each side blames the other for the aggression. I hope that the Government will continue to negotiate with that country. We need to press all parties in the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to bring those guilty of human rights abuses to justice.
Mr. Andrew Love: Rumours are circulating that the Burundians are considering giving an amnesty to the leader of the FNL—which is responsible for several atrocities in the region, including

293WH
the murder of one of my constituents—in the hope that that would shore up the peace process. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning any such pact?
Ms Drown: Yes. There is a serious argument for bringing those people to justice. The issue must be considered from the point of view of both sides of the dispute and there is a call for people to be brought to justice.
There is a need to reintegrate the rebel and Government forces in order to give them another route in life. The British Government have had success doing that in other countries and we could use skills and talents that we have developed, although financial and political back-up will be required. The whole security sector in Burundi needs to be restructured, demobilised and reintegrated into civil society. Political and financial support is important in order to achieve the swift deployment of observers and peacekeeping troops that the UN Security Council requested in January.
The Minister knows that I have been interested in the issue of debt for many years. I am currently chair of the all-party group on highly indebted poor countries. I would be grateful for an update on the debt situation of the countries in the Great Lakes region. All of them are hoping to move to a post-conflict position, which means that they can be helped by the HIPC initiative. If we are going to assist such countries to reconstruct, and to make them economically and militarily stable, they will have to be enabled to build up their infrastructure and public services to show their populations that peace is worth working for. All of that must start before we begin to talk about millennium development goals for those countries. We should be achieving those goals in every country throughout Africa and beyond. If they are going to achieve them we need to ensure that their bilateral and multilateral debts are written off.
The region has many intractable problems, but I encourage the Government to stay engaged and to find solutions, and I am confident that they will do so. That is what the ordinary people of those countries want. The prize of peace and stability in the region is worth working for, and I am pleased to be able to play my part in pushing the Government to do their bit to help to achieve that.
2.51 pm
John Barrett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. I have worked closely with him in the past, and I know that he takes a strong interest in these matters. I wish to draw particular attention to the work that he has done in relation to countries in the Great Lakes region.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on making an interesting contribution, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who led the delegation to Rwanda late last year. I heard both of them speak in the debate on the genocide in Rwanda, and I was greatly moved. Although I was not a member of that delegation I feel that I was because of their moving contributions both today and in the past.
294WH
Although the eyes of the world are currently focused on events in the middle east, it is equally important to remember the problems of the rest of the world. They may not involve weapons of mass destruction or threats to international security, but the Government and all of us would do well to confront these issues, and debates such as this help very much in achieving that purpose.
As several hon. Members commented, we thoroughly debated Rwanda in December. Particular attention was paid in that debate to the aftermath of the genocide, and Rwanda's problems were fully aired, but the debate also served as an opportunity to highlight some of the progress that has been made in that country. Today, we heard about the report by the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of natural resources and the way in which, under cover of conflict, looting has taken place in which the army and the Government have been involved.
I do not wish to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but he raised several questions that the Minister must answer. Not all the answers will necessarily be at his fingertips today, but they must be forthcoming. The behaviour of private individuals and companies leaves a lot to be desired, and we hope to hear more about that in the near future.
As I mentioned in the previous debate, Rwanda's commitment to development and the relief of poverty among its people must be accompanied by a commitment to peace with its neighbours. The agreement signed by Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo was crucial in laying the foundation for peace, but it was only ever going to work if all sides acted in accordance with the spirit of the agreement and if all aspects of it were implemented. Months later, despite good words, widespread evidence remains that that has yet to happen.
The October 2002 report of the UN panel of experts, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, listed a series of recommendations on which I hope the Minister will comment. I was interested to read that the very first recommendation highlighted the importance of development aid for the region and stated that such assistance should be made a priority. It said:
"the first set of initiatives could be for quick disbursing aid for the Democratic Republic of Congo and the other great lakes countries involved in the conflict, for reconstruction and rehabilitation programmes, aimed at creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and improving conditions for local populations, notably in the areas of education, health and sanitation."
As in many other parts of the world, aid is the key to alleviating the poverty that often leads to hostility and warring between nations. If we can relieve that suffering, we will have come a long way in tackling conflicts such as those that have plagued east-central Africa in the past.
Although we Liberal Democrats welcome the investment that the Government have made in countries such as Rwanda and the increased spending that has occurred, I make no apology for returning to that old chestnut, 0.7 per cent. of GNP, which is so often highlighted inside and outside Parliament. We have consistently argued that the Government should set a clear timetable for raising UK contributions to 0.7 per cent. of GNP, but time and again they have failed to produce a satisfactory answer. To say, as they have said to me in parliamentary answers, that Department for

295WH
International Development contributions beyond 2005£06 are matters for future Parliaments is unacceptable. The Department of Transport can plan a budget 10 years ahead, so I cannot understand why DFID cannot do likewise.
Last week Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda, issued a further appeal for international support, especially because the country is approaching the end of a transition period ahead of the presidential and parliamentary elections. As the Minister knows, a new constitution is soon to be produced that will provide the basis for the political situation that will develop after the transition period. I am keen to hear details of the support that the Government intend to provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk rightly placed great emphasis on problems in the DRC and the institution building that will have to take place if long-term peace and security are to become reality. What is needed is not only building in bricks and mortar, but building trust between countries and rebuilding people's lives. If the trust that has so often been lacking in the region is ever to be created, there must be transparency at all points in the process. The commission of enquiry that was set up to investigate allegations against Ugandan companies and individuals highlighted in the UN report has helped a great deal in that respect. The Government of Rwanda would do well to follow suit, and, in view of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, there may well be a case for similar action by the UK Government.
The United Nations mission has been widely credited with doing sterling work in the region, but it is clearly hampered by a lack of resources. Many of us have argued for an increased role for peacekeeping and protection of civilians, but good will must be backed up with hard cash if it is to be made into a reality.
The ongoing occupation of eastern Congo by Rwandan soldiers cannot be tolerated. I recall a story I read some time ago in The Observer, which accused many Rwandan soldiers of working in conjunction with Hutu militiamen to stay within the DRC and exploit the resources of the country. One American diplomat stated:
"The Interahamwe is now a very convenient excuse for Rwanda to loot Congo. Maybe it is 20 per cent threat and 80 per cent for show."
Another UN officer said that security concerns of Rwanda had become "a joke".
I conclude by reiterating the needs of the countries around the Great Lakes and stressing why at this time of international crisis we must endeavour not to take our attention away from countries in real need. Figures that I have received from the World Bank and the Minister's Department show that about 70 per cent. of the households in Rwanda are below the poverty line. Life expectancy in Burundi is little more than 40 years, and in Uganda almost two in every 10 children die before the age of five. Those countries, along with many others in Africa, are living in the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS, which was discussed at length in this morning's debate on the international AIDS crisis. Rwanda is now among the 10 most heavily affected African countries, with an estimated 13 per cent of its population now infected.
296WH
It is surely those statistics that prompted the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference to describe Africa as
"a scar on the conscience of the world".
I look forward to hearing the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to help these African countries, at a time when our focus is elsewhere.
3 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. It has provided an important opportunity to hear the thoughts of hon. Members, many of whom speak with deep knowledge and have long experience of the part of Africa under discussion.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's important and detailed allegations. It is a pleasure to see the Minister for Europe. I accept that he will not be able to answer all our questions. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development is on important business in Cambodia, and we wish her well, as that, too, is a part of the world that we should not forget. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to respond to some of the points that I shall be raising, as I am sure he will to those made by other hon. Members.
I have heard many people say how well the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) led the important Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I was pleased to hear him say that, in spite of everything, he had a message of hope for that part of Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) described graphically the personal horrors that he had witnessed, and he reminded us that the situation remains very fragile in Rwanda, a poor country that continues to suffer.
The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked whether UK policy was biased. I shall return to that important point, but I share her commitment to ensuring that the Government remain engaged in the part of the world under discussion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) also made many important points.
Will the Minister respond to some intriguing questions that were answered in the other place yesterday? Several hon. Members have referred to the UN panel of experts on the DRC. Yesterday, Baroness Amos referred to Security Council resolution 1457, which extended the mandate of the UN expert panel for a further six months. She said:
"In the light of the panel's findings, Her Majesty's Government will consider taking appropriate action where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2003; Vol. 645, c.W A95.]
Will the Minister explain what the appropriate action will be? The hon. Member for North Norfolk gave a well-rehearsed and detailed account, but not much action has followed. What is appropriate? What is action? In an important answer given in the other place yesterday, Lord Bach referred to reservists being called up
"to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

297WH
He said:
"A new call-out order has been made under Section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called out to support operations".—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 645, c.W A101.]
What are the operations in the DRC? What is continuing to take place there with the assistance of the British military? I am delighted that the reservists are engaged there and I am sure that they are a great force for good, but I should be grateful to be updated and told exactly what British forces are doing in that part of the world.
An important aspect of illegal exploitation of natural resources is corporate social responsibility in the area. I start with allegations against British companies and nationals. As long ago as last November, according to the excellent briefing of the United Nations Association (UK), a long list of British companies were involved, but not a lot seems to have happened. It is a long time since last November and I hope that the Government will soon decide what action to take. Has DFID requested the available evidence from the UN panel of experts' report? A copy of the evidence could be placed in the Library in both Houses. What is the response to the report? Will DFID make a statement of its intentions in the light of access to the evidence?
The Government should also press Rwanda to publish a serious and comprehensive reaction to the allegations contained in the UN panel of experts' report. I hope that the Government of Rwanda will establish a commission of inquiry to investigate those allegations, similar to the successful commission established by Uganda. Have the British companies named responded and, if they have, has DFID seen copies of those responses? Again, those copies could be placed in the Library so that we can all know what is going on.
On the need for aid in Burundi, at the first donor conference in December 2000, President Mandela said:
"it must be possible for the people of Burundi to materially distinguish between the destructiveness of conflict and the benefits of peace."
Jacob Zuma, the facilitator of the new ceasefire said:
"regional efforts have achieved much progress in Burundi, but a complete peace could not be achieved without the full support of the international community."
The International Crisis Group said that donors should act now and release the promised dividends before faith is lost in the peace process and the situation deteriorates further.
There is a paradox in Burundi: peace will not be possible without international financial support, yet that support will not be forthcoming before peace is achieved. Will the Government release the funds pledged to Burundi? How will DFID deal with the paradox? What assessment has been made of the forthcoming change of leadership in the transitional Government in May? Many people wish to know what level of financial and political support will be provided to enable the swift deployment of observers and peacekeeping troops requested by the UN Security Council on 13 January. Will the Government put pressure on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to bring to justice those guilty of human rights abuses?
The hon. Member for South Swindon is wholly correct about the need for an integrated regional policy. UK involvement in the region has not been equally
298WH
balanced. Total UK bilateral aid to Burundi in 2001£02 was £604,000, compared with £10,262,000 to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and £27,189,000 to Rwanda. Of the £604,000 for Burundi, £515,000 was humanitarian assistance. DFID recently appointed a permanent member of staff in Burundi—a positive sign that we welcome—and the Department has also contributed £1 million to the World Bank multilateral debt trust fund. DFID is apparently planning to expand its programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after the establishment of a transitional Government.
I am concerned by the Secretary of State's statement that Rwanda's security depends on regional security. The International Crisis Group report said that donor intervention now could be helpful to achieving peace. Even if the balance of aid is not biased, there is a perception of bias that could cause great tensions state to state and donor to state. Several British non-governmental organisations have said that there is a distinct anti-UK feeling in the DRC because it is perceived—rightly or wrongly—that the UK is bankrolling a country that occupied a third of its territory. There are still allegations of Rwandan involvement. What are the Government doing to deal with the problems surrounding the balance of aid in the region?
It is appropriate that we consider one other issue that has caused suspicion. The Secretary of State for International Development has developed a very good relationship with the President of Rwanda, whom she called, "Such a sweetie." In her genuinely charming way, she will not hear a bad word said against him, which is typical of the right hon. Lady. However, that sometimes gives the impression that there is a special relationship, and I wonder if something should be done to put that right.
Mr. Clarke: I must admit that other special relationships give me greater cause for concern that the one between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the President of Rwanda. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard account of the debate in the Chamber of 18 December last year, if he has not yet had the opportunity to do so. If he does so, he will acknowledge that what my right hon. Friend has achieved because of that relationship has been truly outstanding. I doubt whether anyone in our delegation disagreed with the views that have been conveyed to us confirming that.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is well worth reading that debate.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I want to add that I would not describe the President of Rwanda as a sweetie, but many of us who know what he has done, what he went through and what he achieved to liberate his country believe that, on the whole, he is pretty good news.
Mr. Key: I am sure that he is, but it would be wrong of me not to reflect the concerns that some NGOs have put to me. That is all I want to say on the subject; I certainly do not want to build it up into some great tabloid experience.
Reference was made to MONUC and its work to maintain liaison between the parties and carry out various tasks. It was set up on 30 November 1999 and is

299WH
hugely important. We must ensure that it has sufficient resources both to carry out its current work and to press for a stronger mandate and an enhanced role in peacekeeping and the protection of civilians. Furthermore, it should have unlimited access in its investigations into Governments' and other states' actions. I hope that the UK Government will fully support its work.
Regional peace is crucial. Several hon. Members referred to finding a solution to the crisis in Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the Government will maintain pressure on the Governments concerned—those of the DRC and Uganda—to implement fully the Pretoria and Luanda accords, primarily to withdraw all foreign forces from DRC territory, to guarantee its future territorial integrity and to cease supplying armed groups in Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the UK Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Governments of the DRC and Rwanda to ensure the swift effectiveness of the Ituri pacification commission. Reference was made to the memorandum of understanding between the Governments of Rwanda and the United Kingdom in the area of conflict resolution.
Before I conclude my remarks, I should briefly mention the problem of food and water faced by the Great Lakes region. Only 50 per cent. of people in rural areas have access to safe water, and almost 45 per cent. of the deaths of children under five relate to water. We would warmly welcome the Government applying pressure to deal with those problems.
We discussed HIV and AIDS at great length this morning, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West pointed out. Tearfund calls the problem of HIV/ AIDS in the Great Lakes "the second genocide." A serious issue in the region, the problem is exacerbated by rape, poor infrastructure, and lack of education and access to medicines. The Government's programme on HIV/AIDS is crucial to the area.
Child soldiers are also of concern. They are still present in all the armed groups in the DRC—in some cases, they comprise as much as 35 per cent. of the troops—and they are being sent to the front lines. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government are exerting pressure in that respect.
I end by repeating the message of hope for the region. We in this country are engaged and anxious for our Government to do more and to influence international organisations and the Governments of the countries involved. Above all, we send the people of that region the message that we are engaged. The Prime Minister has given a commitment and the rest of us in the House of Commons feel very strongly about the region. We will not forget its people, despite the other great issues of state that currently confront us.
3.15 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am aware that, in this interesting debate, I represent three Ministries. That shows the cross-cutting nature of our international engagement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of
300WH
Defence. All three Ministries have been referred to, and it is important to understand the holistic nature of Britain's new international policy.
If we want to have a presence and be an effective power across the world, we must link our military abilities, development commitments and the diplomatic role of the Foreign Office. I am pleased that one of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's first duties on appointment was to go to the region with the then French Foreign Minister, Mr. Hubert Védrine. That shows the other side of joined-up foreign policy, which is that we cannot act alone.
Several hon. Members, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), referred to the delegation to the region of which they formed part. It is good that we as parliamentarians take an active and concerned interest, but other powers, in particular France, are involved, and it is vital that we co-operate as much as possible with our French partners.
If I may say so, it does not always help to indulge in some of the name calling that we have heard about some of our key European partners recently and in the past. If Europe is to have an effective policy and presence in the region, we must learn to work together, instead of reaching for the "book of scorn", to cite that excellent compendium by Matthew Parris, to make sour and unpleasant remarks. That is not the way forward.
I shall try to combine my overall remarks with answers to the specific problems raised. If there are issues that I cannot deal with, I will ask officials to write to hon. Members if they so desire. I also have to bear in mind the fact that serious and important allegations have been made, each of which will require investigation. There may be legal ramifications connected with that, so it would not be proper of me to prejudge the UN panel of experts, which, as hon. Members have noted, has been reactivated and is undertaking further inquiries. The Government will have to react to those in due course.
Dr. Tonge: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: I would rather not, because the hon. Lady has made several interventions, and I should get on with replying to the points raised.
There has been significant progress on the peace process in the DRC over the past year, but that is not enough. The external participants in the war—Zimbabwe and Angola on the Kinshasa side and Rwanda and Uganda on the rebel side—have withdrawn from the DRC. That leaves the Ugandans in Ituri, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred. I shall return to that point shortly. Unfortunately, the Congolese parties have seemed unwilling or unable to take advantage of that advance to bring peace to their country. The inter-Congolese dialogue drags on even as we speak, and all hon. Members expressed disappointment about that. The British Government have taken a great interest in the peace process and continue to do so. As soon as the transitional Government are instated in Kinshasa, we will be keen to play our part in helping the Congolese rebuild and develop the DRC in the same way as we have helped the Tanzanians, Ugandans and Rwandans in their countries.

301WH
I want to touch on some of the external and internal dimensions of the peace process mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. The Lusaka agreement in 1999 effectively brought to an end the fighting between the various Congolese armed groups and their foreign backers, but the foreign armies stayed in the DRC, so the end to fighting was an advance, but it lead to stalemate rather than peace. The subsequent Pretoria agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, which was brokered by the South Africans, was signed in July 2002 and was a major breakthrough. It offered the prospect of Rwanda withdrawing from the DRC—the withdrawal most strongly demanded by the Kinshasa Government. It also offered to address the fundamental issue at the centre of the war, which was the presence in the DRC of the Rwandan extremist groups that had perpetrated the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and which were fighting from Congo to return to Rwanda to complete the job.
The Rwandans withdrew as promised but the Government in Kinshasa have not yet fulfilled their side of the bargain. They apprehended and handed over to the international tribunal one senior genocide suspect and, as requested, proscribed and expelled the FDLR, the political arm of the Rwandan Hutu extremists. They also pushed over to the east many of the Rwandan Hutu fighters who had been part of their army so that they were able to say the fighters were beyond their control. However, they continue to support and arm them in the east.
It is in the eastern DRC that we see the volatility and violence to which hon. Members referred. The vivid descriptions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury of the church that they visited will be on the minds of everyone who has listened to today's debate or will read it in Hansard. Such happenings are a source of deep concern and alarm. The abuse of human rights, whether it is brutal rape, the use of child soldiers or resource exploitation, is unacceptable, and we will continue to use our influence to demand improved respect for humanitarian rights by all parties. However, the real obstacle to progress is the failure of the Kinshasa Government to agree to the establishment of a transitional Government. That political decision must be faced. It would bring an end to most of the fighting and use of surrogates to create what is called in the jargon "facts on the ground".
The Ugandans must also now withdraw their forces fully from DRC. We should help them by pressing all parties involved in Ituri to stop fighting, and that is where our current diplomatic efforts are focused. The international community, including the United Kingdom, has been clear with all signatories to the Gbadolite agreement that the agreed terms of that and previous agreements must be respected. I call again on all Governments in the region, particularly the Kinshasa authorities, to do more to ensure the compliance of allied forces with the terms of those agreements. The UK has recently provided £1 million to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to support efforts to co-ordinate humanitarian responses in the region, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
The fundamental goal is resolution of the conflict, which in turn will provide the necessary conditions to begin achieving the millennium development goals, such
302WH
as halving poverty and boosting school enrolment for the Congolese population of some 50 million people. The key to any lasting political settlement will be to ensure achievement of power sharing within the transitional Government, followed by national elections.
Hon. Members referred to the issue of HIPC and the need to support debt relief in the region, and that remains a top priority of the Government. I am proud of the fact that we have doubled the amount of the people's money going on overseas aid, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will stop their nonsense of endlessly demanding tax cuts. One cannot ask for massive cuts in taxation and then ask for massive increases in public expenditure.
We continue to provide substantial support to the UN operations in the Great Lakes region. We are also providing support—
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I would rather not, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue.
We are also providing support to civil society groups involved in grass-roots peace building and reconciliation. We have offered to play our part in enabling the establishment of a reformed national army drawing on the forces of the Kinshasa Government and the armed groups. We will also be helping in the enormous task of demobilising the tens of thousands of combatants who have taken up arms during the civil war. We have pledged £25 million over five years to the multi-donor regional demobilisation and reintegration programme in the Great Lakes.
The penalties of the region's severe instability fall most heavily on the civilian population, especially the most vulnerable. Civilians continue to die in large numbers, with mortality rates approaching five times the sub-Saharan norm in some front-line areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Only a small proportion of this "excess mortality"—I use the jargon term—is directly attributable to acts of violence. The main killers are not bullets and machetes, but diseases like malaria and malnutrition that have gained a hold and are spreading, as health services are disrupted and food production and distribution systems fail.
Access for humanitarian relief agencies is more complicated and challenging than ever, as the conflicts fragment. These can be very dangerous places to work. Relief agency staff, both expatriate and Congolese, have been attacked and killed by fighters who go unidentified and unpunished. It is estimated that only 20 per cent. of the population in Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo are accessible. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) gave us the most vivid and rather difficult-to-listen-to details of atrocities—one could almost use that word—that are taking place. Parts of Burundi are virtually inaccessible and yet access is vital in order properly to establish needs and to monitor assistance so as to ensure that the most needy are reached. Only a tiny proportion of the population in the area are fighters; the vast bulk are civilians caught up in a conflict not of their making, who need, value and deserve the help of the international relief agencies.
A major international relief operation is under way in the Great Lakes region to address these problems, and there are constant efforts at all levels, including at the

303WH
UN Security Council, to improve humanitarian access. Significant resources have been allocated by the international community to meet humanitarian needs. In 2002, that amounted to some $270 million in humanitarian assistance from international and bilateral agencies, including DFID.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rightly asked about the need for a regional approach. The Government support the proposal for a regional conference to consolidate the peace and development process in the DRC once the transitional Government have been established. DFID is actively considering its future development strategy in the DRC following the establishment of the trans-national Government. Next Monday, DFID will host a round table to listen to the views of DRC experts in the UK and Europe. DFID notes carefully the view that one of the outputs of the process should be a regional strategy paper for the Great Lakes region. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the important matter placed before the Chancellor by my hon. Friend.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the Government's position on the major challenges facing the Great Lakes region, and to explain what we are doing in terms of concrete assistance. It is of the utmost importance that the political groups in the region finally seize the chance for peace in the region. If they do so, I assure the House that we will play our full part in supporting its recovery. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk and to other right hon. and hon. Members who have put on record the great concern of British parliamentarians for peace and reconciliation in the region.

Horse Racing
3.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am delighted to introduce this short debate today on horse racing. I am not certain whether my horse racing column in The Scotsman on a Saturday qualifies as an interest to declare: if it does I willingly declare it. Some people reckon that it should be a matter of certification rather than declaration; nevertheless it is there on the record. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who takes a keen interest in these matters, would have liked to be present but unfortunately he is elsewhere on parliamentary business. I know that he shares many of my concerns.
In general, the horse racing industry is in pretty robust shape, although there are a number of challenges and difficulties, some of which have been well publicised. Much of the underlying health and growth in the industry is due to the Government's wise decision in October 2001 to move to a gross profits tax on the industry. I particularly liked that decision. It was one of the few occasions when the Government took my advice on a matter: it was not just my advice as there was a widespread campaign. However, the occasions when I find myself in central agreement with the Government are few enough to make something of them. It was a wise decision.
That decision was based on the view that there was a win-win situation in horse racing. Horse racing depends for its funding on punters: the large numbers of people all over the country who want to back horses. That is where the real flow of income comes from in horse racing. The view was taken that we could have a large-turnover, low-margin, betting market that would be good for everyone. Potentially that is the present situation.
The issue that I want to focus on today could partly undermine that and spoil an otherwise rosy picture. I said that there were a number of issues in the industry. They have been well publicised in television programmes, such as "Kenyon Confronts" and "Panorama", which investigated scandals and difficulties in the racing industry. I do not underrate those. Unlike some, I consider investigation a perfectly legitimate journalistic activity. It is the job of journalists to draw attention to anything that goes wrong. Only then can they be put right. I am confident that over time the racing structures will adapt themselves to confront and to overcome those challenges.
I am delighted to welcome the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to our debate—
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): It must be serious.
Mr. Salmond: I am sure we are about to have a statement announcing an extension of time or a Government motion to extend time for the debate. I particularly welcome his presence here. I acknowledge his interest in the industry.
Many of these challenges will be overcome. It is an important part of the journalistic process that attention is drawn to them. There are other organic and

305WH
regulatory issues in the industry. It has so many representative bodies that even people like myself, and perhaps the Leader of the House and others who are interested, find it hard to keep up with who represents whom and who regulates what. I suspect that the Minister shares my concern that we need a much more rational understanding of who are the gamekeepers, who is responsible for policing various aspects of racing and whose interests are being represented by whom.
I had an interesting meeting with Michael Singer of the Punters Protection Association yesterday. I was struck by just how frustrated Mr. Singer was. He has a long career of trying to represent punters' interests. Punter is not a derogatory term: it is fairly well celebrated in the racing industry. He asked the question: are punters not consumers? Where is the consumer interest being centrally represented in the various bodies of the racing industry? The Minister might like to touch on that. It seems a substantial question that should be answered.
From a Scottish perspective, all five Scottish racecourses are grouped together in an organisation called Scottish Racing. The Leader of the House may be an honorary president of that organisation. He certainly has some association with it. That is to his credit, because that grouping says a great deal about the potential of Scottish racing to grow, with more fixtures, trainers, jockeys, meetings and more employment, making a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. People feel frustrated by the limited number of fixtures that they are allowed to have.
Several important issues surround the horse racing industry, and the central theme that touches them all is the question of who is responsible for regulating which parts of the industry, and which bodies are responsible for representing the consumers. The decision by the British Horseracing Board to impose a charge of 10 per cent. of gross profits on on-course bookmakers may have substantial and profound implications. How was that decision arrived at; can it be fair and just; and, above all, what are its implications for many people?
On-course bookies are part of the firmament of the racing industry. They are not all as rich as Barry Bismarck Dennis, but they are all characters, as he is, and form a crucial part of the racing experience. It would be regrettable if their ranks were thinned and that part of the market weakened. They are concerned that that is exactly what will happen as a result of the new charge arising from the British Horseracing Board's decision.
To help us to understand the background to the decision, I shall quote from a letter from Mr. John Stevenson, chairman of the National Association of Bookmakers, to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), which provides a crystal clear summary of the complex process behind the introduction of the new charge on 1 April next month. Last year, various large bookmaking companies were in dispute with the British Horseracing Board—almost everyone has been in dispute with the BHB recently. The dispute was resolved at a meeting in March 2002, when the chairman of Bookmakers Committee, comprising the big three bookmakers, took part in discussions. The letter states:
"Peter Savill agreed to meet the only representatives of the 'Big 3' but it was pointed out that the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee … should also be present. Peter Savill agreed on the
306WH
condition that he would only meet the above four bookmakers. This meeting was held at the Hilton Hotel on 26th March and was followed by a further meeting on 28th March at which Nigel Smith (BHB Commercial Director) also attended. At these meetings a number of decisions were agreed including that a 10 per cent. gross profits data charge should be paid by all bookmakers.
The outcome of these meetings was circulated to members of the Bookmakers' Committee and discussed at a meeting of the Bookmakers' Committee on 5th April 2002 and ratified at a later meeting held on 15th April 2002 by a majority of 8:4 which under the Bookmakers' Committee Constitution was a virtual certainty"—
any "certainty" in respect of the racing industry is to be welcomed!
"Thus, the NAB was specifically excluded by the BHB from taking part in the negotiations which led to the decision concerning the 10 per cent. gross profits tax although we were informed of this decision by the Bookmakers' Committee when it was a fait accompli. However, at no stage was the NAB allowed to be involved directly with the BHB in these negotiations. Since Warwick Bartlett was also the Chairman of the British Betting Offices Association … which represents small independent off-course bookmakers it is clear that the interests of all off-course bookmakers were represented in negotiations with the BHB and that racecourse bookmakers were not represented."
That provides a fair summary of what happened at last year's meetings.
I have also had sight of the agreement between the BHB and the body representing the biggest companies in the industry—Corals, the Hilton group, Stanley Racing, William Hill and the Confederation of Bookmakers Associations—which brought to an end the disputes over the imposition of the charge on all bookmakers. Significantly, in clause 4.3 of the agreement, the signatories had to forgo any suggestion of making complaints or submissions to the European Commission or to any other competition or anti-trust authority anywhere in the world, unless they had a legal obligation to do so. That was the document that on-course bookmakers were later invited to sign, but refused to do so, preferring to develop their case through the Office of Fair Trading.
There seems to be a strong case for arguing that a section of the industry was not represented at the genesis of the agreement, and was only afterwards consulted and outvoted on a committee on which they were a minority. The process of imposing the charge on the on-course bookmakers is wrong.
Is the charge fair and just? I have a host of information that shows the essential difference between an on-course bookmaker, who bets at a fine margin, who can make a profit as well as a loss and whose satchel can grow larger or smaller, and a major off-course bookmaking chain, which has guaranteed profits across its range of undertakings.
On-course bookmakers do not need all the data for which they are being asked to pay an astronomical increase in charges. Over the past few years the estimate of that increase has ranged from 2,000 to 4,000 per cent., depending on how much the charge will rake in. It does not seem fair that those bookmakers, who are in a different financial position from others, should face such enormous increases in their charges.
The most important point I want to make concerns the implications for the industry as a whole. The on-course market is a bulwark: a protection for the wider punting interest. Starting prices, which still denominate

307WH
the majority of bets that are struck and returned, are centred on the on-course market. If the on-course market is weakened by a substantial tax increase on on-course bookmakers, one potential—or certain—result will be to force an increase in on-course margins, which will then result in a substantial increase in off-course margins.
One does not need a crystal ball to know that some major bookmaking chains have an ambition to raise margins in the industry. Mr. David Harding, the chief executive of William Hill, speaking at the annual industry seminar this year, said that margins were unsustainable at starting prices, and that he wanted to see them raised substantially. The ambition to raise margins, at least for that company, is clear.
I had a discussion with Mr. Alan Ross, the managing director of Ladbrokes, who takes a different view. He thinks that I am reading too much into the sequence of events by suspecting that there is a conspiracy to raise margins and prices in the industry. He believes that people were properly consulted and that their interests were taken into account. However, I would say that there is, at least, a serious question mark over those proceedings.
Government policy in the past, and, I hope, the policy of the current Government, has been to encourage a strong on-course market. The latest consultation document from the Treasury on the modernisation of gambling tax discusses the success of the movement towards the gross profits tax on betting, and notes that the duty exemption for on-course betting was introduced in 1987 to promote a healthy on-course market in the horse-racing industry. It appears to imply—I am sure that that is the case—that the Government support that.
The Government's policy seems to be to encourage that market to thrive and prosper, and not to see it weakened in any way. However, I believe that market to be threatened with weakening if the charge goes ahead as proposed.
When people say that I should not read a conspiracy or a plot into these proceedings, I am reminded of a quotation from Adam Smith:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
In my closing remarks, I should make it clear that my chief concern is not with the activities of the major bookmaking companies. I do not think that there is a company in any market anywhere that has not tried to raise its margins by one means or another. It is part of the natural job of a company to attempt to increase its profitability. I am much more concerned with the role of the BHB. It seems to me that the genesis of the BHB and some of its activities, and the control that it has over things such as racecourse information, mean that it should be holding the ring. It is meant to be the referee—a regulator of the industry. There is a difficulty if the BHB has a vested interest in profits increasing for bookmaking chains because, under the levy, it will get 10 per cent. of that profit increase. It is difficult when the referee becomes one of the players, and that may be the case now.
308WH
The 10 per cent. charge on on-course bookmakers may not be the central problem facing the horse racing industry, but it is unjust. It was arrived at through the wrong means. There was no effective process of consultation, and the charge might have serious implications for punters across the country—millions of people who have the right to expect the protection of a competitive market.
In betting activities for which there is not such a competitive market, bookmakers arrive at their own prices. In horse racing in South Africa or Italy, for example, only pool prices are returned, and there are sometimes profit margins of 180 per cent. in the bookmakers' own starting prices. The margins in UK horse racing are much finer because the on-course market that sets the SPs is very competitive. It would be against the public interest if, through one means or another, those margins were unfairly increased. It is also against the public interest if a section of the industry—a lynchpin, a protector for the punter at large—is treated unfairly. The charge and the way that it is being introduced treats on-course bookmakers unfairly. I hope that the Minister shares those concerns.
I do not say that the charge is the only issue facing the industry, or that people may not have decent motives for doing what they are doing. However, I hope that the Minister is prepared to address my central concerns about the confusion between the regulatory bodies involved in the industry; what their interests are; and who is representing the punters and defending consumer interest, now that the charge is being carried through. Unless we consider those concerns through the Office of Fair Trading, ministerial intervention or at least ministerial concern, we might find that this magnificent opportunity, to which the Government contributed through their wise decision to change the taxation structure, is dissipated as the lack of an effective referee begins to operate against the public and racing interest.
3.47 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate, even though I had to come back from a meeting of Ministers in Copenhagen to address the House this afternoon. It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that the Government have done quite a lot for the racing industry. He used phrases such as "win-win situation", "robust" and "very wise". The industry is doing extremely well on the betting side and on the horse racing side, which we are discussing. In fact, in a few years, horse racing income will have doubled.
3.48 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.56 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Frank Cook): We can resume our sitting with eight minutes of injury time.
Mr. Caborn: As I was saying, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave due credit to the Government for what they have done for the industry. In a few short

309WH
years, the racing industry will have doubled its income, which shows the magnitude of the tax changes. If the recent results of Ladbrokes are anything to go by, the bookmakers are not poor either. It has been a win-win situation for the industry. We are talking about relative positions because, overall, both sides of the racing industry are thriving. The punters have had a reasonable deal, and reinvestment into facilities will pay dividends.
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is disappointing that the industry has probably not taken advantage of the opportunities placed before it. We have tried to create a framework for the industry, which is extremely important for leisure activities, employment and economic activity. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the problems that we have tried to resolve. The Jockey Club responded positively to the "Panorama" programme, and I am confident that in the not-toodistant future we shall have a new regulatory structure to deal with jockeys, owners and trainers.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, until the Office of Fair Trading decides who owns the data, it is unlikely to make decisions on complaints that bookmakers have made to it. Until the major principle of who owns the data is decided, we can only speculate on that decision and the major implications of it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take an active interest in the industry, and I will watch what is happening throughout it, particularly in the area to which he referred. We have made a major investment in the industry through our tax reorganisation. We have tried to be fair with the industry. The fact that the money on the data is actually going through the levy structure makes it tax efficient in its own right. It does not bear VAT, which is a saving of 17.5 per cent. Again, we have raised no objections to that at this stage. We have tried to be as helpful to the industry as we can.
Some important points have been raised. The starting price has been the subject of some discussion. Changes in the industry have been brought about by the convergence of technologies. Betting exchanges are now coming into play, although I have no evidence at the moment that they are undermining the on-course market. I have no proof of that, and it is very difficult to consider that situation objectively. If there is an unwelcome impact, it should be negated for the time being by the enforcement of the current National Joint Pitch Council rule, which prevents on-course bookmakers from taking or laying bets through betting exchanges.
Our starting point on the SP system should be an acknowledgement that there is nothing sacrosanct about it. We, as a Government, have no locus on that matter. It is for the industry to determine. It is not
310WH
enshrined in statute, and whether to use it has always been purely a matter of choice for off-course bookmakers. Off-course bookmakers are licensed in the same way as on-course bookmakers, and could offer their own prices on every race now if they wished. That is a clear position, and a debate is under way on it at the moment. The same position on starting prices already exists in every other betting opportunity apart from horse racing and greyhound racing.
Mr. Salmond: I suggest that there is a legitimate Government interest. The on-course market sets the starting price, which sets the majority of bets. If this imposition weakened the on-course market and resulted in a raising of margins, at a conservative estimate, some £40 million of off-course money would go straight from the pockets of consumers—punters—into Government profits, into the BHB via the Levy Board and into the profits of large bookmakers. That seems to me to be a matter of consumer interest, which is part of Government responsibility.
Mr. Caborn: I was coming to that. The letters to which the hon. Gentleman referred—it would be helpful if I could have copies of them—implied that a cartel is emerging. I can assure him that the OFT is already taking a passing interest in the matter. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there could be a lack of competition, which could become unhealthy and lead to operations under a cartel. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the people who would suffer most would be the punters. We will watch that situation, and other institutions will look into it, too.
On BHB data charging, the commercial market and market forces will determine that. I shall take an active interest in any spin-offs from that, and will consider the matter carefully to ensure that the industry runs fairly for the punter. I have made it clear many times that the investment now going into the industry must be from not only the bookmakers and others, but the punters. Three areas should gain from the new fiscal arrangements in place. As I have mentioned, that matter has been referred to the OFT. I do not think that it will proceed at any pace until the OFT has taken the major decision on the rules and regulations and on who owns the data rights. Once that has been determined, the OFT may consider the imposition of the 10 per cent. requirement and whether it is fair to the industry and, in particular, to the punters. We shall probably have to wait a little while until the OFT concludes its work on the first inquiry.
4.4 pm
Sitting suspended.

Iran
4.8 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: The people of Iran have now suffered some 40 years of tyranny. In 1963, the Shah undertook what was called the white revolution, clamping down on the people. Ever since, the people have been under tyranny. The Shah was regarded as a friend of ours and we tolerated him. In 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini succeeded in overthrowing the Shah. The tyranny continued, and the Ayatollah was our enemy. He died in 1989 and the current Ayatollah, or supreme leader, is Ayatollah Khamenei, who was previously the president.
In 1997, after Rafsanjani had been president, Ayatollah Khatami became president. People in the United Kingdom, and perhaps in the whole of the western world, almost breathed a sigh of relief because he had a reputation for being a moderate. As a result, in September 1998, at the General Assembly of the United Nations, the current Leader of the Houseߞthen
Foreign Secretary—made a deal with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Kharrazi, to restart a relationship. In May 1999 that resulted in full diplomatic relations being restored.
President Khatami was seen as a man who espoused reform, was moderate and wanted change. The United Kingdom hoped that by contacting Iran we would help the reform process. That was summed up by the current Secretary of State for Defence—then a junior Minister in the Foreign Office—at a speech, appropriately enough, at Sandhurst, on 14 July 1999. He said:
"We still have important concerns over Iranian policy, particularly over support for terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and human rights. But we believe the current Iranian Government is making good progress in the right direction, and we are resolved to support that."
That sums up British policy in a nutshell. Since then, Foreign Minister Kharrazi has made two visits to the United Kingdom, in 2001 and earlier this year. The present Foreign Secretary has made two visits to Iran, and several other Government Ministers—Cabinet and non-Cabinet have visited Tehran during those years.
The European Union takes a similar view. The External Affairs Commissioner, Chris Patten, in response to a US attack on Iran had this to say:
"There is more to be said for trying to engage and draw these societies into the international community than to cut them off."
The United Kingdom and the European Union were as one in trying to create a dialogue involving both trade and human rights issues. The United States, however, remained totally unconvinced of President Khatami's ability to deliver the reform agenda. In February 2002, US Secretary of State Colin Powell posed the following questions, which were published in the Financial Times on 13 February:
"How can we ignore the fact that this country continues to barrel straight ahead trying to achieve a nuclear capability?"
He added:
"How can we ignore the fact that they are complicit in shipping arms of a very escalatory nature in the Middle East?"
He also stated:
"Iran sponsors terrorist organisations. Should we hold back from pointing this out?"
312WH
The EU and UK, and the US have two quite diverse and different views.
What does the record tell us during the last few years? Huge amounts of material are available. There is a very useful House of Commons Library brief on Iran. The Foreign Office publishes human rights reports. There are reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, United States Departments, the UN rapporteur on human rights, and a host of other groups with an interest in human rights and the situation in Iran, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Iranian Women's Association in the UK, the Iranian Civil Rights Committee and the International Committee against Stoning. There are many more. What do those sources reveal about the progress being made in Iran through the process of engagement by the UK Government? The Foreign Office report of 2000 states:
"Iran's reformers have made some progress over the last year. But there have been many setbacks too. The human rights situation … has on balance deteriorated over the past year despite the support of the reformers by an overwhelming majority of the Iranian people."
The 2001 report continues in much the same vein:
"The pace of progress has slowed since he was first elected in 1997 mostly as a result of the continuing struggle between the reformists and conservatives.
The conservative-dominated judiciary has closed down over 50 publications in the past two years… and imprisoned a number of journalists and editors … A number of members of the Majles have been given prison sentences, mainly for critical remarks made in the Majles"—
let us hope that that is not taken up here, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"although only one, Hoseyn Loqmanian, was actually imprisoned… His pardon by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini, defused the short-term confrontation, but the underlying issue of Parliamentary immunity remains in doubt".
There is one small bright spark on the horizon. We note that there has been some improvement in the situation of the Baha'is over the past year, and that none are now under sentence of death just for being of that faith. The Human Rights Watch report of 2003 paints much the same picture:
"Despite landslide electoral victories in every major election from 1997 to 2002, the reformers were unable to dislodge repressive policies favored by the clerical leadership, including far-reaching restrictions on freedom of expression, association and political participation.
The Guardian Council repeatedly blocked bills passed by the Parliament in such areas as women's rights, family law, the prevention of torture, and electoral reform. The judiciary … undermined the rule of law with arbitrary closures of newspapers and imprisonment of political activists … Any pretence that legal principles would be observed in regulating the press disappeared. Iran's press courts acted as a law unto themselves, issuing closure orders by decree without legal basis".
The picture is not good. Executions, floggings, stonings, maimings and arbitrary arrests all continue at a high level. The National Council for Resistance of Iran, which monitors the official press, reported that 474 sentences of execution were granted last year and many of them were carried out. That is 50 per cent. up on 2001. In reply to my written question it was pointed out that 139 executions were recorded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or whoever takes down such information.

313WH
Three men and three women were stoned to death in 1997; two or possibly three women in 2001; and three stoning sentences were passed on women in 2002. The National Council for Resistance reports that 26 stoning sentences have been passed since 1997. This year 50 executions have been reported up to 5 February. Ninety prisoners have received nearly 5,000 lashes—this is just in January—and there have been four cross-amputations: one leg and one arm cut off on alternate sides of the body. A woman's eyes were gauged out. The situation is not pretty.
Many of the mullahs maintain that they have banned stoning, but there is no evidence that that is so. A Bill to abolish stoning is said to have been proposed, but an MP says that that is a lie and no proposal for the abolition of stoning has been presented to the Majles. An official in south-east Iran told the BBC in December that he had received no written or official instructions from the judiciary to cancel sentences of stoning. The situation is bleak.
For the first time in seven years a UN rapporteur has been allowed into Iran. In a report on the jails in Iran published at the end of February this year, the team reported:
"Iranians suffer large-scale arbitrary detentions and some prisons operate outside the control of the judicial system".
They were given full co-operation, but it was
"the first time the working group has been faced with such a practice on such a scale".
So the situation is not good in Iran's jails either. It is vital that within the European Union the UK makes sure that at the general assembly of the European Commission on Human Rights later this month a censure motion on human rights abuses in Iran is passed and the human rights rapporteur is reinstated, because last year for the first time in many years that motion failed by one vote. We must make sure that it happens.
It is not surprising for such a country to be the suicide capital of the world. It certainly has one of the highest rates of suicide. Some 75 per cent. of all suicides are women, and more than 80 per cent. of those are women between the ages of 15 and 31. The picture is not pretty.
We should consider the other areas of concern. The United States believes that Iran is the most active sponsor of terrorism and that it helps Hezbollah and Islamic jihad. Although it has condemned the 11 September atrocities and has sent some al-Qaeda people back to Europe for trial, early in January a boatload of arms was captured on its way to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran's nuclear plans are also a cause for concern. The National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed in August that the Iranians were working on new nuclear facilities for enriched uranium in heavy water, which would provide the opportunity to build weapons. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, but it nevertheless failed to report those new works to the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am not sure whether Mohammed el-Baradei has had a chance to go to Iran to check the situation, but he has expressed concern and intends to see what is going on.
The CIA national intelligence estimates reckon that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2015, but if it receives foreign assistance it could be a lot sooner. Its biological and chemical weapons programmes are recognised by the United States. It has a ballistic missile
314WH
that can already reach 800 miles. The National Council of Resistance of Iran reports that the country is working on longer-range missiles, and the United States thinks that the country may have an intercontinental missile within the next decade, which is of grave concern.
I hope that our Government will do much more than carry on a dialogue. There have been recent local government elections in Iran. In Tehran, only 12 per cent. turned out. One of President Khatami's supporters said that that was an indication that the people had lost hope of achieving democratic change through the ballot box. That must be a serious warning of what might happen in Iran.
There was so much hope when Khatami came to power. There was a large turnout of 80 per cent. plus for his first election, but that is all turning to dust. On every front, the Government of Iran, instead of getting better, are getting worse. President Khatami seems to have been the fig leaf for the tyranny of Ayatollah Khamenei. The Majles has no power of its own and everything that it does must be approved by the Guardian Council. The country may want reform, but President Khatami has his legs manacled and one arm tied behind his back while being in the ring with Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis—that is the measure of the struggle that the country faces. It is true that the people want change; they showed that by electing Khatami, a potential reformer. Reports in the western press coming out of Tehran also indicate that there is an underground desire for change. However, there is not much hope of it happening. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Guardian Council and the judiciary do not want change. People are certainly talking to them, but Ayatollah Khamenei is not listening. Many exiles, who live in countries around the world including the United Kingdom, fled from the tyranny of the mullahs and want to return to a democratic, free and tolerant state. They must recognise that those objectives are also our objectives.
Sir Sydney Chapman rose—
The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane)rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Perhaps I should explain to the Chamber that 30-minute debates are essentially between a Member and the Minister, unless prior arrangements have been made and passed on to the Chair.
4.24 pm
Mr. MacShane: That clarification is helpful, because last week there was a half-hour Adjournment debate in which five hon. Members spoke. I was happy to leave room for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), but your clarification of House practice is helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate. The Government share many of his concerns about Iran, which is why I believe that we are right to pursue a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement. That allows us to support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern. Those issues include Iranian support to

315WH
terrorist groups involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict—my hon. Friend has put the facts about that support before the House—Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction and aspects of its human rights record.
We continue to engage Iran on a wide range of issues of common interest, including bi-lateral co-operation in the fight against drugs, which is a matter of great concern for many of our constituents, and international support for reconstruction and the interim Administration in Afghanistan. For many years, Iran has hosted more than 2 million refugees from both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Department for International Development has provided substantial support—more than £4.3 million since 1999–2000—for refugee programmes in Iran and has agreed to fund several United Nations agency and non-governmental organisation projects. We regularly discuss Iraq with our Iranian counterparts. Like the UK, Iran is committed to the maintenance of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its current borders.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for misunderstanding the convention. Has the Minister any evidence that the violent, barbaric punishments and executions in Iran are subsiding? Will he confirm that it is false to assert, as the regime has done, that there is a moratorium on stoning?
Mr. MacShane: I hope to cover those points in the rest of my remarks.
Our policy of engagement enables us better to put forward our views and concerns, which has only been made possible by the changes that have taken place in Iran since President Khatami was first elected in May 1997. The UK supports President Khatami's stated objective of a civil society based on the rule of law. We welcomed his re-election in June 2001 with an increased share of the vote, which demonstrated the Iranian people's clear will for reform and gave him a strong mandate. Unfortunately, owing to the complex political situation in Iran, to which my hon. Friend referred, President Khatami has had many problems in implementing his policies of political and economic reform.
Naturally, the Government share many of my hon. Friend's concerns about human rights in Iran, which we and our EU partners have addressed through dialogue, UN resolutions and practical projects. We and our EU partners regularly make clear to the Iranian authorities, at all levels, our concerns about human rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so most recently in his meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 6 February. We use a wide range of independent sources to assess the situation. Our embassy in Tehran also gathers information from its sources and colleagues at other like-minded embassies.
We welcome the efforts that the Iranian Government and Parliament have made towards seeking to improve the human rights situation in Iran, but we regret that because of the political stand-off between reformers and their conservative opponents, who include members of the judiciary, there is still a long way to go. The people
316WH
and elected Government of Iran want an improvement in the human rights situation. The Iranian Parliament has drafted a number of Bills on important issues, such as the prohibition of torture, which have been rejected by the Guardian Council as incompatible with religious teachings: that is, despite the fact that the Iranian constitution prohibits torture. The Iranian Parliament is determined to make progress on the issue, and we hope that it succeeds.
The United Kingdom and European Union believe that one way of expressing their concerns is to sponsor resolutions on human rights in Iran at the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, as has been done for many years. We were disappointed that the Commission on Human Rights failed, by just one vote, to adopt the resolution on Iran in April last year. As my hon. Friend noted, that also meant the end of the mandate of the special representative. In practice, the special representative has not been allowed to visit Iran since 1996, but his reports on the human rights situation provided valuable detail on the human rights problems in Iran, and he was active in pursuing cases with the Iranian Government.
All EU partners are concerned about the human rights situation in Iran, and we are currently consulting on the most effective way in which to encourage positive change. A resolution is one of a number of tools currently under consideration.
Following the failure of the resolution last year, Iran made a number of gestures, including inviting the EU to engage in a dialogue on human rights. After an internal debate, the EU decided to take up the offer and the first round of the dialogue took place in mid-December. The next round will take place later this month, which will give us an opportunity to assess progress before the next Commission on Human Rights begins its work on 17 March. Discussions in December were frank, and the EU made it clear to the Iranians that they need to be able to show results to get agreement for the talks to continue. Initial impressions have been positive, although change, as ever, is likely to be slow. The EU delegation handed over a list of cases on which answers were sought, and those issues will be followed up this month. My hon. Friend quoted Commissioner Chris Patten. When Chris Patten visited Tehran in February he said that it was not enough just to talk about human rights and that we needed to see progress. Of course, he was right.
In a further development following the failure of the resolution last year, there has been an open invitation to UN Human Rights Commission inspectors to visit Iran. The UN working group on arbitrary detentions was the first to take up the invitation, and completed an inspection in February. The group has still to make a full report.
Together with our EU partners, we have repeatedly expressed concern about stonings, which is a subject on which reformers, and especially women's groups, in Iran have been campaigning for years. We welcomed the announcement at the end of last year by the head of the Supreme Administrative Court that the practice has been suspended. We have also been informed that, of the four women who were sentenced to death by stoning last year, three have been given alternative sentences and the fourth is awaiting the outcome of her appeal. We are

317WH
monitoring the situation closely, because that barbaric practice is not acceptable to any decent human being anywhere in the world.
We are considering other ways of developing practical co-operation on human rights issues. We have supported a number of projects through the Foreign Office's human rights projects fund. The projects include technical assistance on specific issues relating to the rule of law and work by Penal Reform International, a highly regarded worldwide organisation, which was initially approached by the Iranian prison authorities, who are keen to reform their prisons. Other projects have included specialised training for judges working with juveniles, through UNICEF; strengthening the capacities of the Islamic Human Rights Commission; human rights training courses for young adults; and a familiarisation visit by five Iranian judges to the UK, which took place last March.
I accept the point that hon. Members have made about progress remaining slow. There is a steady, drip-by-drip attempt to show Iranian officials that an alternative system is possible. We noted at least 111 executions last year, some of which took place in public. The Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and we urge all states to abolish it.
We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our serious concerns about the treatment of the Baha'is. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is unacceptable. Although no Baha'is remain under sentence of death, they continue to suffer harassment and discrimination in areas such as education, employment, housing and travel.
Despite moves to improve the situation of women, such as amending the divorce law to make it easier for women to initiate the divorce, there is continuing discrimination against women in the courts and in society generally. However, Iran has many women MPs and a woman Minister. Women are pursuing those matters and debating them with senior clerics, some of whom support their case. An increasing number of Iranian women go on to higher education and participate in politics, and that can only help them in their efforts to improve their status.
318WH
Freedom of speech remains under threat, particularly the freedom to speak out. However, there is lively debate in public and in the media on a wide range of subjects, and we acknowledge that Iran is a country of great culture and education. The Iranians want nothing more than to be able to enjoy the freedoms normally enjoyed by those who live in democracies. None the less, 90 newspapers and other similar publications have been closed during the past three years. Journalists and editors have been jailed, and lawyers have been jailed for speaking out on behalf of clients who claim that they have been tortured. Students have been imprisoned for taking part in demonstrations.
We take every opportunity to press the Iranian authorities on their approach to the middle east peace process. Peace in the middle east is in everyone's interests, including those of Iran. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have discussed the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister. We believe that Iranians should be more constructive in their attitude to the middle east process, and that they should support efforts to resolve the differences between those involved.
I am concerned, as is my hon. Friend, about Iranian resources being used by Palestinian groups to carry out atrocious and unacceptable attacks on civilians in Israel. We might argue about the definition of terrorism, but attacks on civilians can never be justified, whether in Israel or Palestine—or by terrorist groups in Iran.
We continue to press the director general of the International Atomic Energy Authority to investigate allegations that Iran has weapons of mass destruction. We have encouraged Iran to be transparent about its nuclear activities in order to dispel concerns about the nature and purpose of those activities. The situations in Iran and Iraq are worrying. They cannot be ignored, and we seek a peaceful resolution to both.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I assure him that the Foreign Office and the Government take seriously human rights and other political developments in Iran.
It being twenty-two minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  "Sustainable Communities in the East of England"
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from Bedfordshire following publication of his plans 'Sustainable Communities in the East of England'. [100659]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with Bedfordshire County Council, Bedfordshire authorities, infrastructure providers and other local and regional partners, on detailed Assessments of the growth potential of the Luton and Bedford/Marston Vale areas. Both towns are key locations with the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Deputy prime Minister what representations he has received from Bedfordshire following publication of his plans 'Sustainable Communities in the East of England'.

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with Bedfordshire County Council and Bedfordshire districts, as well as infrastructure providers, on detailed assessments of the growth potential of the Luton and Bedford/ Marston Vale areas. Both towns are key locations within the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area. [100657]

  Regional Government
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has made in establishing regional governance in England. [100660]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill had its Report and Third Reading in the House of Commons on 23 January 2003 and received its Second Reading in the other place on 24 February 2003. The Bill provides for the English regions to hold referendums about an elected assembly, and for a review of two-tier local government by the Boundary Committee before a referendum is held in a particular region.

  As my right hon. Friend said earlier we have invited responses by 3 March 2003 to the soundings exercise.

  Local Government Finance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the local government settlement for councils in east Sussex. [100661]
  1000W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the debate on the local government finance settlement 2003–04 which took place on 5 February 2003,Official Report, columns 353–406 and to the letter sent to the hon. Member on 3 February setting out the above-inflation grant increases for all councils in east Sussex.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from south eastern local authorities regarding the local government funding settlement. [100662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  28 authorities in the south east responded to our consultation on the local government finance settlement 2003–04. In addition, eight authorities from this region came in to see Ministers to make representations on our proposals during this consultation period. Parliament has, of course, now approved the settlement which provides an increase in Government grant of £3.8 billion overall. This is an increase of 8 per cent. representing a continued significant real terms investment in local government.

  Cash Incentive Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cash incentive scheme grants were made by each local authority in London in 2001–02; and what the total value was of these grants in each case. [99171]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of cash incentive scheme grants made by those London borough's running schemes in 2001–02 and the total value of grants made are in the following table.

  Total number of grants

  Total expenditure (£000)

  Barnet

  32

  686

  Camden

  33

  797

  Croydon

  49

  975

  Enfield

  49

  1,183

  Haringey

  18

  354

  Harrow

  1

  20

  Havering

  3

  37

  Hillingdon

  16

  221

  Islington

  7

  193

  Kingston upon Thames

  16

  305

  Lewisham

  34

  607

  Merton

  9

  206

  Sutton

  1

  22

  Tower Hamlets

  36

  579

  Waltham Forest

  19

  592

  Wandsworth

  35

  756

  Westminster

  15

  429

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses have been sold in each year since 1997 in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK. [99928]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information is not available below local authority level. The available information reported by South Tyneside MBC and the other
  1001W
  metropolitan borough councils comprising Tyne and Wear is in the following table, together with estimated number of sales in Great Britain. Information on the

  Sales of council dwellings in south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and Great Britain: 1997–98 to 2001–02

  All sales

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  South Tyneside

  283

  209

  355

  1—

  1—

  Gateshead

  326

  283

  452

  445

  510

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  267

  207

  316

  266(3)

  569

  North Tyneside

  202

  209

  345

  338

  396

  Sunderland

  642

  546

  713

  237,534

  0(3)

  Tyne and Wear

  1,720

  1,454

  2,181

  N/a

  N/a

  Great Britain

  Total sales

  95,764

  133,118

  168,773

  202,365

  106,320

  Of which to owner occupiers

  59,513

  56,298

  71,965

  69,779

  69,061

  1 Not reported

  2 Includes 36,356 dwellings transferred by Sunderland City Council to Sunderland Housing Group in March 2002

  Note:

  Where there has not been full reporting, the figures in brackets indicate the number of quarters for which complete information is available within the financial year.

  Source:

  DOE/DETR/DTLR/ODPM quarterly P1B return

  Fire Service Deaths
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) deaths in incidents attended by firefighters at night and (b) deaths in incidents attended by firefighters during day shift hours there were in each fire brigade area in the last year for which figures are available. [100123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest data available are tabled as follows. These show fires and deaths occurring in fires attended by local authority fire brigades between the following time periods; (i) 9 am and 5.59 pm (i.e. the

  Deaths in primary fires1 by brigade and time of day, UK, 2001–022

  Total

  09:00–17:59

  18:00–23:59

  Brigade

  Fires

  Deaths

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  United Kingdom

  228,087

  635

  79,207

  227

  2.9

  89,662

  154

  1.7

  (Estimates are shown in brackets)3

  (614)

  England and Wales

  201,433

  520

  70,157

  191

  2.7

  79,888

  125

  1.6

  (Estimates are shown in brackets)3

  (498)

  England

  188,701

  481

  65,749

  179

  2.7

  74,843

  117

  1.6

  England-Non-Met Counties

  105,588

  276

  37,792

  108

  2.9

  40,959

  69

  1.7

  Avon

  4,883

  7

  1,414

  1

  0.7

  2,032

  1

  0.5

  Bedfordshire4

  2,045

  5

  603

  1

  1.7

  797

  3

  3.8

  Berkshire

  2,649

  5

  947

  2

  2.1

  902

  3

  3.3

  Buckinghamshire

  2,729

  8

  1,021

  3

  2.9

  1,063

  4

  3.8

  Cambridgeshire

  2,373

  4

  808

  2

  2.5

  879

  1

  1.1

  Cheshire

  3,403

  6

  1,243

  4

  3.2

  1,230

  0

  0.0

  Cleveland

  3,600

  7

  1,269

  4

  3.2

  1,573

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  1,472

  7

  647

  2

  3.1

  447

  2

  4.5

  Cumbria

  1,666

  4

  683

  2

  2.9

  585

  1

  1.7

  Derbyshire

  2,832

  10

  992

  4

  4.0

  1,139

  4

  3.5

  Devon

  3,329

  7

  1,455

  2

  1.4

  1,105

  2

  1.8

  Dorset

  1,950

  8

  693

  5

  7.2

  742

  1

  1.3

  Durham

  2,398

  6

  841

  0

  0.0

  1,014

  4

  3.9

  East Sussex

  2,822

  7

  1,054

  1

  0.9

  1,038

  5

  4.8

  Essex

  4,597

  10

  1,632

  6

  3.7

  1,774

  1

  0.6

  Gloucestershire

  1,720

  6

  658

  2

  3.0

  621

  1

  1.6

  Hampshire

  4,344

  14

  1,795

  8

  4.5

  1,584

  3

  1.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,083

  4

  843

  3

  3.6

  791

  0

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  2,826

  9

  1,023

  6

  5.9

  1,126

  3

  2.7

  Humberside

  3,846

  7

  1,295

  5

  3.9

  1,588

  0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  406

  0

  186

  0

  0.0

  147

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  5,152

  21

  1,766

  6

  3.4

  2,094

  4

  1.9

  Lancashire

  5,801

  18

  2,133

  7

  3.3

  2,176

  3

  1.4

  Leicestershire

  3,254

  14

  1,121

  8

  7.1

  1,319

  3

  2.3

  1002W
  total number of council house sales in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997 is currently incomplete.

  Sales of council dwellings in south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and Great Britain: 1997–98 to 2001–02

  standard day shift), (ii) between 6 pm and 23.59 pm and (iii) between midnight and 8.59am. The "night" period has been split into more comparable time intervals rather than one 15 hour duration.

  The time of the fire is defined as the time at which the emergency call was received by the local authority fire brigade and may differ in some circumstances from the time at which the fire actually started.

  Information on deaths occurring in other incidents attended by fire crews (such as road traffic accidents) is not available by time of incident.
  1003W

  Deaths in primary fires1 by brigade and time of day, UK, 2001–022

  Total

  09:00–17:59

  18:00–23:59

  Brigade

  Fires

  Deaths

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  Lincolnshire

  1,861

  5

  679

  3

  4.4

  793

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  2,282

  8

  816

  2

  2.5

  845

  3

  3.6

  North Yorkshire

  2,088

  2

  703

  0

  0.0

  876

  0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  2,663

  4

  903

  2

  2.2

  1,058

  0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  1,205

  2

  374

  1

  2.7

  522

  1

  1.9

  Nottinghamshire

  5,503

  9

  1,638

  3

  1.8

  2,521

  1

  0.4

  Oxfordshire

  1,885

  5

  751

  3

  4.0

  637

  2

  3.1

  Shropshire

  1,604

  4

  594

  2

  3.4

  657

  1

  1.5

  Somerset

  1,787

  10

  676

  3

  4.4

  606

  1

  1.7

  Staffordshire

  3,217

  9

  1,068

  1

  0.9

  1,326

  3

  2.3

  Suffolk

  1,642

  4

  554

  0

  0.0

  653

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  2,447

  3

  969

  0

  0.0

  866

  1

  1.2

  Warwickshire

  1,534

  8

  505

  2

  4.0

  602

  3

  5.0

  West Sussex

  2,214

  4

  805

  1

  1.2

  741

  2

  2.7

  Wiltshire

  1,474

  5

  632

  1

  1.6

  492

  2

  4.1

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  —

  England-Met Counties

  83,113

  205

  27,957

  71

  2.5

  33,884

  48

  1.4

  Greater Manchester

  16,309

  37

  5,251

  17

  3.2

  6,736

  9

  1.3

  Merseyside

  8,334

  17

  2,833

  3

  1.1

  3,591

  4

  1.1

  South

  5,548

  21

  1,590

  8

  5.0

  2,389

  6

  2.5

  Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  6,518

  7

  2,293

  2

  0.9

  2,684

  0

  0.0

  West Midlands

  12,862

  37

  4,372

  14

  3.2

  5,391

  12

  2.2

  West Yorkshire

  11,641

  16

  3,308

  6

  1.8

  5,109

  4

  0.8

  Greater London

  21,901

  70

  8,310

  21

  2.5

  7,983

  13

  1.6

  Wales

  12,732

  39

  4,408

  12

  2.7

  5,045

  8

  1.6

  North Wales

  2,362

  17

  844

  7

  8.3

  824

  4

  4.9

  Mid and West Wales

  3,947

  13

  1,521

  4

  2.6

  1,539

  1

  0.6

  South Wales

  6,423

  9

  2,043

  1

  0.5

  2,682

  3

  1.1

  Northern Ireland

  6,991

  19

  1,957

  7

  3.6

  2,318

  2

  0.9

  Scotland

  19,663

  96

  7,093

  29

  4.1

  7,456

  27

  3.6

  Strathclyde

  9,522

  40

  3,211

  10

  3.1

  3,704

  15

  4.0

  Highland and Islands

  665

  4

  293

  1

  3.4

  180

  2

  11.1

  Grampian

  1,664

  16

  625

  6

  9.6

  565

  7

  12.4

  Tayside

  1,599

  10

  604

  1

  1.7

  658

  0

  0.0

  Lothian and Borders

  3,731

  14

  1,350

  4

  3.0

  1,456

  2

  1.4

  Fife

  1,229

  5

  478

  3

  6.3

  430

  1

  2.3

  Central

  886

  5

  376

  2

  5.3

  339

  0

  0.0

  Dumfries

  368

  2

  155

  2

  12.9

  126

  0

  0.0

  00:00–08:59

  Tune of incident unknown

  Brigade

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  Fires

  Deaths

  United Kingdom

  59,191

  252

  4.3

  27

  2

  (Estimates are shown in brackets)3

  England and Wales

  51,367

  202

  3.9

  22

  2

  (Estimates are shown in brackets)3

  England

  48,088

  183

  3.8

  22

  2

  England-Non-Met Counties

  26,826

  97

  3.6

  11

  2

  Avon

  1,438

  5

  3.5

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire4

  645

  1

  1.6

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  800

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  644

  1

  1.6

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  685

  1

  1.5

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  930

  2

  2.2

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  758

  3

  4.0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  377

  3

  8.0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  398

  1

  2.5

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  701

  2

  2.9

  0

  0

  Devon

  770

  3

  3.9

  0

  0

  Dorset

  516

  2

  3.9

  0

  0

  Durham

  543

  2

  3.7

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  725

  1

  1.4

  5

  0

  Essex

  1,192

  3

  2.5

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  440

  3

  6.8

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  965

  3

  3.1

  0

  0

  1004W 1005W

  00:00–08:59

  Time of incident unknown

  Brigade

  Fires

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 fires

  Fires

  Deaths

  Hereford and Worcester

  450

  1

  2.2

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  676

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  963

  2

  2.1

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  73

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,292

  11

  8.5

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  1,493

  8

  5.4

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  814

  3

  3.7

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  389

  2

  5.1

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  621

  3

  4.8

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  508

  2

  3.9

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  703

  2

  2.8

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  309

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,344

  5

  3.7

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  497

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  353

  1

  2.8

  0

  0

  Somerset

  505

  6

  11.9

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  817

  3

  3.7

  6

  2

  Suffolk

  435

  4

  9.2

  0

  0

  Surrey

  612

  2

  3.3

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  426

  3

  7.0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  668

  1

  1.5

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  351

  2

  5.7

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  England-Met Counties

  21,26

  86

  4.0

  10

  0

  Greater Manchester

  4,322

  11

  2.5

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  1,905

  10

  5.2

  5

  0

  South

  1,568

  7

  4.5

  0

  0

  Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  1,541

  5

  3.2

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  3,099

  11

  3.5

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  3,224

  6

  1.9

  0

  0

  Greater London

  5,603

  36

  6.4

  5

  0

  Wales

  3,279

  19

  5.8

  0

  0

  North Wales

  694

  6

  8.6

  0

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  888

  8

  9.0

  0

  0

  South Wales

  1,698

  5

  2.9

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland

  2,710

  10

  3.7

  5

  0

  Scotland

  5,113

  40

  7.8

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  2,608

  15

  5.8

  0

  0

  Highland and Islands

  192

  1

  5.2

  0

  0

  Grampian

  474

  3

  6.3

  0

  0

  Tayside

  337

  9

  26.7

  0

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  924

  8

  8.7

  0

  0

  Fife

  321

  1

  3.1

  0

  0

  Central

  171

  3

  17.5

  0

  0

  Dumfries

  87

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  1 A primary fire is any fire in a building or vehicle and/or a fire which involved casualties or rescues. Includes late call and heat and smoke damage incidents (not recorded prior to 1994).

  2 Provisional.

  3 The fatality figures for 2001–02 are likely to be revised as later information becomes available. Estimates for the revised totals for United kingdom and England and Wales are shown in brackets.

  4 Since publication of 'Fire Statistics Monitor-Q1 2002' Bedfordshire has supplied data for quarter 1 2002. This means the figures here differ slightly from those previously published.

  Housing Regeneration
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance he will give to areas with significant housing regeneration needs which are not Pathfinder areas. [100658]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing billions of pounds in housing over the next three years. Local authorities through their housing strategies can use these resources, alongside 1006W
  those of their partners, to tackle the housing problems they face. Authorities now have the chance to make a real long lasting difference for their communities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that Redcar is an area with significant difficulties in terms of low demand housing. This was recognised in the draft regional housing strategy prepared by the North East Housing Forum and it is likely to be priority for the new regional housing board.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the current debt is in each English authority's housing revenue account; and if he will estimate the cost of debt redemption charges if the debt was cancelled. [100330]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities manage their debt corporately so there are no separate data for debt in respect of housing. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does however make estimates of national housing debt for the purposes of housing revenue account subsidy calculations. This is listed for each authority as the Mid-Year Subsidy Credit Ceiling for 2003–04 in Schedule 6 Column I of The Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 2003–04. This Schedule can be seen at http://www. housing.odpm.gov.uk/03hrad/fmal/index.htm.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have detailed knowledge of the debt of each authority and so we cannot estimate the cost of debt redemption charges if debt were cancelled.

  Total housing capital receipts

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bridgnorth

  1,603

  1,780

  2,205

  1,348

  1,591

  North Shropshire

  1,337

  1,191

  1,827

  1,739

  1,760

  Oswestry

  535

  747

  1,643

  1,429

  1,080

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  2,457

  2,837

  3,364

  3,101

  62,846

  South Shropshire

  310

  224

  437

  197

  280

  Telford and Wrekin

  3,795

  96,913

  213

  1,996

  2,688

  Usable capital receipts applied to housing capital programme

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bridgnorth

  548

  627

  401

  0

  359

  North Shropshire

  345

  313

  360

  278

  368

  Oswestry

  98

  115

  68

  0

  0

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  802

  434

  360

  1,057

  499

  South Shropshire

  895

  859

  853

  819

  677

  Telford and Wrekin

  290

  3,105

  439

  2,112

  2,071

  Note:

  Large scale voluntary transfers of council stock undertaken by Telford and Wrekin in March 1999, and by Shrewsbury and Atcham in October 2001.

  Source:

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister annual Housing Investment Programme and COR returns

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the authorities who have not(a) transferred their housing stock and (b) set up an Arms-length Management Organisation. [100333]

  Mr. McNulty
  The local housing authorities in England that had not transferred all of their housing stock or been successful in achieving full Arms-length Management Organisation status at the end of February are listed below.
  1008W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those local authorities whose housing revenue accounts are(a) in surplus and (b) in deficit, providing for each (i) the average surplus or deficit per dwelling and (ii) the number of dwellings. [100253]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value of housing capital receipts not recycled into capital housing spend was in each of the last five years in each(a) borough and (b) district council in Shropshire. [99721]

  Mr. McNulty
  Authorities are required to set aside up to 75 per cent. of housing capital receipts to be used only (unless the authority becomes debt-free) for debt redemption or paying off credit arrangements. The accumulated balance of usable receipts may then, at the authority's discretion, be used to support their capital programme. Information reported by local authorities in Shropshire on gross housing capital receipts, and the level of usable capital receipts applied to their housing capital programme, is in the following table.

  Adur

  Alnwick

  Arun

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Babergh

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barnsley2

  Barrow-in-Furness

  1009W

  Basildon

  Bassetlaw

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Birmingham

  Blaby

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley2

  Bolsover

  Bolton2

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Braintree

  Brent2

  Brentwood

  Bridgnorth

  Brighton and Hove

  Bristol

  Bromsgrove1

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Bury

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Cannock Chase

  Canterbury

  Caradon

  Carrick2

  Castle Morpeth

  Castle Point

  Charnwood

  Cheltenham2

  Cherwell1

  Chesterfield

  Chester-le-Street

  Chorley

  City of London

  Colchester2

  Copeland1

  Corby

  Craven1

  Crawley

  Croydon

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Derwentside

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Dudley

  Durham

  Ealing

  Easington

  East Devon

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Eastbourne

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  1010W

  Enfield

  Epping Forest

  Exeter

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean1

  Gateshead

  Gedling

  Gloucester

  Gosport

  Gravesham

  Great Yarmouth

  Greenwich

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Harborough

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrogate

  Harrow

  Hartlepool

  Havering

  High Peak

  Hillingdon2

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Hyndburn

  Ipswich

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea2

  Kettering

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Leeds2

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone1

  Manchester

  Mansfield

  Melton

  Merton

  Mid Devon

  Mid Suffolk

  Middlesbrough1

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  New Forest

  Newark and Sherwood

  1011W

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Cornwall

  North East Derbyshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Hertfordshire1

  North Kesteven

  North Lincolnshire

  North Norfolk

  North Shropshire

  North Somerset

  North Tyneside

  North Warwickshire

  North West Leicestershire

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Nottingham City

  Nuneaton and Bedworth1

  Oadby and Wigston

  Oldham2

  Oswestry

  Oxford

  Pendle

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Redditch

  Ribble Valley

  Richmondshire

  Rochford

  Rossendale

  Rotherham

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rutland

  Salford2

  Salisbury

  Sandwell

  Scarborough1

  Sedgefield

  Sedgemoor

  Sefton

  Selby

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  South Gloucestershire

  1012W

  South Holland

  South Kesteven

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk1

  South Northamptonshire

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southwark

  St. Albans

  Stafford

  Stevenage

  Stockport1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stroud

  Sutton

  Swindon

  Tamworth

  Tandridge

  Taunton Deane

  Teesdale

  Teignbridge1

  Tendring

  Thanet

  The Medway Towns

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Torridge

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Uttlesford

  Wakefield

  Walsall1

  Waltham Forest2

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Warrington

  Warwick

  Watford

  Waveney

  Waverley

  Wealden

  Wear Valley

  Wellingborough

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Lancashire

  Winchester

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester1

  Wycombe

  York

  1 On current transfer programme

  2 On Round 2 Arms-length Management Organisation programme

  1013W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the housing improvement resources provided to the London borough of Islington for each of the last five years and the projected expenditure for the financial year 2003–2004. [100272]

  Mr. McNulty
  The housing resources, as allocated through the Housing Investment Programme, for London borough of Islington for the past five years are as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  18.86

  1999–2000

  18.15

  2000–01

  28.56

  2001–02

  38.3

  2002–03

  40.24

  The allocation for financial year 2003–04 is £39.44 million.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new residential dwellings were built in the borough of Northampton in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03; and how many will be built in 2003–04. [100807]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2001–02 935 new residential dwellings were built in the borough with 74 per cent. built on brownfield land. Based on an average over the last six years, Northampton borough council expects that there will be an average of 849 new completions per annum in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the English authorities who have yet to submit an option appraisal for housing to his Department. [100332]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced, in "Sustainable communities: building for the future", that all authorities with housing stock would, in future, need to produce objective and rigorous option appraisals, which are to be signed-off by Government regional offices, by July 2005. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be issuing guidance to authorities about the arrangements for submitting and signing off option appraisals shortly.

  Pollution (Fines)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been levied in fines by local authorities against(a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) individuals, with regard to incidences of pollution, broken down by type of pollution incidence (i) in total, (ii) in each region and (iii) per fine in each year since 1995. [99256]

  Alun Michael
  Local authorities' main pollution control responsibilities are under Parts I, III and IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (industrial air pollution control, statutory nuisance, and litter respectively) and the Clean Air Act 1993.

  With regard to Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question 190 on the order page of 21 February 2003,
  1014W
  The Department holds no data on Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Total fines in England and Wales with respect to Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were as follows. The Department is unable to break down this data by region and is only available from 1997 onwards:

  Date

  Total (£)

  1997–98

  727

  1998–99

  4,778

  1999–2000

  2,970

  2000–01

  2,310

  The Department holds no data on the Clean Air Act 1993.

  Local authorities have been informed of the recently-issued toolkit—"Costing the Earth, Guidance for Sentencers"—which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment launched on 20 November 2002, is available on the Magistrates Association website www.magistrates-association.org.uk/news/whats_new.htm

  Public Servant of the Year
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the winners were of the Public Servant of the Year Award 2002; what the cost was of this initiative; and if he will make a statement. [99890]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office and the Office of Government Commerce are non financial sponsors of the Public Servant of the Year Awards. Any costs of the scheme are borne by CIPFA.

  The event is financed from the commercial sponsorship of the award ceremony by a number of leading companies. There is no cost to the public purse.

  CIPFA and Public Finance magazine are the organisers of the award and undertake all of the administrative arrangements. A small team in the Cabinet Office maintain regular contact with the organisers.

  The list of winners in 2002 are noted as follows:

  The Award for Innovation—sponsored by Zurich Municipal

  Ms Jan Nicholson, Senior Occupational Therapist, S. Derbyshire Acute Hospital NHS Trust

  The Award for Leadership—sponsored by Anon

  Ms Danielle Cotton, Firefighter, London Fire Brigade

  The Front-line Worker Award—sponsored by Eagle Star

  Mr. Bill Marney, Social Worker, Lincolnshire Social Services

  The Turn-round Manager Award—sponsored by Courtenay

  Mr. Richard Vince, Prison Service, has since been promoted

  The Social Inclusion Award—sponsored by UNISON

  Mrs. Ragbir Virdee, Project Worker, Nottingham City Social Services

  The Award for Managerial Excellence—sponsored by Reed Accountancy Personnel
  1015W
  Mrs. Terry Owen, Volunteer Manager, Aintree Hospitals Volunteer Scheme

  The Award for Progress through Partnership—sponsored by RSM Robson Rhodes

  Mr. Noel Rice, Energy Conservation Manager, Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  The Award for Outstanding Contribution by a Non-Executive—sponsored by Task (Software) Ltd.

  Mr. Cyril Baily, Chair of Governors, Ormskirk School Central Government—sponsored by IFF Ltd.

  Ms Wendy Gilroy, Customer Services Officer, Benefits Agency

  Local Government—sponsored by Vantagepoint

  Ms Clare Wichbold, Regeneration Officer, Herefordshire Partnership

  Education—sponsored by Eagle Star

  Mr. Andrew Parsons, Headteacher, Plymstock School

  Health—sponsored by PPS Ltd.

  Mr. Jeremy Handley, Non Executive Director, Northgate & Prudhoe NHS Trust

  Housing—sponsored by the Chartered Institute of Housing

  Mr. Tom Manion, Chief Executive, Irwell Valley Housing Association

  Uniformed Services—Anite Public Sector

  Mr. Howard Wright, Community Constable, West Midlands Police

  Voluntary Sector—sponsored by Community Care Magazine

  Mrs. Jenni Thomas, Chief Executive, The Child Bereavement Trust

  Outstanding Public Servant of the Year—sponsored by Hewlett Packard and Amey

  Danielle Cotton, Firefighter, London Fire Brigade

  Public Works Loans Commissioners
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the payments to be made by the public works loans commissioners for overhanging debt in each of the next five years. [99398]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no estimate covering this period. Resources required by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to meet commitments for overhanging debt in each of the next five years will depend on future applications from the local authorities seeking to transfer their housing in any particular year.

  Travellers
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce further legislation to assist parish councils and other landowners whose land is illegally occupied by travellers. [99780]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no current plans to introduce further legislation to assist parish councils and other landowners whose land is illegally occupied by travellers.

  Parish councils and other landowners are able to go through the civil courts for the recovery of their land under Orders 24 and 113. Parish councils can also liaise with their county council regarding the possibility of serving a Section 77 Direction under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Housing Industry (Unfair Contract Terms)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he and his predecessors have taken to encourage the housing industry to comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the originating European directive. [100334]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) on 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 841W.

  Women's National Commission
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the remit is of the Women's National Commission; how many staff it has; what its total costs were in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99899]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The remit of the Women's National Commission is to make known to Government, by all possible means, the informed opinion of women. It is able to comment freely on government policy and inform government departments of the views of women, women's organisations and NGOs.

  Currently, the WNC has a total of 10 staff. These include three permanent members of staff, one on secondment until June 2004; five temporary members of staff, all of whom will leave during the year, plus one unpaid internship.

  The budgets for the financial years specified were:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  243,342

  1997–98

  233,300

  1998–99

  299,895

  1999–2000

  250,025

  2000–01

  250,025

  2001–02

  303,000

  2002–03

  253,243

  For the financial year 2003–04, the budget figures are yet to be confirmed by DTI.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security and Intelligence Agencies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what total spending on security and intelligence agencies was in each year from 1998–99 to 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [99893]

  The Prime Minister
  The Security and Intelligence Agencies' combined outturns and projected budgets for each year from 1998–99 to 2003–04 can be found in the tables on page 96 of the Cabinet Office's Departmental Report (Cm 5429).

  The Department Report which will be published this spring will update this information and cover the period 1998–99 to 2005–06.

  Engagements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his diary engagements for 26 February 2003 from 1.30 pm to 7.00 pm. [100698]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Dr. Starkey) in the House on 26 February 2003, Official Report, column 250.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the replies he gave between 1997 and 2001 to letters from Iraqi exiles requesting the use of armed force by the United Kingdom to overthrow Saddam Hussein. [99492]

  The Prime Minister
  Following my speech to the Labour Party spring conference on 15 February and my monthly press conference in Downing Street on 18 February, I made available copies of letters and an e-mail that I have received from Iraqi exiles. I have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

  University Admissions
  Mr. Clappison:
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2003 to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, Official Report, column 257, what steps he is taking to ensure that university admissions are based on merit. [100575]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, (Mr. Bellingham) at Prime Minister's Questions today.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the costs of the Cabinet Office were in each year from 1998–99 to 2004–05 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99895]

  Mr. Alexander
  The costs of the Cabinet Office for each year from 1998–99 to 2003–04 can be found in the tables in the departmental report (Cm 5429) from page 89.

  The departmental report which will be published in spring will update this information and cover the period 1998–99 to 2005–06.

  Senior Civil Service
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) civil servants and (b) senior civil servants were dismissed for poor performance in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [100591]

  Mr. Alexander
  The figures for the numbers of staff who were dismissed from the civil service in the last 10 years are shown in the following table. These figures are based on headcount, permanent staff in all 1018W
  Departments. The data presented are for all dismissals. We do not hold separate records for poor performance as the reason for dismissal.

  Leavers during 1992–2001 with selected leaving cause, dismissal, all permanent staff (headcount), of which senior civil servants

  Year ending 31 March

  All staff

  Senior civil servants

  1992

  1,050

  1

  1993

  1,030

  0

  1994

  1,000

  2

  1995

  880

  2

  1996

  750

  1

  1997

  870

  0

  1998

  650

  0

  1999

  590

  1

  2000

  840

  1

  2001

  1,020

  3

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with representatives from local government about widening the civil service fast-stream programme to cover local government; and if he will make a statement. [100592]

  Mr. Alexander
  Last year officials from my Department met representatives of the Local Government Employers Organisation under the auspices of the Public Sector Employment Forum and its recruitment sub-group. They discussed graduate and fast stream recruitment but there are no plans for the civil service scheme to cover local government. The Local Government Employers Organisation launched the inaugural recruitment campaign for their National Graduate Development Programme in March 2002. The first cohort of graduates joined the programme in September 2002.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Asian employees there have been in the senior civil service, broken down by Department, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [100593]

  Mr. Alexander
  Declaration of ethnicity in the civil service is voluntary, so any numbers obtained may be an understatement of the true position.

  For the senior civil service, the total number of staff in post of known Asian ethnic origin for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  17

  1999

  17

  2000

  20

  2001

  26

  2002

  24

  1019W
  This personal information is supplied to the Cabinet Office in strict confidence, and cannot be broken down further owing to small numbers and disclosure rules.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Security
  Miss Anne McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the increased level of policing at UK airports; and whether the airports will meet the full cost of the additional policing. [98653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained in his statement to the House on 13 February, an enhanced level of security was put in place in London on 11 February, this being most visible at Heathrow Airport. This was in response to a heightening of the threat to the UK from international terrorism.

  The increase in policing at Heathrow and at other UK airports has been part of the response to this threat. The appropriate level of the additional policing is a matter for the operational judgement of Chief Officers of Police, in consultation as necessary. Where an airport has been designated under s26(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 policing costs are met by airport operators.

  Since September 11, police forces have been able to bid for additional funding for various counter terrorist activities, including the protection of vulnerable sites such as airports. Given the nature of the funding, publicity is not being given to the activities it covers or what has been allocated to individual forces.

  A36 Relief Scheme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the A36 (Wylye Valley Relief Road) Scheme has been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [100576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Wylye Valley Relief Road was recommendation as part of the Salisbury Transport Study which was included in Wiltshire county council's Local Transport Plan in July 2000. Wiltshire county council stated in their Annual Progress Report that `Work is continuing on developing the route options and assessing potential impacts so that a preferred Route can be adopted'. The Bristol Bath to South Coast Study which is looking at the future of the A36 will report later this year and will give an indication of what further improvements are desirable on the route. I do not consider that this study has delayed this scheme.

  Departmental Policies (Northampton, South)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Northampton South constituency, the effects on Northampton of his Department's policies and actions since June 2001. [100810]
  1020W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Over the last three years my Department has allocated almost £37 million to Northamptonshire county council for the implementation of the Northamptonshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) (£11.866 million in 2001–02, £11.645 million in 2002–03, and £13.395 million for 2003–04). Such plans are an essential element of the Government's integrated transport policy, as set out in "Transport 2010—the 10-Year Plan", published in July 2000, and provide the delivery mechanism for a longer-term programme of local transport improvement and modernisation across the whole country.

  Under the LTP system, funding is provided for a wide range of transport related activity, including the construction of major new road schemes, road and bridge maintenance, and the delivery of smaller integrated transport projects. While the local transport authorities, in this case Northamptonshire county council, are, quite rightly, allowed a good deal of flexibility on implementation of specific projects, they are required to submit Annual Progress Report (APRs), which include full details of the work undertaken and projects delivered in the previous year. Unfortunately, as the APR is a county-wide document, the information is not generally provided on a constituency or specific town or city basis and is reported on the financial year cycle. The following details for the 2001–02 period (April 2001-March 2002) are, however, worthy of note and provide a good example of the achievements being made:

  Traffic Reduction in Northampton—inbound car vehicle traffic reduced by 3.8 per cent.
  Increase Cycling Journeys in Northampton—0.2 per cent. increase in cycle flows.
  Increase Bus Patronage in Northamptonshire—patronage increase of 7 per cent.
  Road Casualty Reduction in Northamptonshire—killed or seriously injured figures for 2001 brought down to 29 per cent. below the 1994–98 baseline.

  A fuller range of statistics and figures on the numerous schemes the county council have introduced since April 2001 are contained in the APRs issued for 2000–01 and 2001–02, which are readily available from the council. Details for 2002–03 will be available in the summer, when the next APRs are due to be submitted.

  In addition to benefits and improvements brought about by funding under the Local Transport Plan, my Department also provides funding through the work of the Highways Agency in terms of the maintenance and improvements of the trunk road and motorway network. During the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years, the Agency has spent £24 million on major routes in Northamptonshire, including electronic information signs on the Ml. In addition, since April 2001 the Highways Agency has spent £128 million on major routes as part of the Government's Targeted Programme of Investment.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in each year since 1997. [100457]
  1021W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff employed (full time equivalent)

  1997

  3,801

  1998

  4,124

  1999

  4,408

  2000

  4,773

  2001

  5,268

  2002

  5,264

  Extra staff were required by the Agency for the following reasons:

  (a) major new initiatives such as the Statutory Off-Road Notification photographs on driving licences and Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty (712 posts);

  (b) projects to implement policy changes, safeguard delivery of the core business and improve internal processes (168 posts);

  (c) increased workload such as the introduction of extended hours in the Agency's call centre, and growth of volume transactions. Between 1996–97 and 2001–02, driver and vehicle volumes increased by almost 20 per cent., from 81.8 million transactions to 97.8 million (583 posts).

  London Underground
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of investment is in the East London Extension; and if he will make a statement on its progress. [100271]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The business case for the project is being considered by Ministers. I hope a decision will be announced shortly.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated date is for the handover of responsibility for the London Underground to Transport for London; and if he will make a statement. [100996]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 10WS.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under franchise agreements, how many passengers the underground train operating companies have agreed to carry on each of their route groups; how many passengers in each group would constitute overcrowding; and if he will make a statement. [101000]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the PPP, London Underground will continue to be responsible for running the trains, working the signals and operating the stations. London Underground will also have responsibility for all aspects of safety. The public sector will remain responsible for the safe operation of a unified network.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what arrangements are being planned for compensation of Central Line passengers; who will qualify; how much money he estimates is involved; and if he will make a statement; [101001]
  1022W
  (2) how London Underground has informed Central Line passengers of their entitlement to claim refund of fares for the period of the line's closure; when such information was first displayed; and where it is displayed; and if he will make a statement. [100999]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The administration of customer refunds under London Underground's Customer Charter is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand from London Underground that they have actively contacted the season ticket holders they have been able to identify that have been directly affected by the closure, that they have written to all stakeholders (including MPs) and have put up posters across their network advising how those entitled to claim can go about it. London Underground have also included a comprehensive section on their website (www.thetube.com) and have used other media to spread this message. London Underground's Customer Service Centre has recruited extra staff in order to deal with the large volume of calls they have been receiving.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2003, Official Report, column 140W, on London Underground, what the information provided to him by London Underground was relating to (a) the standard of maintenance and safety of the London Underground track and (b) the standard of the rolling stock used; when he expects to receive the reports of the inquiries of (i) the Health and Safety Executive and (ii) London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [101021]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The interim report of London Underground's investigation into the derailment at Chancery Lane, published on 21 February, confirmed that the derailment was caused by a motor falling from the train, and that the ongoing investigation will examine the relevance or otherwise of the maintenance of the rolling stock and the underlying causes leading to the failure of the traction motor mountings. London Underground expects to complete most parts of the investigation by the end of March but cannot yet say with confidence when the technical investigation will be complete.

  The independent Health and Safety Executive is conducting its own investigation into the causes of the derailment. HSE will take as long as it needs to complete its investigations.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the insurance policy relevant to the recent accident at Chancery Lane on the Central Line; what it covers; how much he estimates the claim by London Underground will amount to; and if he will make a statement. [101024]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground inform me that the loss adjuster appointed to investigate their property damage claim has indicated that the insured loss (for reinstatement or replacement of assets damaged in the incident) will not exceed £3 million. Of this, some £2 million is self-insured by London Underground and the remaining £1 million will be covered by their own Guernsey based insurance company (London Transport Insurance Guernsey). No claim will be made against external insurers.
  1023W
  London Underground does not insure either for loss of revenue or for increased costs of working.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times since 2001 he has taken flights on departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied him on each trip. [95388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Since its formation, the Secretary of State has taken three flights on departmental duties in the UK: none was on(a) a charter flight; one was (b) club class, travelling with two officials from my Department; and two were on (c) helicopters—once to fly over the route of the M6 toll road, the other on a helicopter operated by the Marine and Coastguard Agency for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on rail concessions for the elderly. [100460]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The national Senior Railcard is available to people aged 60 years and over. This costs £18 per year and offers one-third off most rail fares. The schemes is run by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), and all train operating companies are required to participate. Also, train operators are required by the SRA to participate in any local authority's concessionary travel scheme providing that there is no net loss to the train operator or to its budget. In London, the Freedom Pass also allows free rail travel for the elderly on the heavy rail network in the Greater London area. This scheme is funded by the local authorities and train operating companies are required to participate.

  Rail Research UK
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Rail Research UK. [100228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail Research UK has been established by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as a interdisciplinary centre for rail systems research. The £7 million centre involves twelve research groups from seven UK universities.

  It aims to broaden the scope of rail research, to promote innovation, to strengthen the science base and to focus longer term research to help and achieve a safer and more reliable railway while reducing the impact on the environment. Rail Research UK was officially launched on 25 February 2003 and becomes operational from April 2003.

  Railways
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department gives to rail companies regarding the issuing of reduced price tickets. [100459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  About 44 per cent. fares are regulated. It is for train operators to decide other fares levels taking account of competition and market demand.

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the gritting of back roads in Lancashire during the winter. [100611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is currently no statutory duty obliging highway authorities in England to grit roads in order to prevent ice from forming. We shall, however, introduce such a duty at a suitable legislative opportunity.

  In the absence of a statutory duty, we do, nevertheless, expect local highway authorities to grit their roads in accordance with the Code of Practice for highway maintenance "Delivering Best Value in Highway Maintenance", which was published in July 2001 by the Institution of Highways and Transportation. The Code recommends that a hierarchy of roads be established for winter maintenance treatment, in regular consultation with the local community. Back roads would not normally feature highly in these hierarchies.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from rail user groups regarding the proposed reduction in train services on commuter routes in the South East. [100656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how his Department is encouraging a reduction in travel times on trains between the North West and London; [100463]

  (2) if he will make a statement on travel restrictions on rail services from the North West to London. [100462]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has produced a practical draft strategy for the West Coast Main Line which delivers a balanced package of improvements for both passengers and freight operators, including substantial reductions in journey times by 2004 and 2006. The strategy proposes greater use of temporary closures of some sections of line to allow the upgrade to be completed more quickly and efficiently.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which trust ports are classified as public corporations. [100668]
  1025W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In discussion with the Office of National Statistics, we have identified 21 trust ports in England and Wales that might fall within the classification as public corporations at the present time. These are:

  Bridlington

  Caernarfon

  Chichester

  Dover

  Falmouth

  Flamborough (North Sea Landing)

  Harwich

  Hope Cove

  Langstone

  Littlehampton

  Milford Haven

  Newlyn

  Orford

  Poole

  Port Isaac

  Port of London

  Port of Tyne

  Sandwich

  Sandersfoot

  Shoreham

  Teignmouth

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the financial reporting arrangements are for trust ports now classified as public corporations. [100700]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: As we are still working to assess what the impact of this classification might be, there have been no changes to the financial reporting arrangements at this time. All non-fishery trust ports are already required to submit their annual accounts to the Secretary of State under the Harbours Act 1964.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 644W, on trust ports, what progress has been made on discussions with the Office for National Statistics; and if he will make a statement. [100701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: We have now identified with the Office of National Statistics which trust ports might fall within the classification as public corporations, and my officials are currently working to identify the financial and resource implications of this classification for those ports and the Department.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why there is no reference to the trust ports classified as public corporations in the Resource Accounts 2001–02 of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [100703]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: At the time of preparation of the Department's 2001–02 Resource Accounts we were still discussing the proposed classification with ONS, including trying to
  1026W
  identify which ports would fall within that classification. Therefore we were unable to include any reference to the trust ports in those accounts.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Policies (Northampton, South)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Northampton, South constituency, the effects on Northampton of her Department's policies and actions since June 2001. [100809]

  Alun Michael
  Information and statistics on the effect of the Department's policies are not normally held on a parliamentary constituency basis. However, the latest information on regional progress in the national headline indicators of sustainable development were published by the Department in the second edition of the Regional quality of life report on 21 June 2002. This provides updated regional figures and analysis for 13 of the 15 headline indicators for each of the English Government Office Regions. The Government's third annual report on sustainable development in the UK—Achieving a better quality of life—was published by Defra on 24 February 2003. Both publications are available on the Government's sustainable development website: www.sustainable-development.gov.uk. A wide range of information about the Department's policies and work is also included in the Defra Publication Scheme which was introduced in November 2002 and is available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk. The above mentioned reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Data on river water quality at local authority level and air quality from local monitoring sites are available from the Defra and Environment Agency websites, and specifically at: LA-level river quality data on EPSIM website: http//www2.defra.gov.uk/db/rq/index.htm; EA "What's in your backyard "—includes rivers but not air quality: http//216.31.193.171/asp/1_introduction.asp and the Air Quality Archive at www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php.

  Sustainable Communities Plan
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what involvement her Department had in the development of the Sustainable Communities Plan and its impact on the consumption of natural resources. [100366]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was consulted during the development of the Sustainable Communities Plan. Officials are now involved in discussions on how to take the proposals in the plan forward.

DEFENCE

  Gulf (Medical Deployment)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical staff, broken down by specialty, will be deployed to the Gulf in the event of a conflict. [98930]
  1027W
  Dr. Moonie
  If military action is undertaken by the coalition, just over 2,000 United Kingdom medical personnel are planned to be deployed to the Gulf region as follows:

  Number

  Registered medical practitioners

  800

  Medics

  300

  Nurses

  800

  Technicians

  150

  Amphetamines (US Military)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the USA Secretary of Defence about the use of amphetamines by US military personnel in joint military operations with British armed forces. [96752]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: This is a matter for the US authorities.

  Anglo-French Agreements
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of agreements and declarations made with the French Government at the recent Le Touquet summit in the Library. [98814]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom and France agreed a joint declaration on defence at the Le Touquet Summit on 4 February. I have placed a copy of the declaration in the Library of the House.

  Two Letters of Intent were also agreed at the Summit. These were a general agreement on navy-to-navy co-operation and an agreement on exploring possibilities for closer co-ordination of aircraft carrier operations, in particular harmonising activity cycles and training. Both documents contain information received in confidence from the French Government. I am therefore withholding these documents under Exemption Ic (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what types of main battle tanks are held by the UK armed forces; and of these how many are being used for(a) static displays and (b) target practice. [100613]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Main Battle Tank in-service with the United Kingdom armed forces is the Challenger 2, of which there are 386. None of these are used either as static displays or for target practice.

  The Ministry of Defence still holds 161 Challenger 1 and two Chieftain Main Battle Tanks. These are no longer in-service, but are not used as static displays or for target practice.

  There may well be examples of old, retired Main Battle Tanks used for static display purposes or for target practice but such information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  1028W

  Armed Forces (Bullying and Harassment)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) incidents and (b) offences of (i) bullying and (ii) harassment in the Armed Forces were recorded in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [100171]

  Dr. Moonie
  The requirement for separate identification and recording of allegations of bullying and harassment was introduced in 1997. Figures for the last five years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Naval Service

  RAF

  Calendar year

  Army

  Bullying

  1997–98

  14

  10

  1998

  117

  1998–99

  11

  9

  1999

  71

  1999–2000

  19

  27

  2000

  78

  2000–01

  16

  38

  2001

  59

  2001–02

  17

  25

  2002

  36

  Harassment

  1997–98

  10

  24

  1998

  26

  1998–99

  25

  20

  1999

  33

  1999–2000

  16

  13

  2000

  31

  2000–01

  16

  14

  2001

  26

  2001–02

  3

  13

  2002

  23

  There is no offence of bullying as such. It is not possible therefore to determine if bullying played a part in service disciplinary proceedings without examining each case separately.

  The services' policy is that no form of harassment or intimidation will be tolerated; all allegations are investigated, and appropriate action taken. Although the numbers of complaints of bullying and harassment are small, the Armed Forces see no room for complacency and aim to confront unacceptable behaviour at every opportunity.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what effect the handover of land under the offer made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the revised 3rd draft of the Kofi Annan plan for a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus is expected to have on the operation of the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement; [100267]

  (2) what land is to be handed over under the offer made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the revised 3rd draft of the Kofi Annan plan for a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus; what assets and facilities are situated there; what that land is used for; and if he will make a statement. [100268]

  Mr. Hoon
  In order to help secure a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, the Government decided to offer accede parts of the United Kingdom's Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) which are no longer essential for military purposes. The offer consists of 45 square miles, just under half of the total area of the SBAs.

  The areas in question are mainly agricultural and residential and do not contain military infrastructure. There will be no adverse impact on the ability of British Forces Cyprus to carry out its tasks. We will also

  1029W
  continue to perform the same tasks of civil administration in the areas remaining within the SBAs. Our offer was made within the context of UN negotiations to bring about a settlement and is conditional on the settlement being adopted and ratified by all parties. If either side rejects the UN proposals, or the proposals are rejected in a referendum by either side, the offer will become null and void.

  Archives
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in the departmental file stores in each year since 1997; how many have been transferred to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [98857]

  Site

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003(to date)

  Central Repository, Hayes1

  60

  62

  62

  70

  65

  66

  69

  MOD, London

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  RN personnel records, Portsmouth

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  RN personnel records, Gosport2

  8

  9

  7

  4.5

  4

  5

  6

  RM personnel records, Gosport

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Army personnel records, London

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Army personnel records, Glasgow3

  36.5

  74

  66

  67

  64

  35

  33

  RAF personnel records, Innsworth, near Gloucester

  13.5

  13.5

  17

  16

  14

  13.5

  13

  Home Guard records, Droitwich Spa

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  RAF historical records, Bentley Priory

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  MOD civilian personnel records, Llangenech

  9

  9

  9

  9

  7

  7

  7

  War Pensions records, Preston4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Armed Forces medical records, Shoeburyness

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Total

  148

  187. 5

  181

  186. 5

  174

  146.5

  149

  1 None of the posts have transferred to the private sector yet but the MOD repository at Hayes has been considered for contractorisation in recent years as part of the public private partnership (PPP) initiative. This PPP project is a collaborative pan-government venture, led by the MOD and involving 13 other government organisations. The project has recently been granted approval to appoint a preferred bidder with a view to a contract possibly being in place during the summer of 2003. Some of the civil servants currently employed at the site may transfer to the incoming provider when the contract takes effect. Their terms and conditions will be protected in line with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations.

  2 On 1 January 1998 Electronic Data Systems (EDS) took over responsibility and eight members of staff transferred across from the civil service.

  3 On 1 October 2001 EDS took over responsibility and 34 members of staff transferred across from the civil service. Prior to EDS taking over responsibility, the file store also included mail operations for a large part of the MOD Glasgow organisation. It is not possible to accurately separate mail operations staff from file store staff. However, it is reasonable to assume that file store staff would have numbered around 35 in the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  4 MOD war pension records are held by the War Pensions Agency at Preston, however, these are stored in a Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) facility that is staffed entirely by DWP civil servants. Therefore it is not included in this MOD answer.

  Depleted Uranium
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of depleted uranium weapons are held in the theatre of conflict around Iraq; and under what conditions they would be used. [100278]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: We have a duty to provide our troops with the best available equipment with which to protect themselves and to succeed in conflict. Depleted Uranium (DU) tank ammunition is judged to be the most effective weapon against armour. United Kingdom forces currently deploying to the Gulf have DU munitions available as part of their armoury for potential operation.

  I am withholding the information requested on stocks of DU weapons in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  1030W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has 13 main archive facilities. By far, the largest is the central Records Repository that is located at Hayes in West London. The repository houses the bulk of the MOD's archived material but there are other, smaller, MOD record stores in locations around Great Britain. The following table shows these locations with staff numbers for the years 1997 to 2003 with explanatory notes. Only staff who work 'hands on' in a file store are included. The figures reflect established numbers ie they do not take into account temporary staff vacancies at any time, and they are based on permanent full-time equivalent staff. All posts are civil service unless stated in the notes. The total number of staff that were/are employed in departmental file stores in each year are shown in the last row of the table. To date 42 civil service members ofstaff have transferred to the private sector over the period.

  HMS Montrose
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the HMS Montrose refit will be complete; how much it will cost; whether it is on budget; what the target date is for completion; when the ship will be ready for service; and if he will make a statement. [99547]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Montrose's refit at Rosyth is planned for completion in February 2004 and following associated sea trials, she is expected to be ready for operational deployment later that month. The final refit cost will be agreed once all work is completed, but is expected to be just under £23 million. This exceeds the original budget as it now reflects possible changes in labour rates and takes into account additional work identified after the budget had been set.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the requirement for externally mounted Brimstone and ASRAAM missiles for the future Joint Strike Fighter has been removed; and what missiles will be fitted to the future Joint Strike Fighter as alternatives to the requirement for externally-mounted Brimstone and ASRAAM. [98235]

  Mr. Ingram
  While the design of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to be known in United Kingdom service as the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA), provides for the external and internal carriage of ASRAAM and Brimstone, the external carriage of weapons would adversely impact on the aircraft's radar signature. Our weapons strategy for JSF is still evolving, but internal carriage of weapons is required in the high threat environments in which we expect FJCA to operate. On current plans, therefore, FJCA will carry both ASRAAM and Brimstone internally. It is not currently considered cost effective for FJCA to carry these weapons externally as well.

  Meteor Programme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written Ministerial statement of 8th January, Official Report, columns 158–96W, on Meteor, when month 1 of the programme will be. [99604]

  Mr. Ingram
  Month 1 of the Meteor contract was January 2003.

  NBC Suits
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what different sizes of NBC suit are available(a) to British forces, and (b) to British forces in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [99362]

  Mr. Ingram
  The NBC suit, issued to all British forces regardless of service or location, is available in five standard sizes: extra-small, small, medium, large and extra-large. Additionally there is a 'Special Measure' facility that allows the procurement of made-to-measure suits for extreme sizes.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government is taking to fulfil its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty(a) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and (b) to move actively towards the elimination of UK nuclear weapons. [99671]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record in fulfilling its NPT obligations both on non-proliferation and on nuclear disarmament.

  In order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons the Government has taken the following measures to create regional nuclear weapon free zones and help stop non nuclear weapon states from acquiring the ability to produce and test nuclear weapons:
  Ratified the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone) and signed and ratified the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear
  1032W
  Weapon Free Zone) as well as to the Antarctic Treaty and the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin American and Caribbean Nuclear Weapon Free Zone);
  Supported Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones in Central Asia, South East Asia, and the Middle East, and is in negotiations with the relevant states for the first two of these;
  Continued to press for negotiations to begin at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty;
  Ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and promoted its early entry into force.

  To gain implementation of further non-proliferation measures aimed at preventing the diversion of civil nuclear material to military nuclear programmes the UK has:
  Supported universal application of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements;
  Urged all States that have not yet done so to conclude and bring into force Additional Protocols to strengthen the safeguards system.

  The UK is an active member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee, which work to control the export and transfer of nuclear and dual use items.

  To help reduce the chances of nuclear materials falling into unauthorised hands, and to terrorists, the UK is supporting amendments to improve the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. The UK has also made significant voluntary contributions to the IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund, established after September 11. We have pledged a total of 750,000 over three years.

  To help address the nuclear proliferation risk posed by the nuclear legacy left by the Former Soviet Union the UK committed in July 2002 up to $750 million over 10 years towards the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This includes a programme to help dispose of surplus Russian weapons grade plutonium so that it cannot be used in weapons. In the three year period ending March 2004 the UK will spend up to 84 million for the development of other programmes to deal with nuclear security and safety risks in the Former Soviet Union.

  The UK continues actively to support efforts to resolve the unanswered questions about Iraq's nuclear programmes. We have also deplored North Korea's announced intention to withdraw from the NPT and supported IAEA resolutions aimed at achieving North Korea's compliance with its safeguards obligations. The Government has strengthened its ability to take action against anyone in the UK or UK citizens abroad seeking to develop, obtain or use nuclear weapons and created new offences for those seeking to do so.

  To actively move towards the elimination of UK nuclear weapons the UK has:
  Withdrawn and dismantled the RAFs freefall nuclear bomb so that Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system;
  Reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads, which is a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War;
  Dismantled the UK's last Chevaline warhead in April 2002;

  1033W
  Reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces. Only a single Trident submarine is now on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads. The submarine on patrol is normally on several days5 "notice to fire" and its missiles are de-targeted;
  Placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards and all enrichment and reprocessing facilities in the UK are now liable to international inspection;
  Been more transparent about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun a national historical accounting study for fissile material produced;
  Published an initial summary report on the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. The Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston is undertaking work on this issue.

  Future Carriers (Press Briefings)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a transcript of the press briefings held by the Minister for Defence Procurement and the Chief of Defence Procurement following his statement on the Future Carriers. [98815]

  Mr. Ingram
  Transcripts of press conferences are usually required for internal use only, and are not placed in the Library of the House. However, recognising the public interest in such events, we have decided that in future, transcripts of press conferences will be made available in the news section of the Ministry of Defence Internet site at: www.news.mod.uk. I refer the hon. Member to the website where a transcript of this particular press conference has been posted.

  RAF Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey said they did not take all their annual leave; what percentage of those responding to this question this represents; what percentage cited service commitments or a combination of service commitments and personal reasons for not taking full leave entitlement; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99188]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  The extent to which Service personnel made use of their annual leave entitlement, and the reasons for not doing so, if applicable were assessed by two specific questions, the responses to which are set out in the following tables;

  It is not possible to separate the 'don't know' from the `not applicable' responses.

  Table 1—How much of your annual leave entitlement did you use in your last leave year?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  All of it

  Number

  200

  26

  226

  Percentage

  21.0

  11.9

  19.3

  Did not take 1–5 working days

  Number

  192

  33

  225

  Percentage

  20.1

  15.1

  19.2

  1034W

  Table 1—How much of your annual leave entitlement did you use in your last leave year?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Did not take 6–10 working days

  Number

  196

  43

  239

  Percentage

  20.5

  19.7

  20.4

  Did not take 11–15 working days

  Number

  275

  70

  345

  Percentage

  28.8

  32.1

  29.4

  Did not take 16 or more working days

  Number

  91

  46

  137

  Percentage

  9.5

  21.1

  11.7

  Total

  Number

  954

  218

  1,172

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 2—If you were unable to take your full leave entitlement, what was the reason?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Personal

  Number

  98

  12

  110

  Percentage

  13.6

  6.3

  12.1

  Service commitments

  Number

  334

  92

  426

  Percentage

  46.5

  48.2

  46.9

  Combination personal reasons/Service commitments

  Number

  286

  87

  373

  Percentage

  39.8

  45.5

  41.0

  Total

  Number

  718

  191

  909

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated they were(a) very satisfied, (b) satisfied, (c) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, (d) dissatisfied, (e) very dissatisfied and (f) do not know regarding (i) the direction and strategy of the RAF, (ii) the future of the RAF, (iii) the impact of change on the RAF, (iv) the effects of civilianisation and contractorisation on the RAF, (v) the quality of own line management, (vi) the quality of line management in their working group, (vii) the quality of line management in the RAF, (viii) the quality of leadership in the RAF, (ix) the RAF's compliance with employment legislation and (x) the effect of a service lifestyle on their family life; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99189]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  The survey assessed the level of individual's satisfaction of the direction and strategy of the RAF, the future of the RAF, the impact of change on the RAF, the effects of civilianisation and contractorisation on the RAF, the quality of own line management, the quality of line management in their working group, the quality of line management in the RAF, the quality of

  1035W
  leadership in the RAF, the RAF's compliance with employment legislation and the effect of a service lifestyle on their family life. This was achieved by 10 specific questions, the responses to each of which questions are set out in the following tables.

  It is not possible to separate the 'Do not know' from the 'not applicable' responses.

  Table 1: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the direction and strategy of the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  14

  —

  14

  Percentage

  1.5

  —

  1.2

  Satisfied

  Number

  210

  54

  264

  Percentage

  22.2

  24.7

  22.6

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  416

  92

  508

  Percentage

  43.9

  42.0

  43.6

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  220

  58

  278

  Percentage

  23.2

  26.5

  23.8

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  67

  12

  79

  Percentage

  7.1

  5.5

  6.8

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  20

  3

  23

  Percentage

  2.1

  1.4

  2.0

  Total

  Number

  947

  219

  1,166

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 2: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the future of the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  8

  —

  8

  Percentage

  0.8

  —

  0.7

  Satisfied

  Number

  191

  45

  236

  Percentage

  20.2

  20.5

  20.3

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  345

  93

  438

  Percentage

  36.5

  42.5

  37.6

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  315

  70

  385

  Percentage

  33.3

  32.0

  33.0

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  76

  10

  86

  Percentage

  8.0

  4.6

  7.4

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  11

  1

  12

  Percentage

  1.2

  0.5

  1.0

  Total

  Number

  946

  219

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 3: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the impact of change on the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  3

  —

  3

  Percentage

  0.3

  —

  0.3

  Satisfied

  Number

  129

  25

  154

  Percentage

  13.7

  11.5

  13.3

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  337

  70

  407

  Percentage

  35.7

  32.1

  35.0

  1036W

  Table 3: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the impact of change on the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  354

  104

  458

  Percentage

  37.5

  47.7

  39.4

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  105

  18

  123

  Percentage

  11.1

  8.3

  10.6

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  16

  1

  17

  Percentage

  1.7

  0.5

  1.5

  Total

  Number

  944

  218

  1,162

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 4: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the effects of civilianisation and contractorisation on the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  1

  1

  2

  Percentage

  0.1

  0.5

  0.2

  Satisfied

  Number

  42

  8

  50

  Percentage

  4.4

  3.7

  4.3

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  152

  37

  189

  Percentage

  16.1

  16.9

  16.2

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  373

  103

  476

  Percentage

  39.4

  47.0

  40.9

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  371

  70

  441

  Percentage

  39.2

  32.0

  37.9

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  7

  —

  7

  Percentage

  0.7

  —

  0.6

  Total

  Number

  946

  219

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 5: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of your own line management

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  78

  14

  92

  Percentage

  8.2

  6.4

  7.9

  Satisfied

  Number

  464

  115

  579

  Percentage

  49.0

  52.5

  49.7

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  230

  60

  290

  Percentage

  24.3

  27.4

  24.9

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  125

  23

  148

  Percentage

  13.2

  10.5

  12.7

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  46

  5

  51

  Percentage

  4.9

  2.3

  4.4

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  4

  2

  6

  Percentage

  0.4

  0.9

  0.5

  Total

  Number

  947

  219

  1,166

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1037W

  Table 6: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of line management in your working group

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  73

  11

  84

  Percentage

  7.7

  5.0

  7.2

  Satisfied

  Number

  443

  115

  558

  Percentage

  46.8

  52.5

  47.9

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  269

  63

  332

  Percentage

  28.4

  28.8

  28.5

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  109

  20

  129

  Percentage

  11.5

  9.1

  11.1

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  42

  4

  46

  Percentage

  4.4

  1.8

  3.9

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  10

  6

  16

  Percentage

  1.1

  2.7

  1.4

  Total

  Number

  946

  219

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 7: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of line management in the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  13

  1

  14

  Percentage

  1.4

  0.5

  1.2

  Satisfied

  Number

  283

  60

  343

  Percentage

  29.9

  27.4

  29.5

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  421

  112

  533

  Percentage

  44.6

  51.1

  45.8

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  172

  39

  211

  Percentage

  18.2

  17.8

  18.1

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  41

  3

  44

  Percentage

  4.3

  1.4

  3.8

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  15

  4

  19

  Percentage

  1.6

  1.8

  1.6

  Total

  Number

  945

  219

  1,164

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 8: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of leadership in the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  20

  2

  22

  Percentage

  2.1

  0.9

  1.9

  Satisfied

  Number

  265

  59

  324

  Percentage

  28.0

  27.1

  27.8

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  364

  77

  441

  Percentage

  38.4

  35.3

  37.9

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  230

  64

  294

  Percentage

  24.3

  29.4

  25.2

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  64

  15

  79

  Percentage

  6.8

  6.9

  6.8

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  4

  1

  5

  Percentage

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  1038W

  Table 8: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of leadership in the RAF

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Total

  Number

  947

  218

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 9: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the RAF's compliance with employment legislation

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  29

  4

  33

  Percentage

  3.1

  1.8

  2.8

  Satisfied

  Number

  312

  62

  374

  Percentage

  33.0

  28.3

  32.1

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  403

  98

  501

  Percentage

  42.6

  44.7

  43.0

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  95

  26

  121

  Percentage

  10.0

  11.9

  10.4

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  55

  11

  66

  Percentage

  5.8

  5.0

  5.7

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  52

  18

  70

  Percentage

  5.5

  8.2

  6.0

  Total

  Number

  946

  219

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 10: Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the effect of service lifestyle on your family life

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very satisfied

  Number

  15

  1

  16

  Percentage

  1.6

  0.5

  1.4

  Satisfied

  Number

  237

  47

  284

  Percentage

  25.0

  21.5

  24.4

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Number

  319

  81

  400

  Percentage

  33.7

  37.0

  34.3

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  214

  62

  276

  Percentage

  22.6

  28.3

  23.7

  Very dissatisfied

  Number

  119

  21

  140

  Percentage

  12.6

  9.6

  12.0

  Do not know/not applicable

  Number

  43

  7

  50

  Percentage

  4.5

  3.2

  4.3

  Total

  Number

  947

  219

  1,166

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated they rated the level of morale of(a) themselves, (b) their flight/section/working group, (c) group and (d) the RAF as a whole as (i) very high, (ii) high, (iii) neither high nor low, (iv) low, (v) very low and (vi) did not know; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99193]
  1039W
  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the level of morale of individuals, along with an individual's perception of the level of morale within their flights or working groups and the RAF as a whole were investigated by three specific questions. The responses to each of these questions are set out in the following tables.

  Table 1: How would you rate the level of morale for yourself?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very high

  Number

  70

  17

  87

  Percentage

  7.4

  7.8

  7.4

  High

  Number

  326

  85

  411

  Percentage

  34.3

  38.8

  35.2

  Neither high nor low

  Number

  293

  81

  374

  Percentage

  30.8

  37.0

  32.0

  Low

  Number

  191

  28

  219

  Percentage

  20.1

  12.8

  18.7

  Very low

  Number

  70

  8

  78

  Percentage

  7.4

  3.7

  6.7

  Do not know

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  Number

  950

  219

  1,169

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 2: How would you rate the level of morale for your flight/ section/working group?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very high

  Number

  21

  2

  23

  Percentage

  2.2

  0.9

  2.0

  High

  Number

  177

  57

  234

  Percentage

  18.6

  26.4

  20.1

  Neither high nor low

  Number

  338

  115

  453

  Percentage

  35.6

  53.2

  38.9

  Low

  Number

  295

  34

  329

  Percentage

  31.1

  15.7

  28.2

  Very low

  Number

  116

  7

  123

  Percentage

  12.2

  3.2

  10.5

  Do not know

  Number

  3

  1

  4

  Percentage

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  Total

  Number

  950

  216

  1,166

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Table 3: How would you rate the level of morale for the RAF as a whole?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Very high

  Number

  2

  —

  2

  Percentage

  0.2

  —

  0.2

  High

  Number

  44

  6

  50

  Percentage

  4.6

  2.7

  4.3

  1040W

  Table 3: How would you rate the level of morale for the RAF as a whole?

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Neither high nor low

  Number

  281

  80

  361

  Percentage

  29.6

  36.5

  30.9

  Low

  Number

  467

  111

  578

  Percentage

  49.2

  50.7

  49.4

  Very low

  Number

  114

  12

  126

  Percentage

  12.0

  5.5

  10.8

  Do not know

  Number

  42

  10

  52

  Percentage

  4.4

  4.6

  4.4

  Total

  Number

  950

  219

  1,169

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US counterparts about the role of RAF Menwith Hill in US missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [100667]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no such discussions.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the criteria for the Hardship Fund for Reserve Forces take into consideration the financial needs of dependent(a) married and (b) non-married partners; and if he will make a statement. [100824]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists called-out and accepted into permanent service may apply for financial assistance in the event that their military salary is less than their earnings in civilian life. This assistance is paid in the form of a Reserve Standard Award (RSA). RSA is paid in banded rates that are related to a Reservist's rank and specialism. Reservists are also eligible to apply for a Reserve Hardship Award (RHA) if the RSA alone would cause his-her dependants hardship irrespective of their marital status. There is no ceiling for RHA payments.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures exist to ensure that reservists report for duty when ordered to do so. [100218]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 2003 Official Report, column 708W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists called up in the last three months have failed to report for duty. [100219]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 21 February only one reservist is believed to have deliberately failed to report for service. This case is being investigated.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed on the deployment of regular reservists beyond the Balkan theatre. [100224]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no geographical restrictions on deploying regular reservists.
  1041W
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to retain the services of regular reservists who wish to extend their tours of duty beyond their scheduled de-mobilisation. [100225]

  Dr. Moonie
  The provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 allow reservists to extend their service. Subject to the needs of the services and their commanding officer's approval, reservists are generally encouraged to apply to extend their service for set periods at a time (usually six months). However, normally there are theatre specific limits to the period a reservist can serve. This is to ensure that no one serves too long in an operational environment.

  Service Personnel (Gulf)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the daily rations are for British troops while on deployment in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [93414]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Naval Forces have sufficient stock embarked to sustain themselves for a number of weeks. This stock is composed of a full range of fresh/ambient/ frozen and chilled foodstuffs. If required, re-supply will be effected by transfer of stock from one of the support ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Land Forces deploy with a number of days of Operational Ration Packs (ORP). This can be augmented by the addition of some items of fresh food (e.g. fruit, bread). When appropriate equipment and military Chefs have arrived in support, units are able to transition from a purely ORP diet, to a mixture of ORP and fresh food as the situation dictates.

  The ORP range consists of seven menus and provides sufficient calories and nutritional balance to provide a Service person with sufficient food for one day in the field. An average calorific intake for the complete range is 3,800 calories per ration. Each menu has a breakfast (400 cals), a snack lunch (1,750 cals) and a dinner (1,000 cals) plus sufficient sundry items (650 cals) ie tea, coffee and squash powder to provide variety and minimise fatigue. The ration is designed to be eaten either hot or cold, but ideally is used in conjunction with the hexamine solid fuel cooker, as the food is more appetising if it is heated. The ORP range also provides for ethnic feeding (Halal, Sikh/Hindu) and for vegetarians. The calorific content for these rations is similar to the general purpose range.

  Uranium
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made of munitions containing uranium in live firing training in the UK since 1986. [99787]

  Dr. Moonie
  No munitions containing uranium have been used in live firing training in the United Kingdom since 1986.

  US Military Nuclear Programme
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Scretary of State for Defence what recent requests he has received from the United 1042W
  States Government to provide lead test assemblies for the United States military nuclear programme. [100038]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Vaccine Schedule (Gulf Deployment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether multiple vaccinations are being administered to troops deploying to the Gulf. [95923]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Service personnel are routinely offered a range of vaccinations to protect against disease. These include public health vaccinations and vaccinations for those in special occupational risk groups. Vaccinations are also offered to Service personnel deploying to areas with specific health hazards and to protect personnel against the effects of biological weapons.

  In accordance with NHS guidelines, a number of public health vaccinations may be administered at the same time, some in combination. This is not unusual. However, by offering public health vaccinations to Service personnel on recruitment, with boosters at appropriate intervals thereafter, the need to administer several vaccinations or boosters immediately before a deployment can be avoided. Nevertheless, boosters or additional vaccinations may be unavoidable at the time of a deployment or in an emergency. This is the case for anyone travelling overseas at short notice. In such circumstances, full account is taken of any other treatment or medication that an individual might be receiving at the time. This is balanced against the risk of contracting the disease during deployment.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to record the vaccine schedules applied to troops deploying to the Gulf. [95927]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is Ministry of Defence policy that all vaccinations given to Service personnel are recorded in their personal medical records. In addition, staff in medical centres are required to record details of current vaccinations on the Operational Medical Record, Form F Med 965, before issuing it to individuals about to deploy. Any medical events, including vaccinations, occurring while deployed are to be recorded on the F Med 965 by medical personnel and, additionally, on an electronic medical record facility where this is held by deployed ships and units. Individuals are required to return their F Med 965 to their medical centre on return to their home base and information should then be transferred to their personal medical records. Royal Navy personnel serving in larger ships will have their full personal medical records on board, and F Med 965 would be unnecessary unless they deploy on land. Royal Marines personnel should have their full personal medical record with them if deployed in a ship, but would use the F Med 965 when deployed on land.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many university students his Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a
  1043W
  work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98542]

  Dr. Moonie
  The separate and differing policies in relation to the Armed forces and our civilian workforce are designed to support university students to benefit recruitment. The Armed forces offer a combination of cadetships and bursaries (349 were awarded in 2002–03) for which a grant is made to the individual and can be used to meet university fees. There are a further 45 officer cadets and young officers for whom fees are paid direct to the university, and 200 studying for first degrees at the Royal Military College of Science. All these arrangements involve a continuing association with the parent Service. For our civilian workforce, details are not held centrally of the total number of work placements involving university students, and our policy remains to support them where this makes sense for recruitment. For example, the Defence Engineering and Science Group currently sponsors some 190 students, all of whom benefited from a work placement this year. Normally, university fees are not paid but the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is currently supporting 38 students in a similar way to the Armed forces.

  X-Bank Radar
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) risk assessments and (b) environmental investigations his Department will undertake into the possible effects upon the local environment of an upgrade at RAF Fylingdales. [100664]

  Mr. Hoon
  While we do not expect any risk or environmental implications to arise from the upgrade, we will continue to assess the position through discussions with the US authorities and site surveys. We will report our conclusions to the local planning authority soon.

  Young Service Personnel
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces aged under 18(a) are deployed and (b) are planned to be deployed in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [100108]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom signed Optional Protocol II to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in September 2000 and on 24 February 2003 an Explanatory Memorandum was laid before the House to enable the Protocol to be ratified. It is accordingly our policy that we will take all feasible measures to ensure that no personnel under the age of 18 play a direct part in hostilities. Our plans for the recent deployment of Armed Forces personnel to the Gulf were drawn up and implemented on that basis. Despite these precautions, regrettably one such individual was deployed; but that has now been remedied. As a result there are no under-18s serving in the Gulf and there are no plans for any under-18s to be deployed there.

WALES

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92409]

  Peter Hain
  My Department came into being on 1 July 1999 and has no agencies or NDPBs.

  The Departmental Report 2002 shows there to have been 35 permanent and casual civil servants in 1999–00; 43 in 2000–01; and 41 in 2001–02.

  Ministerial Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was to the Welsh Office of ministerial(a) pay, (b) travel, (c) entertainment, (d) conferences, (e) overseas travel and (f) other costs in each year from 1998–99 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [89957]

  Peter Hain
  My Department came into being on 1 July 1999.

  (a) the remuneration of Ministers was £65,000 from July 1999 to March 2000; between £70,000 and £78,000 in 2000–01; between £95,000 and £110,000 in 2001–02.

  (b) and (e) Since 1999 this Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Costs of domestic travel by Ministers are not readily separable from those of the Department as a whole.

  (c) figures are not readily available for 1999/00. Departmental spending on hospitality was £21,000 in 2000/01 and 8,000 in 2001/02

  (d) figures are not readily available for 1999/00. No separate expenditure on conferences is recorded for 2000/01 or 2001/02

  (e) most other Ministerial expenditure cannot readily be separated from general Departmental expenditure. However the cost of Ministerial cars was £113,000 in 2000/01; £154,000 in 2001/02 and has been £107,000 in 2002/03 to date.

  Minsterial Meetings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he and the honourable Member for Islwyn have attended meetings of the Council of Ministers in the past nine months. [95474]

  Peter Hain
  Since my appointment as Secretary of State for Wales, neither I nor the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Wales has attended any such meetings.

  Renewable Energy
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase tidal and wave generated electricity in Wales. [94253]
  1045W
  Peter Hain
  I maintain a close interest in proposals being taken forward or considered by the Department of Trade and Industry, the National Assembly for Wales and Welsh local planning authorities.

  For example, the Department of Trade and Industry recently announced that Tidal Hydraulic Generators Ltd, who operate out of Broad Haven in Pembrokeshire, will receive £1.6m to develop and test a tidal stream prototype which could be deployed in areas of fast tidal flow around the world.

  As the recently published Energy White Paper states "We are determined that wave and tidal technologies should be given the opportunity to play the fullest part they can in the expansion from renewables. This in turn can create another significant opportunity, with word-wide application, for our manufacturing sector".

  Smoking in the Workplace
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100927]

  Peter Hain
  My Department occupies two buildings. In London smoking is not permitted anywhere in the building during normal working hours. In Cardiff, where we are tenants of the National Assembly of Wales, smoking is permitted only in one designated smoking room.

  University Students
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his Answer of 10th February, Official Report, column 564, on students (National Assembly), if he will establish whether the press were in possession of information on the question of further devolution of powers with regard to tuition fees and maintenance grants to the National Assembly for Wales in advance of contacting his press office. [98566]

  Peter Hain
  No.

  Welsh Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money the Government gave to support the Welsh language in(a) education and (b) cultural organisations in the last year for which figures are available. [100991]

  Peter Hain
  These are matters for the National Assembly for Wales.

TREASURY

  3G Licences
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to re-pay the capital sum raised through the sale of 3G licences to the successful bidder. [100128]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Age Diversity
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes his Department plans to make following the review. [99422]

  Ruth Kelly
  The provisions of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment are embedded within the Treasury's equal opportunities policies in accordance with the Performance and Innovation Unit's "Winning the Generation Game" report. Policies are in place to ensure that there are no unfair or unlawful barriers to employment or advancement in the Treasury. These policies are kept under constant review.

  Company Tax Relief
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to remove tax relief on corrupt payments and bribes made by companies to secure(a) export orders and (b) domestic orders; and if he will make a statement. [100390]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 577A of the Taxes Act 1988 provides that, when computing taxable profits, a business is not allowed relief for expenditure incurred on a payment if the making of that payment constitutes a criminal offence in the UK, or would do so if the payment were made in the UK.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 3 December 2002 from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central on insurance, ref 3/12838/02. [100287]

  Ruth Kelly
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 10 January explaining that I hoped to be in a position to provide a full response soon and noting the reason for delay.

  Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) death rates and (b) age adjusted death rates for (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for each year since 1997. [100734]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 5 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning (a) death rates and (b) age adjusted death rates for (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (100734)
  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. The figures requested for the years 1997 to 2001 are given in the attached table.
  1047W

  Mortality rates per 100,000 population by sex and by country of the United Kingdom, for the calendar years 1997 to 20011

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  (a) Overall death rate

  (i) England

  Persons

  1,096.8

  1,067.9

  1,063.9

  1,022.4

  1,008.7

  Males

  1,048.5

  1,047.2

  1,038.6

  1,002.2

  985.5

  Females

  1,089.9

  1,087.4

  1,087.8

  1,041.5

  1,030.7

  (ii) Scotland

  Persons

  1,170.4

  1,165.3

  1,188.5

  1,141.6

  1,133.1

  Males

  1,158.9

  1,153.4

  1,174.0

  1,131.2

  1,122.7

  Females

  1,180.9

  1,176.3

  1,201.9

  1,151.2

  1,142.7

  (iii) Wales

  Persons

  1,198.8

  1,174.7

  1,210.8

  1,149.0

  1,136.4

  Males

  1,186.3

  1,151.8

  1,191.2

  1,127.5

  1,110.2

  Females

  1,210.5

  1,196.2

  1,229.2

  1,169.3

  1,161.0

  (iv) Northern Ireland

  Persons

  895.8

  893.6

  932.9

  885.5

  859.1

  Males

  888.3

  894.4

  911.9

  868.8

  849.9

  Females

  903.0

  892.9

  952.8

  901.5

  867.9

  (b) Age standardised death rate2

  (i) England

  Persons

  727.9

  721.5

  714.9

  682.5

  666.5

  Males

  904.6

  894.5

  880.5

  839.9

  815.7

  Females

  597.0

  592.0

  589.6

  563.0

  552.0

  (ii) Scotland

  Persons

  853.1

  843.0

  849.1

  807.7

  792.5

  Males

  1,070.8

  1,053.3

  1,060.5

  1,004.4

  982.8

  Females

  694.8

  687.4

  694.0

  660.8

  648.1

  (iii) Wales

  Persons

  768.2

  747.8

  764.4

  718.2

  702.6

  Males

  960.0

  922.8

  945.4

  881.8

  855.9

  Females

  627.8

  617.2

  626.6

  591.8

  583.9

  (iv) Northern Ireland

  Persons

  755.0

  746.0

  769.9

  727.9

  697.6

  Males

  947.8

  944.7

  954.8

  897.2

  866.8

  Females

  613.6

  600.2

  634.8

  603.8

  572.0

  1Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1997 to 2001 in England and Wales and registrations of death per calendar year for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  2The rates have been standardised using the European standard population.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the predicted population is for(a) Northamptonshire, (b) borough of Northampton, (c) Northampton South constituency and (d) other parliamentary constituencies in (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005. [100800]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tony Clarke, dated 5 March 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on what the predicted population is for (a) Northamptonshire and (b) Borough of Northampton, (c) Northampton South constituency and (d) other Parliamentary constituencies in (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005. I am replying in his absence. (100800)

  Subnational population projections are produced at local authority level but not for parliamentary constituencies. Table 1 shows the projected population for 2004 and 2005 for the county of Northamptonshire and constituent local authority districts. The figures are drawn from the latest short-term subnational population projections, which are based on the 2000 mid-year population estimates. These are not consistent with the latest

  Table 2: Comparison of 2001 population estimates and 2000-based projections for 2001 (mid-year ending 30 June): local authorities

  Area

  2001 Estimates (Thousand)

  2001 Projections (Thousand)

  Differences (Thousand)

  Percentage difference

  Northamptonshire

  630.4

  630.0

  0.4

  0.1

  Northampton

  194.4

  196.3

  -1.9

  -1.0

  South Northamptonshire

  79.5

  80.6

  -1.1

  -1.4

  Corby

  53.2

  51.2

  1.9

  3.6

  Daventry

  72.1

  70.6

  1.5

  2.1

  1048W
  population estimates that are based on the 2001 Census. The next set of subnational population projections will be 2002-based and published in 2004.

  For information we include a second table comparing the projected figures for 2001 and the new 2001 Census-based midyear estimates for 2001. At county level the projected figures for 2001 show only a small difference. However it should be noted that for individual districts the differences are somewhat larger, and hence the projections are less consistent with latest population estimates.

  Table 1: Projected population (mid-year ending 30 June) for Northamptonshire and local authorities

  Thousand

  Projected population

  Area

  2004

  2005

  Northamptonshire

  641.6

  645.3

  Northampton

  199.4

  200.6

  South

  83.1

  83.8

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  51.0

  51.0

  Daventry

  72.5

  73.1

  East

  79.5

  80.2

  Northamptonshire

  Kettering

  85.5

  85.9

  Wellingborough

  70.6

  70.9

  Note:

  ONS 2000-based short-term subnational population projections
  1049W

  Table 2: Comparison of 2001 population estimates and 2000-based projections for 2001 (mid-year ending 30 June): local authorities

  Area

  2001 Estimates (Thousand)

  2001 Projections (Thousand)

  Differences (Thousand)

  Percentage difference

  East Northamptonshire

  76.8

  77.4

  -0.6

  -0.8

  Kettering

  82.0

  84.3

  -2.3

  -2.8

  Wellingborough

  72.6

  69.6

  2.9

  4.1

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 18th February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [100140]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 18 February. ECOFIN held its first discussion on preparation for the Spring Council on 21–22 March. The Commission presented their Spring report, and the Presidency's draft Key Issues Paper was also tabled. I welcomed both contributions, and referred to the UK progress report on economic reform in Europe, published on 17 February. I also set out the UK's priorities for the Spring Council: employment, research and development, competition, state aids and better regulation. ECOFIN also agreed Council conclusions on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines Implementation Report.

  There was a discussion of the Commission Communication on reinterpreting the Stability and Growth Pact. It was agreed that draft Council Conclusions should be tabled at 7 March ECOFIN and adopted ahead of the Spring Council.

  Council adopted conclusions on voting reforms of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. This will be tabled again at the 7 March ECOFIN ahead of the Spring Council.

  Under Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, the Council adopted Opinions on the Stability and Convergence programmes of the UK, Denmark, Spain, Ireland and Belgium.

  The Council agreed a joint Commission/Council report on eurozone statistics to go forward to the Spring Council. It also agreed conclusions on the fifth progress report on the implementation of information requirements in EMU and a code of best practice on improving the quality of budgetary statistics.

  The Council adopted a Decision to establish the Financial Services Committee, as foreseen by the Conclusions on Financial Supervision agreed at the 3 December ECOFIN.

  Agreement was postponed on energy taxation until the 7 March ECOFIN.

  Political agreement was reached on VAT Administrative Co-operation without discussion.

  The UK's Convergence Programme was adopted on the basis of Qualified Majority (including the UK) in support of the final text.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimates are for revenue raised by the 1050W
  5 per cent. insurance levy on employers' liability insurance with regard to the construction industry (a) since its inception, (b) for the financial year and (c) for the next financial year. [100669]

  Ruth Kelly
  Separate data on the amount of Insurance Premium Tax collected from Employers' Liability Insurance from the construction industry are not available, as IPT receipts are not broken down by source.

  EU Money Laundering Directive
  Ms Joan Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the proposed time scale is for the development of a third EU Money Laundering Directive. [100612]

  Ruth Kelly
  The second EU Money Laundering Directive1 adopted in December 2001 calls on the Commission to present a proposal for a further Directive before 15 December 2004.
  1Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/ EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering.

  Euro
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate a rolling programme of reassessment, should his Department conclude that Britain does not meet the five economic tests for entry to the euro. [101058]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will not speculate on the outcome of the assessment of the five economic tests, which will be completed within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a statement setting out the(a) costs and (b) benefits of entry into the eurozone, if his Department concludes that Britain meets the five economic tests for entry to the euro. [101059]

  Ruth Kelly
  A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be completed within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment is complete, the supporting studies will be published alongside all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made an assessment of what the effect would be on British business if his Department's assessment of the five economic tests for euro entry is(a) that Britain should enter the euro and (b) that Britain should not enter the euro. [101153]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in the Paper for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work, published on 6 September 2002, a number of supporting studies will be
  1051W
  published alongside the assessment of the five economic tests. A supporting study will be published, examining "The impact of EMU on business in different manufacturing and business sectors of the UK economy." Further detail can be found in the 6 September Paper.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the basic rate of insurance premium tax. [100248]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: As with all taxes, Insurance Premium Tax is kept under review and any changes would be announced in the annual Budget.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the cost to employees of the insurance premium tax; and if he will make a statement. [100855]

  Ruth Kelly
  As with all taxes, Insurance Premium Tax is kept under review and any changes would be announced in the annual Budget.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the sensitivity of the economy of(a) the UK, (b) other members of the European Union and (c) other G7 nations to interest rate changes. [101282]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in the Paper for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work, published on 6 September 2002, a number of supporting studies will be published alongside the assessment of the five economic tests. A supporting study will be published, "Assessing whether the monetary transmission mechanism differs substantively in the UK compared with the euro area". Further detail can be found in the 6 September Paper.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the National Audit Office on the Auditor General's policy on the approval of the national accounts in relation to the treatment of Network Rail debt; and if he will make a statement.[100958]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury has discussions with the National Audit Office on wide range of issues. However, the National Accounts are the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics and not the Comptroller and Auditor General

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake not to conclude loan contracts for Network Rail until the Comptroller and Auditor General has approved the accounting treatment for new debt in the Government accounts. [100959]

  Mr. Boateng
  While departments can, and do, consult the C&AG and his staff on accounting treatments, the ultimate responsibility for determining any accounting treatment rests with the body preparing the financial 1052W
  statements, not the C&AG, provided that the accounting policies selected are the most appropriate for giving a true and fair view and comply with the requirements of the Resource Accounting Manual or other accounting guidance issued by the Treasury.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much the Inland Revenue spent on(a) publicity and (b) advertising in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [91722]

  (2) how much (a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92233]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for 1995 to 1996 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For detailed figures from 1997 to 2002 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 7 May 2002, Official Report, column 36W.

  The latest information for 2002–03 is as follows:

  Inland Revenue

  Self Assessment publicity, £7.4 million which includes advertising media spend of £5.78 million

  Work on the communications campaign for the new Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit is continuing and to date has involved a spend of £9.75 million on paid for media.

  Government Actuary's Department

  Expenditure to date (a) £35,000 (b) £18,000

  The Royal Mint

  Advertising1 £2,395,669

  Publicity2 £123,155.77

  1Includes recruitment advertising, and advertising of collector coin and other products produced by the Royal Mint

  2Services provided by external public relations consultants

  Debt Management Office

  £

  2002–031

  Printing

  40,000.00

  Recruitment advertising

  50,000.00

  Auction advertising2

  300,000.00

  Total

  390,000.00

  1Estimation to year end

  2Auction advertising costs are recovered from the National Loans Fund

  Valuation Office Agency

  £57,185 Estimated

  Office for National Statistics

  Publicity expenditure £140,000.

  No expenditure is expected in respect of advertising.
  1053W
  The publicity spend covers two phases—the launch of the first Census population statistics in September at a cost of £61,000 and the launch of Census key statistics planned for 13 February at an estimated cost of £79,000.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Tackling Tobacco smuggling campaign year three of three.

  To date £1,000,000 exclusive of VAT.

  Fuel Fraud campaign year one of three

  To date, £230,000 exclusive of VAT.

  National Savings and Investments

  Above the line Advertising £1,775,000 (estimated)

  Press and Public Relations (Publicity) £470,000 (estimated)

  Below-the-line £6,399,000 (estimated)

  Office of Government Commerce

  (i) Expenditure on publicity—Nil.

  Month

  Registrations

  Cumulative

  Filers

  Cumulative total

  April 2000

  32,927

  32,927

  —

  —

  May 2000

  14,877

  47,814

  —

  —

  June 2000

  10,677

  58,491

  —

  —

  July 2000

  11,703

  70,194

  6,765

  6,765

  August 2000

  11,700

  81,894

  7,546

  14,311

  September 2000

  16,557

  98,451

  9,628

  23,939

  October 2000

  2,736

  101,187

  2,101

  26,040

  November 2000

  1,697

  102,884

  1,063

  27,103

  December 2000

  2,902

  105,786

  1,573

  28,676

  January 2001

  14,162

  119,948

  10,305

  38,981

  February 2001

  595

  120,543

  180

  39,161

  March 2001

  522

  121,065

  129

  39,290

  April 2001

  13,485

  134,550

  1,098

  40,388

  May 2001

  5,208

  139,758

  2,878

  43,266

  June 2001

  4,021

  143,779

  3,959

  47,225

  July 2001

  2,618

  146,397

  6,887

  54,112

  August 2001

  13,755

  160,152

  7,707

  61,819

  September 2001

  3,994

  164,146

  12,977

  74,796

  October 2001

  226

  164,372

  8,988

  83,784

  November 2001

  4,775

  169,147

  1,760

  85,544

  December 2001

  104,282

  273,429

  1,646

  87,190

  January 2002

  86,849

  360,278

  23,404

  110,594

  February 2002

  56,950

  417,228

  4,711

  115,305

  March 2002

  31,550

  448,778

  222

  115,527

  April 2002

  3,614,720

  4,063,498

  1,031

  116,558

  May 2002

  32,912

  4,096,410

  9,897

  126,455

  June 2002

  5,031

  4,101,441

  1,611

  128,066

  July 2002

  13,113

  4,114,554

  26,051

  154,117

  August 2002

  15,470

  4,130,024

  24,829

  178,946

  September 2002

  38,742

  4,168,766

  81,982

  260,928

  October 2002

  88,834

  4,257,600

  14,578

  275,506

  November 2002

  40,901

  4,298,501

  13,454

  288,960

  December 2002

  50,098

  4,348,599

  23,329

  312,289

  January 2003

  60,957

  4,409,556

  127,948

  440,237

  Senior Civil Servants (IT Qualifications)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what IT qualifications each of the senior civil servants within his Department possesses. [98111]
  1054W
  (ii) Expenditure on advertising: £3,878 spent in 2001–02 by OGC buying solutions. This figure reflects the spend since the launch of OGC (1 April 2000) to date and OGC buying solutions (1 April 2001) to date.

  These figures relate to external advertising and publicity and exclude communications within the public sector.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual taxpayers who file self-assessment tax returns have registered for the Inland Revenue service for filing tax returns on the internet in each month since the service became available; how many have used the system to submit returns; and if he will make a statement. [99392]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Registration service for the Internet service for Self Assessment became available on 3 April 2000. Figures of the number of users registered for the service from April 2000 to June 2001 were given the Paymaster General's answer of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 382W. The Filing service became available on 3 July 2000. The number of registrations and filers in each month since the service became available is as follows:

  Ruth Kelly
  Twenty-five per cent of Treasury senior civil servants have declared they hold qualifications in IT. These range from degree level computer science to in-house training. Senior civil servants are also expected to gain IT skills through a range of internal and external training.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many commercial stamp duty exemptions have been claimed in disadvantaged electoral wards; and what estimate he has made of the value of these exemptions. [100362]

  John Healey
  There have been 758 commercial transactions in disadvantaged electoral wards which have been exempted from stamp duty between the introduction of the relief at the end of November 2001 and the end of January 2003. The value of the stamp duty relief given amounts to £749,010.

  Relief for all transactions (including commercial) in exempted wards is currently restricted to those where the value of the transaction is £150,000 or below. The Chancellor stated in the pre-Budget report that the Government intended to exempt all commercial property transactions in these wards from stamp duty, irrespective of value.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the National Statistician on the different accounting practices that will be followed for the new tax credits by(a) his Department and (b) the Office of National Statistics. [100798]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no difference in the accounting treatment of the Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit between the Office for National Statistics and HM Treasury.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in receipt of the working families tax credit receive it via their employer. [100790]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All current awards of Working Families' Tax Credit are now being paid direct by Inland Revenue.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the level of involvement of women is in the administration in Afghanistan. [100000]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Transitional Administration includes two female Cabinet Ministers and a female State Minister in the President's Office. In addition there are four female Deputy Ministers, five Generals and over a dozen division chiefs in various Ministries. Two of the nine-member Constitutional Drafting Group, five of the 11-member Human Rights Commission and one of the nine-member Judicial Commission are women.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations have been undertaken by United Kingdom officials in Afghanistan of the deaths of Taliban prisoners held by the forces of the Northern Alliance. [100516]
  1056W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK officials have no authority to undertake investigations of this nature. However, British Embassy staff in Kabul are in frequent contact with the ICRC, which monitors closely the situation and welfare of all prisoners in Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Afghans are under training to form an Afghan National Army. [100987]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Seven battalions of between 300 and 600 men each have so far completed initial training. Five of these are currently engaged in continuation training or preparing for operations. An eighth battalion is half way through its initial training course.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans exist for the(a) decommissioning of weapons and (b) demobilisation of men in the private armies of Afghan warlords. [100988]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At a conference on Afghanistan held in Tokyo on 22 February, President Karzai said that he intended to announce the start date for a programme of demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants on 21 March. The programme involves establishing disarmament centres for the collection of weapons and holding former combatants in transit centres. The former combatants will then either be selected for Afghan National Army training or transferred to a second stage that will provide education, vocational training or work programmes. This will be financed from a UN Trust Fund to which the UK has pledged US$3.5 million.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Afghan police officers have been trained as part of the international community's commitment to rebuild Afghanistan. [100989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Approximately 2,500 students, including 60 women, are under training in the recently refurbished police academy in Kabul. A further 60 Afghan police instructors have been trained by Germany, which coordinates international assistance on police reform. Some training has also been carried out in India. The UK ran a two week training course in Kabul in January for five senior Afghan police officers, two of whom are now under training at the International Police College in the UK.

  British Antarctic Territory
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of the practicability of using the services of Vivendi Environmental to help clean up British Antarctica. [100363]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the UK's Antarctic operator, is undertaking a major clean-up of its abandoned bases and waste dumps in British Antarctic Territory.

  The clean-up work being carried out by BAS of British wastes in British Antarctic Territory will be completed by 2005, as required by the permit issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the

  1057W
  Antarctic Act 1994. It is being undertaken in partnership with a British civil engineering company, Morrison International, and has been very successful. For further information see the BAS web site (www.antarctica.ac.uk/environment).

  The BAS has not been contacted by Vivendi Environmental regarding clean-up in Antarctica.

  Clean up of stations operated by other countries in the British Antarctic Territory is the legal responsibility of those foreign operators. The practicability of Vivendi Environmental removing the wastes of foreign operators would therefore be for those foreign operators to assess.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what systems are in place(a) to prevent the depositing of waste and (b) to secure the removal of deposited waste in British Antarctica. [100364]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has a comprehensive system of legal and practical measures to ensure that wastes are not deposited in British Antarctic Territory (BAS) and instead are removed for safe disposal outside of the region.

  The Antarctic Act 1994, together with the Antarctic Regulations 1995, regulate all UK activities in Antarctica by way of a permit system administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This ensures that all UK expeditions to Antarctica, including the British Antarctic Survey, are legally obliged to remove all wastes, other than biodegradable wastes (e.g. sewage), arising from their activities.

  The BAS is one of the leaders in environmental and waste management in Antarctica. It has effective systems in place on its research stations and vessels to separate, compact and remove all solid and hazardous wastes. The wastes are re-used, recycled or disposed of safely in the Falkland Islands or in the UK. The BAS is currently in the final stages of building a biological sewage treatment plant at its Rothera Research Station.

  British Detainees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in investigating cases of UK subjects imprisoned overseas. [99935]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK co-sponsored last year's UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on the question of arbitrary detention which encouraged all Governments to implement the recommendations of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning those detained for a number of years; and to take appropriate measures to ensure that their legislation, regulations and practices were in conformity with the relevant international standards and the relevant international legal instruments.

  Regarding Working Group rulings on the detention of UK citizens overseas, the UK has taken account of the Working Group's views and, where necessary, taken appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty.
  1058W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on behalf of George Atkinson to the Government of Dubai following the letter from the Jumeirah prison authorities of 19 March 2002 indicating that his sentence had been completed. [99937]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We understand that in Dubai, when a prisoner has served three-quarters of a sentence, the prison authorities routinely report this to the judicial authorities. However, any decision to release a prisoner early is at the discretion of the local authorities and is not automatic. In early 2001 the Ruler's Court informed Mr Atkinson's solicitors of Dubai's legal position in relation to Mr Atkinson's sentence, and specifically of the linkage between payment of the fine imposed by the court and time served in prison. Our Embassy have provided information to Mr Atkinson's UK lawyers about local lawyers who can assist with local courts. The British Government does not normally intervene in the judicial processes of other countries.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Dubai following the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's opinion 16/2002 confirming their opinion 17/1998 that George Atkinson be released forthwith; and if he will make a statement. [99940]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its opinion 17/1998 found that the detention of George Atkinson in Dubai from 1 March 1997 until 13 December 1999 was arbitrary. A subsequent report by the Working Group, in December 2002 (opinion 16/2002), stated that it was not clear whether George Atkinson's detention since 14 December 1999 was arbitrary. Although we do not normally intervene in the judicial process of other countries, we are in contact with Mr Atkinson's lawyer and will continue to do all we properly can for him.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Dubai following the treatment George Atkinson received in Jumeirah prison on 30th July 2002. [99936]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Last summer there were a number of riots at Dubai's Jumeirah prison. George Atkinson and a number of other British detainees were injured. Of course our primary concern is the welfare of British detainees and, following the riots, our consular staff immediately visited George Atkinson and the other affected British detainees. Our Consul-General met the Dubai Chief of Police on 20 August, to express our serious concerns at the incidents in the prison, and the treatment of British prisoners during those events. Our Consul-General also raised the incidents with the Director of the Ruler's Court, and sought assurances that there would be no recurrence of the problems at the prison.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list British subjects imprisoned in the Middle East and the length of time that each has been imprisoned. [99938]
  1059W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At 27 February 2003 the known British prison population in the following countries stood at

  Israel: 2

  Lebanon:1

  Syria:none

  Jordan:none

  Iraq:none

  Egypt:4

  Saudi Arabia: 10

  Kuwait: 1

  Bahrain: 1

  Qatar: none

  United Arab Emirates: 20

  Oman: 2

  Yemen: 4

  Iran: none

  I am withholding the names of the prisoners and the length of their sentences under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information (privacy of an individual).

  Falkland Islands
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the feasibility study into the clearance of mines from the Falkland Islands. [99657]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK-led feasibility study into demining the Falkland Islands is to be carried out under the supervision of a Joint Working Party. At its first meeting, held in Buenos Aires in December 2001, progress was made on the overall aims of the study and technical and management issues. The UK has appointed a National Mine Action Authority to allow for future work in the Falklands, in line with International Mine Action Standards. We remain committed to the feasibility study and to moving ahead as soon as Argentine funds become available.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether rebel groups have seized the town of Gulu in Darfur; and what steps his Department is taking in conjunction with other Departments to investigate the conflict in Darfur, western Sudan. [100705]

  Mr. Rammell
  Historically there have been clashes between armed groups in Darfur over access to land and water; there are also long-standing claims of insufficient development in the region. Recently these issues have come to a head. The frequency of clashes has increased and Government forces have also become involved. The town of Gulu was taken by armed fighters three weeks ago. The town has since returned to the control of the Government.

  The British Embassy in Khartoum continues to discuss the situation in Darfur with a wide range of Government and National Congress party officials in addition to Darfur MPs and other local representatives.
  1060W
  Her Majesty's Ambassador to Khartoum has requested permission to visit Darfur and will do so as soon as possible.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received in respect of those countries that assisted Iraq in the development of the Al-Samoud-2 missile. [100041]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are reports that Iraq has received assistance with the development of the Al-Samoud-2 missile from outside Iraq.

  It is not Government practice to comment in detail on intelligence matters.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has had discussions with the US and European partners concerning women's involvement at all levels in the administration planned after military action in Iraq. [100045]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Our policy remains to ensure Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, including by giving up its weapons of mass destruction. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his 7 January statement,Official Report, column 4–5WS on our Iraq policy objectives, we would like Iraq to become a stable, united and law-abiding state, within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective and representative government for its own people.

  North Korea
  Mr Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the weapons of mass destruction which North Korea has admitted possessing. [98831]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  North Korea has not admitted to possession of any weapons of mass destruction. However, since being confronted by the US over its covert uranium enrichment programme in October 2002, a Foreign Ministry spokesman claimed on 25 October that North Korea was "entitled to possess" nuclear weapons as well as weapons "more powerful" than nuclear weapons.

  North Korean possession of nuclear weapons would be a clear violation of its international obligations as a State Party to the NPT. North Korea is also a State Party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, but has neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Franco-British joint paper
  1061W
  presented to the EU foreign ministers calling for the proposed EU Rapid Reaction Force to be deployed in Bosnia from early 2004. [100266]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the Franco-British joint paper presented to the EU foreign ministers calling for an EU-led military operation to be deployed in Bosnia from Spring 2004.

  Somaliland
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is towards Somaliland. [99459]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is UK policy to promote peace and stability throughout Somalia. We provide humanitarian and modest development assistance in areas where security allows access. We welcome the progress which has been made in establishing a stable and democratic administration in Somaliland. We are considering how we might increase our development assistance there, and an assessment team will visit in the near future. We also support the talks between Somali leaders taking place in Kenya as part of the IGAD National Reconciliation Process. We hope these will make possible an eventual political settlement between Somaliland and the rest of Somalia.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what lessons have been learned from the performance of the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team in order to ensure that the new Verification and Monitoring Team can respond(a) rapidly and (b) effectively to reports of fighting within southern Sudan. [100704]

  Mr. Rammell
  Representatives of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, observers at the Sudan peace talks and the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT) have been meeting in Nairobi to discuss the establishment of the verification mechanism envisaged in the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on Cessation of Hostilities, signed on 4 February. The verification monitoring team will initially be based on an expanded CPMT because the latter has assets on the ground. A fuller mission will be established as soon as is practically possible. We expect the designers of the mission to draw lessons from the experiences of the CPMT. However the CPMT and the new mission have essentially different mandates and terms of reference. The UK stands ready to provide financial and practical support to the new mission.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that the Verification and Monitoring Team(a) publish and (b) disseminate reports of their investigations into attacks on civilians in Sudan without delay. [100706]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Verification and Monitoring Team will report to the committee established by the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on the Cessation of Hostilities, signed on 4 February. The committee will arrange publication and dissemination 1062W
  of reports. Attacks on civilians will continue to be monitored by the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team which reports to the US Government.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government has taken to monitor(a) abductions, (b) rape and (c) recruitment of children during the recent fighting around Sudan's oil fields. [100707]

  Mr. Rammell
  Abduction of women and children is a serious and distressing issue to which we pay particular attention. We continue to work closely with the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children (CEAWC) which is working with UNICEF and Save the Children (UK), and with the Rift Valley Institute. The Government of Sudan has made clear publicly that it is committed to the success of the Committee and has said that it sees abduction as totally unacceptable and contrary to both Islam and to Christianity.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Privy Council Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the President of the Council for what reasons there was a change in staffing of the Privy Council Office between 1998–99 and 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [99889]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The following Privy Council Office staffing figures are taken from the civil service staff in post statistics published by the Cabinet Office (http:// civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/publications/htm) and the additional information requested is provided in the following table:

  Privy Council Office (PCO) staffing

  Date of published figures

  Number of full-time equivalent permanent staff1

  Commentary

  April 1999

  30

  —

  April 2000

  30

  Lord Privy Seal's Office transferred to Cabinet Office. Parliamentary Secretary and staff appointed.

  April 2001

  402 Additional staff appointed to support Ministers; manage new accommodation; strengthen corporate services so as to manage central initiatives; and administer Judicial Committee's devolution and human rights jurisdictions.

  April 2002

  40

  —

  1These figures exclude casual and temporary staff.

  2This figures includes staff increases authorised in the previous financial year, which were initially covered by casual and temporary staff.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that police authorities deal with the disposal of abandoned vehicles in a cost-effective manner; [99327]
  1063W
  2) what guidance he gives to police authorities to assist in the co-ordination of efforts to (a) identify and (b) dispose of abandoned vehicles. [99326]

  Mr. Denham
  The statutory responsibility for removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles lies with local authorities rather than police authorities.

  Police constables, in addition to local authority employees, can remove vehicles that have been abandoned without authority and any vehicle, whether or not abandoned, that has broken down or been left in such a position that it causes danger or obstruction or breaches parking restrictions. The majority of abandoned vehicles are unlicensed, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has separate powers to remove unlicensed vehicles. We are working with the interested parties to ensure the most effective use locally of the different powers that are available.

  In April 2002 we brought in important new measures to improve dealing with abandoned vehicles. These enable local authorities to remove and dispose of abandoned vehicles in a shorter timescale, act on behalf of DVLA to remove unlicensed vehicles and have easier and quicker access to the DVLA database to seek to identify the owners of abandoned vehicles, so that action can be taken against them. More recently, we have made it possible for Community Support Officers and accredited community safety officers to have the powers of constables for dealing with abandoned vehicles.

  In the longer term we aim to make it less likely that vehicles will be abandoned. Continuous registration will from 1 January next year provide that the person registered as keeper on the DVLA database remains liable for a vehicle until DVLA has been properly notified of a change of keeper.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementing the recommendations of the House of Lords report on the use of animals in scientific procedures; [100468]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to repeal the confidentiality clauses of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [100467]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures was published on 20 January 2003 (column 5729). Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcome the Select Committee's report. We note in particular, and endorse, both its finding that animal experiments are currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans and the environment, and that such experiments should continue to be stringently regulated to minimise the suffering of the animals involved.

  In our response, we announced plans to publish summaries of programmes of work authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information. We also acknowledged the significant concern within
  1064W
  the scientific community about the possible repeal of section 24 of the 1986 Act, the "confidentiality clause" and we announced our intention to consult further with scientific stakeholders before reaching final decisions on its future.

  We will pursue these issues and the other matters arising from our response to the Select Committee's report over the coming months. Discussions regarding section 24 are in hand and a number of actions have already been completed.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been served by each local authority in the UK. [99328]

  Mr. Denham
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. Information held centrally up to 31 May 2000 is for the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales by police force area only.

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). From copies of the orders we have been able to identify local authority areas involved. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued within each MCC area, up to 30 September 2002 (latest available), can be found in descending order in the following table.

  Tables showing data on the number issued by local authority have been placed in the Library.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made within England and Wales have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Matters related to Scotland are for the Scottish Executive.

  Table A: The number of anti-social behaviour orders issued within England and Wales, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2002, by MCC and police force area.

  MCC/Police force area

  ASBOs issued

  West Midlands

  96

  West Mercia

  65

  Greater Manchester

  55

  GLMCA/Metropolitan Police1

  46

  Avon and Somerset

  32

  Northumbria

  27

  Lancashire

  25

  Norfolk

  25

  West Yorkshire

  22

  Staffordshire

  21

  Merseyside

  19

  Durham

  18

  Kent

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  Humberside

  15

  South Yorkshire

  15

  Sussex

  15

  Derbyshire

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  Hampshire

  12

  Cleveland

  11

  1065W

  Table A: The number of anti-social behaviour orders issued within England and Wales, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2002, by MCC and police force area.

  MCC/Police force area

  ASBOs issued

  North Yorkshire

  11

  Thames Valley

  11

  Cumbria

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  Cheshire

  9

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Warwickshire

  8

  Bedfordshire

  7

  Suffolk

  7

  Surrey

  6

  Leicestershire

  5

  Dorset

  4

  Gloucestershire

  4

  Lincolnshire

  3

  Essex

  2

  Wiltshire

  1

  England

  694

  South Wales

  7

  Gwent

  4

  North Wales

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  Wales

  12

  England and Wales

  706

  1 Including City of London

  Appeals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations have been received in each year since 1988 regarding right to appeal cases to the Court of Appeal where the sentencing is seen to be unduly lenient; and if he will make a statement. [100208]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am answering this question on behalf of the Home Secretary and I will write to the hon. Member with my answer shortly.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) material assistance and (b) protection is given to asylum seekers returned to their home countries. [100012]

  Beverley Hughes
  For asylum seekers who choose to return on a voluntary basis we provide an independent counselling service and an in-kind grant of £500, which provides support to promote re-integration. For Afghans returning voluntarily, there is also a cash payment programme providing £600 for individuals and up to £2,500 for families, and access to a training and employment project in Afghanistan. Protection is not provided to asylum seekers returning voluntarily because they have withdrawn their claim.

  Those subject to enforced removal do not receive the benefits of voluntary return. The exception is Afghans, subject to enforced removal, who may have access to a training and employment project in Afghanistan. Protection is not considered necessary as their claim has been found to be unsubstantiated.
  1066W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under 18 years of age have applied for asylum in each year since 1997. [100313]

  Beverley Hughes
  13,025 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were lodged by asylum seekers under 18 in 2002. 8,705 applications were lodged in 2001. In addition, it is estimated that approximately 6,400 asylum seekers aged under 18 applied for asylum in 2000, 3,600 in 1999, 4,600 in 1998 and 1,600 in 1997. These figures exclude dependants, and may overstate since some applicants aged 18 or over may claim to be younger.

  Information on asylum applications by age and gender is published annually in the statistical bulletin 'Asylum Statistics United Kingdom', a copy of which is available in the Library and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are used to(a) identify child asylum seekers and (b) assist them in gaining contact with their parents. [100316]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Rules (HC 395, as amended) define a child as a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence establishing age, appears to be under that age. In the absence of documentary evidence it falls to officers of the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate to make the judgment as to whether an applicant is under or over 18, based on the appearance of the applicant. Social Services Departments make use of services such as the Red Cross to trace family where this is feasible and in accordance with the child's needs and wishes.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children claimed asylum on arrival in the UK in each of the last five years. [100478]

  Beverley Hughes
  2,290 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were lodged at ports by asylum seekers under 18 in 2002. 2,195 applications were lodged in 2001. These figures exclude dependants, and may overstate since some applicants aged 18 or over may claim to be younger. Information for years prior to 2001 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Information on asylum applications by age and gender is published annually in the statistical bulletin 'Asylum Statistics United Kingdom', a copy of which is available in the Library and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1. html.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were placed in each local authority area in England under the dispersal policy in each year since 1998. [98680]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested. Statistics are only available on the dispersal of asylum seekers who are supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) since it commenced operation in April 2000.
  1067W
  Numbers of asylum seekers placed in NASS accommodation under the dispersal policy are available on a quarterly and annual basis. These statistics are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Region

  Local Authority

  Dispersed

  Disbenefited

  Total

  England

  Darlington

  35

  —

  35

  North East

  Gateshead

  565

  —

  580

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  50

  —

  50

  —

  Middlesbrough

  770

  —

  770

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,775

  —

  1,775

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  500

  —

  500

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  355

  —

  355

  —

  South Tyneside

  170

  —

  170

  —

  Stockton-on-Tees

  740

  —

  740

  —

  Sunderland

  1,030

  —

  1,030

  —

  Total

  5,995

  —

  6,010

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  North West

  Burrow-in-Furness

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Blackburn with Darwen

  670

  —

  670

  —

  Bolton

  1,160

  —

  1,160

  —

  Burnley

  55

  —

  55

  —

  Bury

  625

  —

  625

  —

  Crewe and Nantwich

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Ellesmere Port and

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Neston

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Hyndburn

  15

  —

  15

  —

  Liverpool

  1,925

  —

  1,925

  —

  Manchester

  1,705

  —

  1,725

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Oldham

  660

  —

  660

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Pendle

  75

  —

  75

  —

  Rochdale

  440

  —

  440

  —

  Salford

  1,235

  —

  1,240

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Sefton

  125

  —

  125

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  265

  —

  270

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Tameside

  315

  —

  315

  —

  Trafford

  130

  —

  135

  —

  Wigan

  860

  —

  860

  —

  Total

  10,275

  —

  10,325

  —

  —

  —

  45

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley

  495

  —

  495

  Bradford

  1,640

  —

  1,650

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  380

  —

  380

  —

  Doncaster

  995

  —

  1,015

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  1,010

  —

  1,010

  —

  Kirklees

  935

  —

  935

  —

  Leeds

  1,685

  —

  1,690

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  170

  —

  170

  —

  Rotherham

  695

  —

  695

  —

  Sheffield

  1,645

  —

  1,645

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  530

  —

  530

  —

  York

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  10,185

  —

  10,225

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  East Midlands

  Charnwood

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Corby

  —

  —

  5

  1068W
  Figures for asylum seekers in receipt of NASS accommodation support in each Local Authority area as at the end of December 2002 are given in the table. Information in respect of the number of persons dispersed to an area during a given year is not available.
  1069W

  Region

  Local Authority

  Dispersed

  Disbenefited

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Derby

  1,550

  —

  1,550

  —

  Gedling

  20

  —

  20

  —

  Leicester

  1,260

  —

  1,260

  —

  Lincoln

  115

  —

  115

  —

  Northampton

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  1,570

  —

  1,570

  —

  Rushclife

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  4,525

  —

  4,540

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  3,530

  —

  3,555

  —

  —

  —

  25—

  —

  Coventry

  1,595

  —

  1,595

  —

  Dudley

  695

  —

  695

  —

  Herefordshire, County of

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  70

  —

  70

  —

  Sandwell

  830

  —

  835

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Solihull

  110

  —

  110

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,255

  —

  1,260

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Walsall

  555

  —

  555

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1,625

  —

  1,625

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Wychavon

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  10,260

  —

  10,305

  —

  —

  —

  45

  —

  East of England

  Bedford

  —

  ⋆

  ⋆

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Epping Forest

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Ipswich

  75

  —

  75

  —

  Luton

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Peterborough

  405

  —

  425

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Total

  490

  —

  535

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  Greater London

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  40

  45

  —

  Barnet

  15

  75

  90

  —

  Bexley

  —

  10

  10

  —

  Brent

  —

  50

  50

  —

  Bromley

  —

  20

  20

  —

  Camden

  10

  20

  35

  —

  Croydon

  —

  50

  50

  —

  Ealing

  —

  90

  90

  —

  Enfield

  165

  200

  365

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  45

  45

  —

  Hackney

  50

  90

  135

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  95

  95

  —

  Haringey

  260

  260

  520

  —

  Harrow

  —

  65

  65

  —

  Havering

  —

  ⋆

  ⋆

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  20

  20

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  35

  35

  —

  Islington

  30

  115

  145

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  25

  25

  —

  Lambeth

  50

  50

  100

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  80

  80

  —

  Merton

  —

  20

  20

  —

  Newham

  60

  120

  180

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  25

  25

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Southwark

  —

  55

  55

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  20

  20

  —

  Waltham Forest

  55

  120

  175

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  35

  35

  1070W 1071W

  Region

  Local Authority

  Dispersed

  Disbenefited

  Total

  —

  Westminster

  —

  40

  40

  —

  Total

  710

  1,900

  2,605

  South East

  Ashford

  —

  10

  10

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  60

  15

  75

  —

  Hastings

  225

  —

  225

  —

  Medway

  —

  10

  10

  —

  Oxford

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Portsmouth

  340

  —

  340

  —

  Shepway

  —

  5

  5

  —

  Slough

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Southampton

  455

  5

  460

  —

  Thanet

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Wycombe

  —

  5

  5

  —

  Total

  1,080

  100

  1,180

  South West

  Bristol, City of

  410

  —

  410

  —

  Exeter

  65

  —

  65

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  10

  10

  —

  Plymouth

  375

  —

  375

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  55

  —

  55

  —

  Swindon

  5

  5

  10

  —

  Total

  915

  10

  925

  (England)

  Total

  44,440

  2,210

  46,650

  Wales

  Cardiff

  1,000

  —

  1,000

  —

  Neath Port Talbot

  ⋆

  —

  ⋆

  —

  Newport

  110

  5

  115

  —

  Swansea

  410

  —

  410

  —

  Wrexham

  55

  —

  55

  —

  Total

  1,580

  5

  1,585

  Scotland

  Glasgow City

  5,665

  —

  5,665

  —

  Total

  5,665

  —

  5,665

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  135

  —

  135

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  ⋆

  —

  ⋆

  —

  Newtownabbey

  30

  —

  30

  —

  Carrickfergus

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Total

  170

  —

  170

  (United Kingdom)

  Total

  51,850

  2,220

  54,070

  1 Disbenefited cases are cases which were previously supported under the main UK benefits system and have been moved onto NASS support. Some of these cases have remained in the original social services accommodation.

  Note:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5, figures between 1 and 2 are represented by a ⋆. Only those Local Authorities where NASS dispersed or disbenefitted cases are resident are shown.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time is between the arrival in the UK and the date of asylum application of those asylum seekers who have been refused support by NASS under sections 55 or 57 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and for whom figures are available; how many applied for asylum within(a) 24 hours, (b) one week and (c) one month of their arrival in the UK; and what his estimate is of the number of asylum seekers who have been refused support by NASS under sections 55 or 57 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (i) in total and (ii) on each day since 8 January. [99528]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the date of arrival of applicants who apply in-country is not available because, for example, some may have entered clandestinely. Nor is information collated centrally on the time between the claimed date of arrival in the UK and the date on which an asylum claim was made. Information on the operation of sections 55 and 57 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will be published in due course.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the incidence of domestic violence was against(a) married women, (b) women with long-term partners and (c) other women in each of the last three years. [97609]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) provides information on the number of incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales. It estimated that there were 514,000 incidents against women based on interviews in 2001–02. The 2000 BCS which measured crime in 1999 estimated that there were 560,000 incidents against women in 1999. (No comparable analysis was conducted for 2000). This information is not available for women in different types of relationship.
  1073W
  The BCS figures are derived from a sample and so are subject to sampling error. Moreover, the BCS is carried out by face-to-face interviews and some respondents may be unwilling to reveal experience of domestic violence to interviewers. The 1996 BCS included a self-completion component on domestic violence to encourage disclosure. Results were published in Home Office Research Study No. 191—copies are available in the Library. This more confidential approach to measurement revealed that the proportion of women that were victims in the last year of domestic violence was over three times higher than in the main BCS. This study looked at the marital status of women who had been victims of domestic violence in the last year. Women who described themselves as currently separated from a partner with whom they had been living were by far the most likely to have been a victim of domestic violence in the past year: 22 per cent. had been assaulted at least once. At lowest risk were married women (2 per cent.) and those co-habiting (3 per cent.). Risks are higher for single women—both the never married (8 per cent.) and the now divorced (6 per cent.). (Home Office Research Study 191 page 29).

  The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence at all levels. It is a serious and abhorrent crime that accounts for one quarter of all violent crime and claims the lives of two women a week. Nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or an ex-partner. The Government will do everything they can to tackle it and ensure that victims receive the highest levels of support and protection.

  A consultation paper setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence will be published by spring 2003. This consultation will build on the initial consultation on domestic violence in the White Paper "Justice for All" and the ongoing work of the inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence which brings together eight Ministers to progress five priority areas for action.
  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children;
  Developing early and effective healthcare interventions;
  Improving the interface between the criminal and civil law;
  Ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service; and
  Promoting Education and Awareness Raising.

  The consultation will aim to generate a comprehensive response from the public, voluntary sectors and others, to ensure the widest possible agreement on what needs to be done to prevent and deal with domestic violence.

  Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the effectiveness of the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme. [99725]

  Hilary Benn
  The effectiveness of the programme is assessed through reports on institutional behaviour, psychometric data, and by the long-term evaluation of reconviction data. The programme also fulfils the strict set of accreditation criteria laid down by the 1074W
  Correctional Services Accreditation Panel and whose role includes an annual assessment of programme delivery.

  Hate Crime
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of hate crime directed at people with learning disabilities; what plans he has to tackle hate crime directed at people with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [99542]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to tackling all hate crime regardless of what form it takes.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) working with the Government has developed guidance for police forces in dealing with these types of crime. This guidance is entitled "Identifying and Combating Hate Crime" and was last updated in April 2002.

  While there is no specific national requirement for the recording of hate crimes against those with disabilities they are covered by the ACPO Guidelines.

  In November 2002 the Metropolitan police relaunched their Hate Crime publicity campaign to clearly include hate crime targeted at people with disabilities. They have since made it policy for their Community Safety Units, who record incidents of hate crime, to flag up hate crime against people with disabilities. At this stage the definition of 'disability' refers to all forms whether physical or mental.

  Prisoners (Hospital Stays)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what types of cases prisoners are taken from HMP Garth and HMP Wymott to(a) Chorley and (b) Royal Preston Hospital; and how many overnight stays by prisoners have taken place at Chorley Hospital over the last 12 months. [99905]

  Hilary Benn
  Information about the specific cases of each prisoner taken from Garth and Wymott prisons to Chorley District hospital and Royal Preston hospital is not available without disproportionate cost, but prisoners are taken to hospital for a variety of surgical, medical and other reasons.

  From the period 26 February 2002 to 26 February 2003, there have been 50 overnight stays at Chorley District hospital by prisoners from Garth. For the same period, there have been 238 overnight stays by prisoners from Wymott.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have to accompany a prisoner being taken to hospital. [99906]

  Hilary Benn
  The options available to prison managers when considering the levels of staffing for a hospital escort or bedwatch, are outlined in paragraph 37.116 of the Prison Service Security Manual (PSO 1000), a copy of which is deposited in the Library. Generally speaking, two officers will normally escort a single prisoner.
  1075W
  However, all outside prisoner movements are subject to a thorough risk assessment which will determine not only the appropriate level of staffing required, but also, where necessary, the levels of restraint to be used. The risk assessment will consider amongst other things, the nature of the prisoner's offence, their physical capability to escape (either with or without outside assistance), and the risks that they pose to both hospital staff and the general public. All risk assessments must be regularly reviewed to take into account any changes in the prisoners physical condition, or the general circumstances under which the escort is being conducted.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours have been spent by prison officers from(a) HMP Garth and (b) HMP Wymott accompanying prisoners during visits to hospital; and what the estimated cost is of transporting prisoners to hospital from (a) HMP Garth and (b) HMP Wymott over the last 12 months. [99907]

  Hilary Benn
  From the period 26 February 2002 to 26 February 2003, Garth prison used 6,773.5 officer hours for prisoner bedwatches and escorts to hospital and Wymott prison used 6,240 officer hours. The estimated cost for accompanying prisoners to outside hospital visits at Garth between 26 February 2002 and 26 February 2003 is £96,037. The estimated cost for this during the same period at Wymott is £107,182.

  Human Trafficking
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's initiatives to combat human trafficking. [99443]

  Beverley Hughes
  We set out a comprehensive approach to tackle trafficking and other forms of organised crime in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" published in 2002. The UK has been at the forefront of international efforts to address the heinous crime of trafficking. We were instrumental in drafting the United Nations Trafficking Protocol and the European Union Framework Decision, which commits the Government to criminalising people trafficking. An offence of trafficking for the purposes of prostitution, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years, was introduced in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and the current Sexual Offences Bill introduces wide-ranging offences covering trafficking for sexual exploitation.

  The introduction of legislation forms part of a comprehensive Government strategy for addressing trafficking of men, women and children as set out in the White Paper. This strategy recognises the need for a multi-faceted response and is a four pronged approach, which also covers enforcement, prevention and protection for victims and international co-operation to combat human trafficking.

  We are working to tackle the criminal networks involved in people trafficking through Reflex, the multi-agency response to organised immigration crime. Its remit is to co-ordinate operations against organised immigration crime and to develop the intelligence and strategic planning to underpin them. In the last six
  1076W
  months alone, Reflex has had 27 operations which have reached the arrest phase, 16 organised crime groups have been disrupted and over 60 operations are currently underway. This success has not been limited to UK soil—intelligence leads from Reflex have supported other overseas investigations, helping to dismantle significant organised criminal syndicates in other jurisdictions.

  We also recognise the importance of providing protection for the victims of trafficking in order to encourage them to co-operate with the authorities. We are developing support arrangements for victims in co-operation with the voluntary sector and will be launching a pilot scheme for victims of trafficking shortly. In conjunction with this we are developing a best-practice 'toolkit' to raise awareness of trafficking and enable practitioners to treat victims appropriately.

  We are working with our EU partners and with source and transit countries to build effective international action. We have established a network of liaison officers to build intelligence on routes and methods used by the traffickers.

  The UK is also contributing to the EU STOP II Programme, which provides support to member state organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. The Department for International Development Office (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) are funding prevention projects to educate potential victims of the dangers of trafficking, particularly for women and children, in source countries. DFID also supports a project by the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) aimed at combating the trafficking of children in certain sub-regions.

  Probation Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are for the Inner London Probation Service; and if he will make a statement. [100227]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:

  London

  Number of vacancies1

  Senior Probation Officers

  30

  Probation Officers

  231

  Probation Service Officers

  187

  All other staff

  53

  Total

  501

  1 Figures given as headcount numbers

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of recruitment was, including those starting and leaving, for each Probation Service in England and Wales in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [99933]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows.
  1077W

  England and Wales

  Number of starters and leavers1

  2001–02

  Starters

  Leavers

  Avon and Somerset

  120

  69

  Bedfordshire

  20

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  69

  28

  Cheshire

  65

  53

  Cumbria

  25

  28

  Derbyshire

  100

  55

  Devon and Cornwall

  54

  56

  Dorset

  51

  25

  Durham

  69

  31

  Essex

  123

  32

  Gloucestershire

  17

  30

  Hampshire

  96

  85

  Hertfordshire

  51

  50

  Humberside

  101

  13

  Kent

  64

  61

  Lancashire

  125

  93

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  60

  30

  Lincolnshire

  57

  21

  London

  194

  654

  Greater Manchester

  352

  303

  Merseyside

  48

  55

  Norfolk

  49

  41

  Northamptonshire

  39

  50

  Northumbria

  139

  86

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  80

  Staffordshire

  170

  144

  Suffolk

  41

  36

  Surrey

  44

  74

  Sussex

  68

  32

  England and Wales

  Numbers of vacancies1,2

  Senior probation staff

  Probation officers

  Probation service officers

  Trainee probation officers

  All other staff

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  12.0

  15.9

  12.0

  8.6

  Bedfordshire

  —

  2.0

  1.0

  —

  0.5

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  0.5

  1.4

  —

  4.0

  Cheshire

  1.0

  4.0

  1.6

  —

  2.0

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  Derbyshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  2.5

  3.0

  —

  5.0

  Dorset

  1.0

  3.0

  0.5

  —

  0.5

  Durham

  —

  —

  5.6

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  10.0

  3.8

  —

  5.9

  Gloucestershire

  —

  5.0

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  Hampshire

  —

  3.3

  13.0

  2.0

  6.3

  Hertfordshire

  —

  4.0

  1.0

  —

  6.0

  Humberside

  —

  4.0

  2.0

  —

  2.0

  Kent

  —

  17.3

  42.3

  —

  14.9

  Lancashire

  —

  8.5

  4.5

  2.0

  7.0

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  4.5

  8.5

  —

  0.5

  London

  30.0

  231.0

  187.0

  —

  53.0

  Greater Manchester

  4.0

  15.0

  35.0

  —

  15.0

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  9.0

  —

  30.0

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  1.0

  5.0

  —

  Northamptonshire

  3.0

  6.0

  5.0

  —

  5.6

  Northumbria

  —

  8.1

  —

  —

  1.5

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  3.0

  5.0

  —

  4.0

  Staffordshire

  6.0

  7.0

  —

  —

  2.0

  Suffolk

  3.0

  6.3

  4.0

  —

  4.5

  Surrey

  2.0

  10.0

  11.5

  —

  8.5

  Sussex

  —

  11.0

  7.4

  —

  9.5

  Teesside

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  4.0

  Thames Valley

  4.0

  30.5

  16.0

  6.0

  1.7

  Warwickshire

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  4.0

  West Mercia

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  1.0

  West Midlands

  5.5

  24.0

  17.0

  —

  21.0

  Wiltshire

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  5.0

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.8

  1078W

  England and Wales

  Number of starters and leavers1

  2001–02

  Starters

  Leavers

  Teesside

  64

  44

  Thames Valley

  140

  115

  Warwickshire

  13

  18

  West Mercia

  66

  84

  West Midlands

  175

  184

  Wiltshire

  l0

  13

  North Yorkshire

  24

  11

  South Yorkshire

  87

  77

  West Yorkshire

  177

  125

  Dyfed-Powys

  71

  24

  Gwent

  62

  20

  North Wales

  83

  24

  South Wales

  76

  47

  Total

  3,487

  3,113

  1 Figures not currently available for 2002–03

  Note:

  The level of starters over leavers across the National Probation Service during the financial year 2001–02 showed a growth rate of 2.13 per cent. against the total number of staff in post.

  Source:

  Figures obtained from RDS Probation Statistics.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies by grade there were in each Probation Service in England and Wales on 31st December 2002. [99934]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:
  1079W

  England and Wales

  Numbers of vacancies1,2

  Senior probation staff

  Probation officers

  Probation service officers

  Trainee probation officers

  All other staff

  West Yorkshire

  3.0

  12.0

  30.0

  —

  41.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  3.8

  2.0

  2.0

  5.5

  Gwent

  —

  8.0

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  3.3

  6.0

  —

  3.3

  South Wales

  1.0

  7.8

  11.5

  —

  15.0

  Total

  63.5

  482.4

  450.5

  30.0

  305.6

  1 Figures shown in wte.

  2 Information collected in November 2002.

  Notes:

  1. To date, the National Probation Directorate (NPD) nor RDS have not routinely collected information on vacancies within the National Probation Service (NPS) and consequently, the information above was collected during November 2002. These are the most recently available figures.

  2. Work is currently on-going to implement a National Common Data Set for Workforce Information within the NPS, that will enable the regular collection of this information in the future.

  3. Figures for London are given as number of posts, not Full-Time Equivalents.

  4. This number of vacancies represents a percentage of around 8 per cent. over the total National Probation Service staffing level of 15,789 (taken from RDS Probation Statistics 2001).

  John Redgrave
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) consequent upon the withdrawal of the members of the Metropolitan Police panel formed to consider the case of John Redgrave, what consultation was extended to John Redgrave's counsel prior to a new date for the hearing being scheduled; [99696]

  (2) if he will require the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police to find a date for the disciplinary hearing of John Redgrave (a) which is convenient for all parties and (b) where he can be represented by his nominated counsel; and if he will make a statement; [99693]

  (3) if the Counsel for John Redgrave at his disciplinary hearing indicated his satisfaction with the composition of the disciplinary panel membership prior to the withdrawal of two officers on the panel; and if he will make a statement. [99694]

  (4) why trial members of the Metropolitan Police disciplinary board scheduled to hear the case of John Redgrave withdrew their notices; what notice of their withdrawal was given to John Redgrave's counsel; and if he will make a statement; [99692]

  (5) when (a) John Redgrave and (b) his Counsel were advised of the need to reschedule the date of John Redgrave's disciplinary hearing before the Metropolitan Police; when they were advised of the revised date for the hearing; and what steps were taken to seek a mutually agreed date between all parties. [99695]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that dates for prospective hearings were set after full consultation with Counsel for DI Redgrave.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that two of the Discipline Board members stood down on Tuesday 11 February following submissions of possible lack of impartiality by defence Counsel acting on behalf of the other officer facing disciplinary proceedings. I am further informed that DI Redgrave's Counsel was present throughout these proceedings.
  1080W
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that during the course of the submissions that preceded two of the Discipline Board members standing down Counsel for DI Redgrave stated that he was, "…decidedly neutral".

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that contact with DI Redgrave and his Counsel was made normally through DI Redgrave's solicitors. To that end, solicitors representing DI Redgrave were initially contacted by telephone at lunchtime on the day that members of the Discipline Board withdrew and were informed that efforts were being made to convene a new Board. DI Redgrave's solicitors were further contacted by telephone in an attempt to re-convene the hearing within the originally scheduled period of four weeks, which had been set aside for the hearing. However, when that proved not possible, on 20 February 2003, letters were faxed to solicitors acting on behalf of DI Redgrave and the other officer involved in the proceedings urgently seeking available dates for a hearing, between that date and 1 June 2003.

  Matters related to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings are the responsibility of chief officers. The Secretary of State has no authority to intervene in such matters.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been allocated to each London prison under the prison service drug strategy during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [99408]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service is committed to meeting the needs of all drug-misusing prisoners—to help them lead law-abiding lives on release and, thereby, reduce levels of re-offending. The following table shows the allocations made to each London prison at the start of the 2002–03 financial year.
  1081W

  Prison

  Total (£000s)

  Belmarsh

  609.3

  Brixton

  632.9

  Feltham

  733.7

  Holloway

  301.8

  Latchmere House

  163.1

  Pentonville

  504.5

  Wandsworth

  930.3

  Wormwood Scrubs

  660.7

  Total

  4,536.3

  Merseyside Neighbourhood Support Scheme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the work of the Neighbourhood Support Team of the Special Constabulary of Merseyside; [99550]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the work of the Special Constabulary on Merseyside. [99549]

  Mr. Denham
  Merseyside Special Constabulary plays an important role in contributing towards crime reduction and public reassurance within their force. They are recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) as being a well managed force, who have put considerable efforts into integrating specials work into that of the regular force and within their neighbourhood policing model.

  The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police also tells me that since its inception in July 2002, the Neighbourhood Support Team of the Special Constabulary has made 84 arrests, itself an impressive record.

  Merseyside Police was one of several forces across the country asked to take forward a project under the 'Specials Champions Initiative', contributing towards Home Office/ACPO Good Practice Guidance which will be published on the new Special Constabulary website (www.specialconstables.gov.uk)

  Parole
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners who(a) maintain their innocence and (b) admit guilt for the offence for which they have been convicted have been granted parole or life licence in each of the last five years; [100170]

  (2) how many prisoners who maintain their innocence have completed offending behaviour programmes in each of the last five years. [100169]

  Hilary Benn
  Offending behaviour programmes vary in their suitability for prisoners who maintain their innocence in relation to their current offence. Information on such prisoners who complete offending

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Police transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Avon and Somerset

  5

  47

  42

  16

  29

  13

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  1

  5

  1

  -4

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  21

  18

  6

  12

  6

  Cheshire

  5

  22

  17

  4

  12

  8

  1082W
  behaviour programmes is not centrally recorded by the Prison Service and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Information on how many prisoners who (a) maintain their innocence and (b) admit guilt for the offence of which they have been convicted and have been granted parole or life licence in each of the last five years is not centrally recorded by the Prison Service and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost. I understand however, that as from January 2003, the Parole Board has begun to collate this data and the results are likely to be published in its future Annual Reports.

  Police
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) uniformed officers and (b) civilian staff there were in each police authority area in the North East region (i) in 1996 and (ii) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will express this figure as a ratio per head of population. [100566]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Force

  Police officer numbers

  Police officers per 100,000 population

  Civilians

  Civilians per 100,000 population

  31 March 19961

  Durham

  1,401

  230.4

  526.5

  86.6

  Cleveland

  1,420.3

  253.6

  553.3

  98.8

  Northumbria

  3,668.3

  254.4

  1,399.3

  97.0

  North east region

  6,489.6

  248.6

  2,479

  95.0

  31 March 20022

  Durham

  1,614

  266.0

  660

  108.8

  Cleveland

  1,461

  262.5

  626

  112.4

  Northumbria

  3,929

  277.8

  1,403

  99.2

  North east region

  7,004

  271.8

  2,689

  104.3

  1 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Annual Report 1995–96

  2 Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many net transfers there were in each police force in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; [100739]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) transfers in, (b) transfers out and (c) net transfers for (i) 2002–03 to date and (ii) the full year 2002–03 for each police force. [100740]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The information in the table has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Statistics for 2002–03 are not yet available but will be collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate after 31March 2003 and published in due course.
  1083W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Police transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  City of London

  13

  3

  -10

  13

  0

  -13

  Cleveland

  6

  0

  -6

  1

  9

  8

  Cumbria

  4

  11

  7

  6

  4

  -2

  Derbyshire

  0

  15

  15

  6

  10

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  8

  3

  -5

  8

  19

  11

  Dorset

  0

  4

  4

  3

  54

  51

  Durham

  3

  15

  12

  3

  6

  3

  Dyfed-Powys

  2

  17

  15

  5

  15

  10

  Essex

  6

  9

  3

  10

  23

  13

  Gloucestershire

  1

  3

  2

  3

  13

  10

  Greater Manchester

  13

  19

  6

  15

  25

  10

  Gwent

  3

  8

  5

  3

  23

  20

  Hampshire

  12

  11

  -1

  20

  31

  11

  Hertfordshire

  23

  11

  -12

  23

  25

  2

  Humberside

  5

  10

  5

  5

  15

  10

  Kent

  11

  5

  -6

  12

  18

  6

  Lancashire

  10

  0

  -10

  7

  7

  0

  Leicestershire

  6

  13

  7

  13

  8

  -5

  Lincolnshire

  1

  5

  4

  5

  14

  9

  Merseyside

  16

  15

  -1

  10

  9

  -1

  Metropolitan Police

  234

  23

  -211

  244

  36

  -208

  Norfolk

  5

  9

  4

  2

  13

  11

  North Wales

  5

  4

  -1

  5

  14

  9

  North Yorkshire

  5

  0

  -5

  5

  10

  5

  Northamptonshire

  3

  8

  5

  2

  3

  1

  Northumbria

  7

  36

  29

  9

  7

  -2

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  0

  -13

  10

  9

  -1

  South Wales

  6

  16

  10

  11

  7

  -4

  South Yorkshire

  10

  18

  8

  8

  22

  14

  Staffordshire

  5

  14

  9

  2

  2

  0

  Suffolk

  5

  9

  4

  5

  2

  -3

  Surrey

  11

  22

  11

  18

  43

  25

  Sussex

  13

  16

  3

  21

  21

  0

  Thames Valley

  10

  4

  -6

  26

  1

  -25

  Warwickshire

  7

  17

  10

  2

  3

  1

  West Mercia

  5

  16

  11

  6

  2

  -4

  West Midlands

  47

  23

  -24

  42

  26

  -16

  West Yorkshire

  11

  6

  -5

  15

  0

  -15

  Wiltshire

  1

  10

  9

  7

  13

  6

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Avon and Somerset

  25

  48

  23

  19

  44

  25

  Bedfordshire

  21

  9

  -12

  51

  6

  -45

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  15

  3

  26

  27

  1

  Cheshire

  6

  8

  2

  18

  8

  -10

  City of London

  18

  2

  -16

  11

  42

  31

  Cleveland

  4

  0

  -4

  4

  17

  13

  Cumbria

  10

  9

  -1

  18

  29

  11

  Derbyshire

  5

  3

  -2

  6

  18

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  62

  55

  13

  87

  74

  Dorset

  9

  36

  27

  20

  36

  16

  Durham

  5

  14

  9

  10

  10

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  9

  13

  4

  4

  23

  19

  Essex

  25

  50

  25

  56

  50

  -6

  Gloucestershire

  6

  14

  8

  20

  18

  -2

  Greater Manchester

  28

  48

  20

  39

  64

  25

  Gwent

  5

  13

  8

  8

  15

  7

  Hampshire

  24

  41

  17

  61

  54

  -7

  Hertfordshire

  43

  31

  -12

  59

  54

  -5

  Humberside

  18

  10

  -8

  12

  24

  12

  Kent

  26

  30

  4

  28

  24

  -4

  Lancashire

  7

  13

  6

  36

  28

  -8

  Leicestershire

  27

  34

  7

  37

  13

  -24

  Lincolnshire

  6

  32

  26

  6

  8

  2

  Merseyside

  14

  18

  4

  8

  17

  9

  Metropolitan Police

  382

  79

  -303

  436

  196

  -240

  Norfolk

  6

  28

  22

  9

  33

  24

  1084W 1085W

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  Transfers from force

  Transfers to force

  Net transfers

  North Wales

  2

  19

  17

  0

  32

  32

  North Yorkshire

  5

  36

  31

  4

  80

  76

  Northamptonshire

  10

  16

  6

  13

  29

  16

  Northumbria

  5

  9

  4

  26

  29

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  33

  27

  14

  42

  28

  South Wales

  3

  60

  57

  6

  12

  6

  South Yorkshire

  4

  21

  17

  12

  26

  14

  Staffordshire

  9

  2

  -7

  22

  35

  13

  Suffolk

  11

  8

  -3

  3

  21

  18

  Surrey

  171

  303

  132

  246

  55

  -191

  Sussex

  31

  23

  -8

  34

  29

  -5

  Thames Valley

  80

  9

  -71

  72

  13

  -59

  Warwickshire

  8

  2

  -6

  17

  27

  10

  West Mercia

  6

  18

  12

  10

  65

  55

  West Midlands

  59

  22

  -37

  132

  41

  -91

  West Yorkshire

  19

  21

  2

  47

  22

  -25

  Wiltshire

  12

  15

  3

  10

  22

  12

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers transferred from Essex Police to(a) the Metropolitan Police and (b) the City of London Police in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [99640]

  (2) how many police officers have transferred to the Essex Police from (a) the Metropolitan Police and (b) the City of London Police in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [99641]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects information annually about the total number of officers transferring in and out of each force. The information collected does not distinguish the force of origin or destination of officers who have transferred. The latest information is for 2001–02 and the table shows the total numbers of officers transferring in and out of the Essex, City of London and Metropolitan police forces.

  Force

  Transfers out

  Transfers in

  City of London

  11

  42

  Essex

  56

  50

  Metropolitan

  436

  196

  Essex Police, in common with a number of other forces in and around London, is concerned about issues relating to the retention of police officers, including a net outflow of officers on transfer.

  We are therefore working with Chief Constables, Police Authorities and staff associations in and around London, including Essex, to look at all the associated issues and to develop practical solutions.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the basic command unit fund is exempt from the requirement to save 5 per cent. overtime costs set out in the Police Reform Act 2002. [99667]

  Mr. Denham
  The Basic Command Unit (BCD) Fund, allocated £50 million in each of the three years from 2003–04, is provided to help the frontline deliver crime and disorder reduction locally and promote partnership working. The funding may be spent on a1086W
  range of crime and disorder work and on building the capacity of Partnerships to deliver, as part of a coherent local strategy.

  Where the BCU fund is used for police operations, it may be necessary for officers to be deployed outside their normal duty hours. Where that is necessary, it will need to be planned in accordance with the Agreement reached in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) on managing overtime. That Agreement is about giving police officers a better work/life balance. It is not about cutting costs or reducing the availability of officers for operational duties, including, when the need arises, beyond their rostered hours.

  Under the PNB Agreement, forces will have local targets for reducing their overtime bill, agreed between the chief constable and the police authority, with the approval of the Inspectorate. In monitoring forces' performance against their targets, the Inspectorate is expressly required, under the PNB Agreement, to take account of force strength, unforeseen major incidents and new requirements. So, the Inspectorate will ensure that any new spending on overtime to deliver reductions in crime—such as from the BCD fund—is taken into account when assessing forces' performance against their overtime targets.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were per notifiable offence in England in each year from 1977–78 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [99812]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is shown in the table.

  Number of officers per 1,000 notifiable offences in England

  1977

  41

  1978

  41

  1979

  43

  1980

  42

  1981

  39

  1982

  36

  1983

  37

  1984

  34

  1985

  33

  1087W

  Number of officers per 1,000 notifiable offences in England

  1986

  31

  1987

  31

  1988

  33

  1989

  32

  1990

  27

  1991

  24

  1992

  22

  1993

  23

  1994

  24

  1995

  24

  1996

  25

  1997

  27

  1997–981

  27

  1998–992

  24

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–01

  24

  2001–02

  23

  1 Recorded crime data expressed on a financial year basis from this point onwards

  2 Revised rules for recording crime were introduced on 1 April 1998. The ratios before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the resident population of each English police authority was in the latest year for which figures are available. [99881]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The latest available total resident population, as at 30 June 2001, as estimated by the Registrar General, is given in the table.

  Police authority

  Population

  Avon and Somerset

  1,483,450

  Bedfordshire

  566,415

  Cambridgeshire

  710,032

  Cheshire

  983,670

  City of London

  7,216

  Cleveland

  541,262

  Cumbria

  487,792

  Derbyshire

  956,560

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,578,595

  Dorset

  693,460

  Durham

  591,551

  Essex

  1,616,246

  Gloucester

  565,000

  Greater Manchester

  2,482,824

  Hampshire

  1,778,181

  Hertfordshire

  1,034,895

  Humberside

  869,099

  Kent

  1,580,870

  Lancashire

  1,415,596

  Leicestershire

  924,661

  Lincolnshire

  647,649

  Merseyside

  1,361,658

  Metropolitan Police

  7,180,790

  Norfolk

  797,906

  North Yorkshire

  751,414

  Northamptonshire

  630,444

  Northumbria

  1,383,718

  Nottinghamshire

  1,015,767

  South Yorkshire

  1,266,487

  Staffordshire

  1,047,575

  Suffolk

  669,366

  Surrey

  1,059,469

  Sussex

  1,495,453

  Thames Valley

  2,092,923

  Warwickshire

  506,200

  West Mercia

  1,158,958

  1088W

  Police authority

  Population

  West Midlands

  2,554,365

  West Yorkshire

  2,080,165

  Wiltshire

  613,657

  Total

  49,181,339

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of telephone call-handling facilities for the public at each English police authority in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [99904]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the costs of telephone services to police authorities in England are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Police forces in England have developed telephone call-handling facilities to deal with calls from the public. Again, information relating to the costs of providing such facilities are not held centrally and could not be collected except at disproportionate cost.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many arrests have taken place in(a) Chorley, (b) south Ribble and (c) west Lancashire in each of the last three years; to which custody suite were arrestees taken; and how many went to Magistrates court; [100383]

  (2) whether the extension to police cells at south Ribble will change the cells' status; [100384]

  (3) how many custody suites are operated by Lancashire police; how many cells are in each; and where they are; [100382]

  (4) how many police cells have been taken out of action in Lancashire in the last 12 months; [100385]

  (5) what the timescale is for re-opening police cells that have been closed in Lancashire. [100388]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: I understand from the Chief Constable of Lancashire that there are nine custody suites operated by Lancashire Constabulary. These are located in Blackpool (30 cells), Lancaster (nine cells), Fleetwood (eight cells), Leyland (eight cells), Skelmersdale (17 cells), Preston (22 cells), Greenbank (36 cells), Burnley (16 cells) and Colne (eight cells).

  Lancashire Constabulary intends to add about six cells to Leyland police station (South Ribble) within the next couple of years. It will retain its status as one of only two custody suites in Lancashire designed as suitable for the detention of terrorists and other Category A prisoners.

  I will ask the Chief Constable of Lancashire to write to the hon. Member about the number of police cells taken out of action in Lancashire in the last 12 months.

  The detailed information requested about arrests in Chorley, South Ribble and West Lancashire is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I understand from

  1089W
  Lancashire Constabulary that around 2,500 to 3,000 people per annum are arrested in each of these three areas.

  Prison Inspectors
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors of HM Prisons were employed in each year since 1997. [99761]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of inspectors employed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for each year since 1997 is set out in the table. The number of core inspectors in column one covers full-time equivalent posts employed by or seconded to the Inspectorate, and includes the Chief and Deputy Chief Inspectors. The number of specialist inspectors in column two includes staff employed on both a full and part-time basis. Guest inspectors employed by other inspectorates, for example OFSTED, or those consultants used on an ad hoc basis, are excluded.

  Core Inspectors

  Specialist Inspectors

  1 December 1997–30 November 1998

  10

  7

  1 December 1998–30 November 1999

  10

  6

  1 December 1999–30 November 2000

  12

  6

  1 August 2001–31 August 2002

  14

  10

  Prison Service Chief
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the post of the Director General of HM Prison Service was not advertised. [99437]

  Hilary Benn
  The official appointed Director General of the Prison Service is an established civil servant of the same grade as the post. He also has all of the necessary competences for the job and, as the former Deputy Director General, is the most senior Prison Service operational manager and has the greatest experience. Given the circumstances outlined, the Civil Service Commission's rules permitted the post to be filled without advertisement.

  Persons starting probation service supervision with drugs/alcohol additional requirement attached to the main order—England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Type of additional requirement

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Community rehabilitation orders

  Residential drugs/alcohol treatment

  346

  299

  276

  236

  192

  Non-residential drugs/alcohol treatment

  1,039

  1,394

  1,590

  1,795

  1,133

  Drugs/alcohol treatment by/under qualified medical person

  631

  843

  1,131

  1,101

  793

  Total

  2,016

  2,536

  2,997

  3,132

  2,118

  Community punishment and rehabilitation orders

  Residential drugs/alcohol treatment

  4

  5

  3

  1

  6

  Non-residential drugs/alcohol treatment

  165

  238

  238

  175

  143

  Drugs/alcohol treatment by/under qualified medical person

  92

  105

  110

  1,31

  71

  Total

  261

  348

  351

  307

  220

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources will be allocated for drug treatment and testing orders in each of the next two financial years. [99970]

  Prison Food
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisons offer fresh fruit each day to prisoners. [99720]

  Hilary Benn
  All prison establishments are required to offer fresh fruit to prisoners daily.

  Drug Treatment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders(a) in prison and (b) in the community were receiving treatment for drug problems in each of the last five years. [99537]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the number of prisoners receiving treatment for drug problems was not collected centrally until 2001–02 and is given in the following table.

  2001–02

  Number

  Detoxification

  40,865

  Carats1

  9,279

  Rehabilitation

  4,691

  1 Counselling, assessment, referral, advice, throughcare

  Powers to impose a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement, as part of a Community Rehabilitation Order or a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order were contained in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, now the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. However, these statistics do not differentiate between alcohol and drugs. From October 2000, when the Drug Treatment and Testing Order was rolled-out to courts in England and Wales, the power to attach a drug treatment requirement to a Community Rehabilitation Order or Community Rehabilitation and Punishment order was removed.

  The table gives figures for Community Rehabilitation Orders and Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Orders that contain a drug and/or alcohol element for the years 1997 to 2001 and the number of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made between October 2000–December 2001.

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: Additional funding of £17.7 million and £40 million respectively over the next two financial years has been allocated for drug treatment and testing orders.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on prison resources directed at the rehabilitation of 18 to 21 year-old young offenders. [99629]

  Hilary Benn
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the early provisional indications of the Cognitive Self-Change Programme for Prisoners. [99724]

  Hilary Benn
  Preliminary psychometric data is showing reductions in hostility, aggression and impulsivity for the small number of prisoners who have completed the programme. More information will be available as prisoners progress through the programme and further analysis is undertaken.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in unit payments for electricity have resulted from the switch by his Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the Climate Change Levy. [96484]

  Beverley Hughes
  For the financial year 2001–2002 the average unit price of the renewable electricity (inclusive of VAT) purchased by the Home Department was 4.6610p/kWh and the average unit price of standard electricity was 4.5918p/kWh so there was an increase of 0.82 per cent in the average price paid. These figures are for the non-Agency Home Office, other than minor occupations where electricity consumption is minimal and figures are not collected centrally.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the remuneration of special constables. [99551]

  Mr. Denham
  We have introduced the Special Constabulary (Amendment) Regulations 2002 to allow Police Authorities, following a recommendation of the Chief Officer, to make proposals to pay a locally funded allowance to special constables appointed for their area (or part of their area). Such schemes will require the approval of the Secretary of State.

  The change in Regulations will enable a number of trial schemes to be run to help establish what effect such locally funded payments have on Specials' recruitment and retention and the number of hours they are able to offer their force.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the strength was of the special constabulary in each police authority area in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2001; and what the strength is in each area. [99638]

  Mr. Denham
  Special constabulary numbers for this period are recorded centrally every six months in September and March. The latest figures available and the number of serving special constables in each police force area for March 1997 and 2001 are set out in the table.
  1092W

  Police force urea

  March 1997

  March 2001

  March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  759

  400

  364

  Bedfordshire

  182

  115

  118

  Cambridgeshire

  303

  218

  207

  Cheshire

  475

  290

  191

  Cleveland

  160

  93

  85

  Cumbria

  189

  156

  102

  Derbyshire

  428

  275

  260

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,148

  796

  689

  Dorset

  289

  267

  253

  Durham

  184

  146

  134

  Essex

  634

  445

  381

  Gloucestershire

  297

  183

  154

  Greater Manchester

  685

  367

  338

  Hampshire

  621

  454

  444

  Hampshire

  621

  454

  444

  Hertfordshire

  297

  198

  206

  Humberside

  340

  212

  207

  Kent

  589

  392

  327

  Lancashire

  483

  360

  363

  Leicestershire

  415

  162

  143

  Lincolnshire

  271

  166

  155

  City of London

  86

  43

  36

  Merseyside

  401

  541

  468

  Metropolitan Police

  1,714

  774

  680

  Norfolk

  402

  259

  244

  Northamptonshire

  316

  188

  177

  Northumbria

  533

  300

  256

  North Yorkshire

  362

  182

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  620

  335

  341

  South Yorkshire

  308

  188

  206

  Staffordshire

  685

  402

  384

  Suffolk

  379

  349

  308

  Surrey

  297

  149

  187

  Sussex

  472

  306

  306

  Thames Valley

  656

  418

  356

  Warwickshire

  381

  221

  209

  West Mercia

  582

  399

  339

  West Midlands

  945

  617

  598

  West Yorkshire

  690

  415

  349

  Wiltshire

  154

  152

  147

  Dyfed-Powys

  283

  191

  157

  Gwent

  157

  137

  142

  North Wales

  341

  207

  125

  South Wales

  361

  254

  277

  Total all forces

  19,874

  12,722

  11,598

  Since March 1998, information on the strength of special constabularies for each Police Force has been published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins on police strength in England and Wales, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement on the outcome of the Special Constabulary Weekend of 21–23 February. [99639]

  Mr. Denham
  The initial responses that we have received following the National Specials Weekend have been very positive, showing the impressive contribution that specials make to policing. Some of the activities of the Weekend will form the basis of an article to be published in March in `Specialbeat' (an internal Special Constabulary magazine). An article on the Weekend's outcomes will also appear on the new website www.specialconstables.gov.uk which was launched at the same time as the Weekend. I am grateful to the hon. Member who replied to my invitation to support the Weekend.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make further funding available to chief constables to finance allowances under the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002
  1093W
  to assist schemes aimed at the recruitment and retention of special constables; and if he will make a statement; [99645]

  (2) if he will investigate local schemes introduced under the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002 to assess the effect of payment on recruitment and retention of special constables; and if he will publish the findings of such an investigation; [99646]

  (3) how many police authorities have applied to him for approval to introduce an allowance for special constables under the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002; how many he has (a) approved and (b) refused; and what measures he has taken to monitor schemes; [99647]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt special constables from income tax being levied on allowances paid under the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002; and if he will make a statement. [99644]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise that some forces feel it would be helpful to use local funding to pay specials involved in particular schemes and introduced The Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which came into force on 10 January 2003. Under these new regulations, Police Authorities may, following a recommendation by the Chief Officer, make proposals to pay a locally funded allowance to special constables appointed for their area (or part of their area). Proposals must have the approval of the Secretary of State.

  It is for the Police Authority to propose the size and terms and conditions of an allowance appropriate to their area or scheme. It will be open to police authorities to obtain sponsorship to help fund the schemes or to fund them entirely from their existing resources. We expect that, when they are developing proposals, police authorities will take advice from the Inland Revenue on the likely implications of paying an allowance.

  Several police authorities have expressed an interest in developing allowance schemes but we have yet to receive any formal proposals. We will be looking for a number of innovative trial schemes which will enable an evidence-based assessment to be made of the effect of local payment schemes on recruitment and retention and the number of hours offered by specials, and whether such schemes offer value for money.

  Civil Contingencies
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) the St John's Ambulance and (b) the Red Cross concerning contingency civil defence (i) planning and (ii) readiness in the event of an NBC terrorist attack in (A) London, (B) the South East, (C) England and (D) the United Kingdom. [96252]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have received no representations from the St John's Ambulance or the Red Cross concerning any aspect of civil contingency planning or preparedness.
  1094W
  My hon friend the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, (Mr Alexander) has provided further details of how voluntary organisations have been involved in civil defence preparedness, Official Report, column 495W.

  I am aware that my rt hon friend the Secretary of State for Health met Sir Nicholas Young, the British Red Cross Chief Executive, on 7 January this year to discuss ways of strengthening and deepening strategic partnerships between the Department of Health and the Red Cross. There are a number of key common interests including emergency response. Work on these common interests continues. The Department of Health is also closely involved in the work of the National Aid Societies' Emergency Committee (NVASEC) which comprises the Red Cross and St John Ambulance. NVASEC has responsibility for planning such requirements as may be agreed with the Government for the provision of support to the medical services of the Armed Forces, the Health Service of Local Authorities in all encompassing peace time and wartime support role.

  Traffic Accidents (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the rate of road traffic accidents in the London Borough of Havering; [99744]

  (2) what recent communication he has had with the police in the London Borough of Havering regarding road traffic accidents. [99743]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there were 957 reported road traffic accidents in Havering in 2001 and 801 in the period from January to November 2002, the latest for which figures are available. This shows an encouraging downwards trend. Havering Borough continues to demonstrate its commitment to road safety by the deployment of two dedicated road safety officers. The National Policing Plan provides that all police forces and local authorities should include in their local policing plans targeted and intelligence-led strategies for reducing deaths and injuries on the road and achieving a safe environment for all road users.

  Young Prisoners
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new instructions have been issued to prison and social service staff as a result of the judicial review brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform on the Children's Act. [100282]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Following the High Court judgment in the judicial review brought by the Howard League on the application of the Children Act 1989 to children in young offender institutions (YOIs), guidance has been issued to all Area Managers, Governors and Directors, with responsibilities for children in custody. The guidance states that the Act does apply to children in YOIs and the duties imposed on local authorities do not cease to arise merely because a child is in a YOI.

  The possible need for further guidance for other audiences is being considered as part of the Government's response to Recommendation 2.8 of the

  1095W
  Joint Chief Inspectors' report 'Safeguarding Children'. which recommends that the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board should issue revised guidance to the Prison Service and the area child protection committee member organisations on the requirements and arrangements to safeguard children in prisons and YOI.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young people in prison are on the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme(a) in each prison and (b) in total; and if he will make a statement; [99786]

  (2) how many young people in prison have achieved a Duke of Edinburgh award (a) in each prison and (b) in total in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [99785]

  Hilary Benn
  Full awards under the Duke of Edinburgh scheme in Prison Service establishments holding juveniles and young offenders over the period August 2001—February 2003 inclusive are set out in the table. Information on awards obtained before August 2001 is not available. Information on the number of individual prisoners undertaking the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme is not recorded centrally.

  Establishments

  Bronze Award

  Silver Award

  Aylesbury

  4

  Bullwood Hall

  8

  Castington

  2

  Deerbolt

  10

  Doncaster

  4

  Feltham

  10

  Moorland

  11

  Onley

  9

  Swinfen Hall

  10

  Thorn Cross

  4

  Wetherby

  8

  1

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government is doing to maintain the number of small manufacturers; what efforts are being made to improve resources and funding for the small business service; and if she will make a statement. [100298]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government's manufacturing strategy highlights the importance of increasing the uptake of best practice and improving skills, capital investment and innovation as key to the long-term survival of UK manufacturers. The Small Business Service (SBS) works closely with DTI colleagues responsible for the Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS). In all regions the MAS is being delivered in close association with Business Links Operators. In addition SBS runs a number of national programmes which include the provision of specific assistance to manufacturing companies, including the Inside UK Enterprise programme of best practice visits, and the Benchmark Index, which includes a report focused on SME manufacturing, aimed at making it easier for individual manufacturing companies to compare their 1096W
  performance with that of their competitors, and to learn from each other. In "Small Business and Government—The Way Forward", published in December 2002, the Government set out its policy framework towards small business, including the key role of the SBS as a centre of expertise on small business issues in Government. The resources for the SBS in 2003–04 are being considered in the context of the development of its Business Plan for that year, which will be published on www.sbs.gov.uk.

  Auditing/Accounting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish minutes of her meetings with the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. [100522]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In line with the common practice of this and previous governments, we do not publish such minutes under Exemption 2—Internal Advice and Discussion—of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will propose legislation under which plcs would be required to publish their accounts within 90 days of the year end. [100534]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's plans for a revised reporting regime for all companies were contained in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" (Cm 5553), published in July 2002. This included the proposal that public companies should be required to file their annual reporting documents with Companies House within six months of the year end as opposed to seven months at present. In addition, quoted public companies would normally publish these documents on the Internet within four months of the year end.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation under which accountants would be forbidden from acting as reporting accountants for a bank and then becoming liquidators and receivers on behalf of the same. [100538]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not intend to introduce such legislation. Under existing guidelines for liquidators, where there has been a prior material professional relationship no principal or employee of the firm acting as reporting accountants should accept appointment as liquidator of an insolvent company. If the company is solvent, the insolvency practitioner should nevertheless give careful consideration to all the implications of his accepting appointment as liquidator.

  Under existing guidelines for receivers, any insolvency practitioner proposed to be appointed administrative receiver of a company after acting as reporting accountant should take steps to satisfy himself either that the company does not object to his acceptance of the appointment or that the circumstances are such that, in accepting the appointment, he will be able to act, and be seen to act, independently and effectively.
  1097W
  Under the Enterprise Act 2002 the circumstances in which the holder of a floating charge will be able to appoint an administrative receiver will be significantly reduced.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish her Department's correspondence with the Accounting Standards Board over the implementation and compliance with FRS17. [100762]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has had no correspondence with the Accounting Standards Board over the implementation and compliance with FRS17.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when officials of her Department had meetings with partners in Arthur Andersen to discuss the firm's role in(a) Enron and (b) WorldCom. [100525]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Officials in the Department had no meetings with partners in Arthur Andersen to discuss the firm's role in Enron and WorldCom.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory action was taken by her Department against the auditors of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. [100521]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Supervisory Bodies of the accountancy profession are currently responsible for taking action against individual auditors. In the case of the Bank of Credit & Commerce International, action was taken against the auditors/firms by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW), through the Joint Disciplinary Scheme (JDS). The results were published by the press.

  Arrangements for monitoring and disciplining audit firms are to change as a result of the recent Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession. Copies of the Review Report have been placed in the Libraries of House.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the environmental consequences of depositing carbon dioxide on the seabed. [99794]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have, of course, no plans to deposit carbon dioxide on the seabed. We are, however, currently investigating the environmental impact and associated risks of the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide deep beneath the seabed and its use in enhancing the recovery of oil from our reserves in the North Sea. We expect to report our findings on this in the Spring when the Report of the Feasibility of CO2 Capture and Storage in the UK is published.

  Company Financial Statements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to propose legislation to make company directors personally liable for the authenticity of company financial statements. [100763]
  1098W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is already the case under section 233 of the Companies Act 1985.

  E-Commerce
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the total UK GDP was constituted by e-commerce transactions in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [97234]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 February 2003]: Sales and purchases over the internet are measured by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) as a proportion of the total value of sales and purchases. For statistical reasons this is more useful than measuring them as a proportion of GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity, and therefore includes only the value added at each stage of development of a product or service. Data for 2002 will not be available until October 2003.

  ONS E-Commerce Survey of UK Businesses: Sales and Purchases Made Over the Internet (excluding those for the finance sector1)

  Year

  Sales over the internet £ billion

  Sales over the internet as % of total value of sales

  Purchases over the internet £ billion

  Purchase over the internet as % of total value of purchases

  2001

  18.4

  1.0

  23.4

  1.7

  The 2000 ONS survey only covered enterprises with 10 or more employees, and slightly fewer areas of the economy2. The 2001 figures shown below are on a consistent basis to give year on year comparability.

  2001

  £17 billion

  1.0$

  £19.5 billion

  1.7$

  2000

  £12 billion

  0.9$

  £15.6 billion

  1.6$

  Notes:

  1There are particular measurement difficulties associated with capturing e-commerce activity and turnover in the financial sector, preventing the calculation of a reliable estimate for the value of e-commerce in this sector. ONS is working with international organisations (Eurostat, OECD) to help identify a solution but as yet no agreed method has been identified.

  2 The 2000 survey also covered slightly fewer areas of the economy, with the following sectors added for 2001: health and social work; recreational, cultural and sporting activities; other service activities. Sectors covered in both years were: manufacturing, utilities, construction, wholesale and retail, hotels and restaurants, transport and communication, finance and other business services.

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the inquiries that her Department made into the auditing standards of Arthur Andersen as a result of the Enron case. [100544]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has made no such enquiries. The Joint Monitoring Unit of the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies and the ACCA Monitoring Unit are currently responsible for monitoring audit firms.

  Arrangements for monitoring and disciplining audit firms are to be strengthened as a result of the recent Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession. Copies of the Review Report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made on implementing the EU Equal Treatment Directive. [100649]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are currently carrying out a detailed analysis of the amended Equal Treatment Directive to identify all changes which may be needed to the Sex Discrimination Act. We used the recent consultation exercise on implementing the Article 13 Employment and Race Directives to consult at the same time on those provisions in the amended Equal Treatment Directive where the line taken is similar.

  Magnet Sales
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations her Department has conducted into the end use to which magnets sold by the British company Endshire Export Marketing were put by the German buyer. [100073]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None. These allegations relate to 1992 and earlier, and any investigations are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the response of mobile phone operators to the Competition Commission's proposals on mobile phone charges, seeking to reduce their charges; [100091]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of the Competition Commission's proposals on mobile phone charges on the rollout of third generation mobile phones; [100094]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of implementing the Competition Commission's proposals on mobile phone charges on the mobile phone operators in the United Kingdom. [100090]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for the Competition Commission. The report itself is currently subject to judicial review. The Competition Commission is independent from Government.

  All mobile operators across Europe are facing financial constraints due to the overall state of the industry.

  However the UK will be the first major market in Europe to roll out 3G with all five operators still on track to launch in 2003. This is in marked contrast to other European markets where operators have postponed their 3G launch—Orange for example have delayed their 3G roll-out across Europe except in the UK—and this is a vindication of the Government's policy in bringing in a new entrant to increase competition.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken against accountancy firms who do not report suspicions of money laundering to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [100542]
  1100W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This Department is not responsible for prosecutions for failure to report suspicions of money laundering to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

  It is a matter for HM Treasury.

  PLC Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the steps that her Department takes to monitor the quality of accounts published by public limited companies. [100905]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Reporting Review Panel has responsibility for the enforcement of accounting standards for both listed and large private companies.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) complaints, (b) court actions and (c) fines against industry for problems related to (i) odours, (ii) water pollution, (iii) air pollution and (iv) human health impact (A) in total, (B) in each region and (C) per site there have been in each year since 1995. [99213]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Environment Agency does not collect all the requested information and has relevant data only since 1999. All the pollution control systems listed below address human health impact, although figures are not kept separately for offences relating to actual or potential human health impacts. No data are held on complaints. The following information is available from the Agency's database.

  Data on odours are not kept separately but are included in data for waste licensing, the total fines for which were as follows:

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1999

  46,650

  Anglian 8,000, Midlands 11,750, NE 11,000, NW 6,400, Southern 9,500

  2000

  226,400

  Anglian 27,000, Midlands 107,500, NE 8,000, NW 43,200, Southern 16,200. Thames 1,500, Welsh 23,000

  2001

  124,834

  Anglian 3,000, Midlands 72,500, NE 4,334, NW 7,500, Southern 23,500, Welsh 14,000

  2002

  176,800

  Anglian 30,500, Midlands 12,600, NE 6,000, NW 72,500, SW 2,500, Southern 41,450, Thames 6,000, Welsh 5,250

  Of these fines below, the following related to offences under section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act: to treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

  Total fines in England and Wales in respect of integrated pollution control and integrated pollution prevention (which also includes odour offences) were as follows:

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1999

  100.050

  Anglian 1,000, Midlands 1,750, NE 9,000, SW 4,300. Thames 59,000, Welsh 25,000

  2000

  352,500

  Midlands 50,000, NE 166,000, NW 70,000, SW 30,000, Thames 44,000, Welsh 2,500

  1101W

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  2001

  92,000

  Midlands 33,000, Thames 44,000, Welsh 15,000

  2002

  22,750

  Midlands 5.000, NE 10,000, NW 7,500, Welsh 250

  Total fines in England and Wales in respect of water pollution were as follows:

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1999

  46,450

  Anglian 8,000, Midlands 11,750, NE 11,000, NW 6,400, Southern 9,500

  2000

  226,400

  Anglian 27,000, Midlands 107,500, NE 8,000, NW 43,200, Southern 16,200, Thames 1,500, Welsh 23,000

  2001

  124,834

  Anglian 3,000, Midlands 72,500, NE 4,334, NW 7,500, Southern 23,500, Welsh 14,000

  2002

  176,800

  Anglian 30,500, Midlands 12,600, NE 6,000, NW 72,500, SW 2,500, Southern 41,450, Thames 6,000, Welsh 5,250

  Of these fines below, the following related to offences under section 33(1) (c) of the Environmental Protection Act: to treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1999

  123,100

  Midlands 30,350, NE 81,500, NW 5,500, Southern 2,500, Welsh 3,250

  2000

  47,835

  Midlands 24,135, NW 2,500, SW 4,000, Southern 3,000, Thames 1,000, Welsh 3,200

  2001

  85,950

  Anglian 6,000, Midlands 51,050, NE 1,000, NW 2,500, Southern 4,000, Thames 12,000, Welsh 9,400

  2002

  123.700

  Anglian 52,000, Midlands 33,000, NW 10,000. SW 16,000, Thames 3,000, Welsh 9,700

  Total fines in England and Wales in respect of integrated pollution control and integrated pollution prevention (which also includes odour offences) were as follows:

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1999

  704,755

  Anglian 145,000, Midlands 28,950, NE 64,700, NW 148,500, SW 19,305, Southern 91,050, Thames 137,000, Welsh 70,250

  2000

  1,178,450

  Anglian 226,250, Midlands 188,500, NE 81,600, NW 78,400, SW 77,800, Southern 123,000, Thames 264,350, Welsh 138,550

  2001

  1,306,700

  Anglian 233,300, Midlands 112,100, NE 125,950, NW 175,150, SW 96,150, Southern 101,950, Thames 243,600, Welsh 218,500

  2002

  1,943,766

  Anglian 267,950, Midlands 214,700, NE 69,000, NW 391,900, SW 181,550, Southern 85,580, Thames 387,586, Welsh 145,500

  Local authorities also regulate air pollution from industry. The Department does not collect information about numbers of complaints or distinguish between the different court actions. Data on prosecutions from the Department's annual statistical report on the Local Air Pollution Control regime, available from 1997, is as follows.
  1102W

  Date

  Total (£)

  Regional breakdown (£)

  1997–98

  62,400

  West Midlands 17,750, NW 9,000, Yorks & Humber 1,000, NW 16,500, Wales 12,500, East Midlands 650, East of England 5,000

  1998–99

  88,900

  NE 10,000, West Midlands 38,250, NW 7,000, East of England 8,000, Wales 5,000, SE 12,650, East Midlands 8,000

  1999–00

  175,500

  South East 4,000, Yorks & Humber 21,500, East Midlands 4,000, Wales 146,000

  2000–01

  87,510

  East of England 72,400, West Midlands 2,000, Yorks & Humber 5,500, SW 7,250

  2001–02

  62,500

  Yorks & Humber 10,500, West Midlands 15,000, SE 29,000, Welsh 8,000

  The Department holds no data on odour. This information is available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inspection staff have been employed by(a) the Office of Fair Trading and (b) the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate in each year since 1997. [100213]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  (a) The number of inspection staff employed by the Office of Fair Trading in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  12

  2001

  12

  2002

  12

  2003

  15

  (b) The number of inspection staff employed by Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997

  9

  1998

  9

  1999

  9

  2000

  13

  2001

  13

  2002

  14

  2003

  14

  For both sets of figures, the term inspection staff has been taken to mean investigations staff authorised to enter premises.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) staff and (b) inspection staff were employed by the Office of Telecommunications in each year since 1997. [99762]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of staff employed by Oftel since 1997 by financial year are set out below.

  Year

  Number of Stuff Employed

  1996–1997

  161

  1997–1998

  176

  1998–1999

  181

  1999–2000

  195

  2000–2001

  208

  2001–2002

  232

  2002–2003

  235 (estimated)

  1103W
  Oftel does not employ any inspection staff.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) staff and (b) inspection staff have been employed by the Office of Fair Trading in each year since 1997. [99764]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  (a) The total number of staff employed by the Office of Fair Trading on 1 April each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997

  413

  1998

  417

  1999

  428

  2000

  449

  2001

  461

  2002

  556

  2003 (January)

  645

  (b) The number of inspection staff employed by the Office of Fair Trading on 1 April each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  12

  2001

  12

  2002

  12

  2003 (January)

  15

  The term inspection staff has been taken to mean investigations staff authorised to enter premises.

  Small Firms Loan Gurantee Scheme
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in Dumfries and Galloway made use of the small firms loan guarantee scheme in 2001–03; and what the total value of those loans was. [100161]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: Fifteen loans at a value of £486,500 have been guaranteed for small firms in Dumfries and Galloway between April 2001 and February 2003.

  Special Purpose Vehicles (Offshore)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will investigate how many UK companies trade through special purpose vehicles located in offshore financial centres. [100757]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans to do so.

  St. Charles Site, Brentwood and Ongar
  Mr. Eric Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the St Charles site in Brentwood and Ongar. [98446]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is responsible for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for juveniles from the Prison Service, private sector, and local authority secure children's homes, and for setting and monitoring standards.
  1104W
  Planing permission was obtained last year to build a 40 bed secure training centre at the St Charles site. The project has been under review pending the final outcome of the last spending review, but I can confirm that it will go ahead. The Youth Justice Board hope to restart the bidding process in May 2003.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to require companies to publish the details of tax avoidance schemes operated by them within their annual accounts. [100908]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Timber (Burma)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of imports of timber from Burma was in the past two financial years; and which companies imported the timber. [97220]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise are the Department responsible for collecting and recording statistics on the movement of goods with other countries. Information on individual importers and consignments is recorded from customs documents submitted at import but cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality; Exemption 13 of the Open Government Code applies. The value of timber and wood imports from Burma, which is published in Overseas Trade Statistics and is available on Customs' website (www.uktradeinfo.com), is:

  Apr 00—Mar 01

  £3,434,228

  Apr 01—Mar 02

  £3,623,984

  The above figures include timber and processed wood products such as plywood, but exclude made-up articles of wood.

  Unfair Terms
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will affect tenancy agreements for local authority and housing association tenancies. [100331]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 require that unfair terms should not be used in standard contracts made between sellers or suppliers and consumers. An unfair term will not bind the consumer. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to consider complaints about unfair terms and can act to prevent their continued use. The Regulations apply to residential tenancy agreements including those used by local authorities or housing associations with their tenants.

HEALTH

  Air Fresheners
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research has been conducted into the impact upon(a) indoor air quality and (b) human health of the use of air fresheners; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [99214]

  Ms Blears
  I am not aware of any research that has been conducted specifically on the impact of air fresheners on indoor air quality. The Buildings Research Establishment national representative survey on air quality found that 41.9 per cent. of households reported using air fresheners. The dominant determinant of total volatile organic compounds in the survey was painting and decorating. Volatile organic compounds are a wide range of different organic chemicals, some of which may be released into the indoor air by the use of air fresheners. However, there are also many other potential sources of the same or similar chemicals such as building materials, furnishings, environmental tobacco smoke and other consumer products.

  The Avon longitudinal study of parents and children in Bristol has found associations between air freshener use and ear infections in infants, headache in mothers and depression in mothers. If these associations represent true effects, the mechanisms involved are not entirely clear. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

  No advice has been given to the public on air fresheners specifically.

  Abortions
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were carried out in England and Wales in 2002 under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; what the commonest medical conditions were for which they were performed; what checks his Department carried out to determine the suitability of the medical conditions given; and if he will make a statement. [100326]

  Ms Blears
  Information for 2002 will not be available until later this year.

  In 2001, 186,274 abortions were performed in England and Wales, of which 176,364 were on resident women. 97 per cent. were performed under Section 1(la) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended—that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman—and the most common medical conditions reported were mental and behavioural disorders.

  Under Section 2(2) of the Act, registered medical practitioners must notify the Chief Medical Officer of every completed termination of pregnancy they perform. The notification form contains detailed information relating to the procedure, including the doctors who certified there were grounds under the Act, gestation, method used and place of termination. Every
  1106W
  form is checked and monitored by Departmental officials to ensure that the abortion was performed within the provisions of the Act.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 100W, on abortions, if he will provide a breakdown of the figures by age of mother; and how many of the abortions in the answer were undertaken in private clinics in (a) Hampshire and (b) the Isle of Wight. [99332]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table. None of the abortions were undertaken in private clinics in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  NHS funded abortions for Isle of Wight residents, 1997–2001 by age of woman

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Under 15

  3

  1

  0

  3

  0

  15

  1

  3

  3

  8

  5

  16

  12

  9

  11

  11

  9

  17

  12

  14

  11

  14

  23

  18

  18

  17

  8

  10

  18

  19

  8

  13

  14

  19

  19

  20–24

  44

  31

  36

  32

  62

  25–29

  27

  30

  32

  45

  33

  30–34

  21

  43

  24

  24

  27

  35–39

  26

  22

  18

  16

  24

  40– 44

  9

  8

  9

  12

  6

  45 and over

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  181

  194

  166

  195

  227

  Note:

  Prepared by Statistics Division 3G, Department of Health.

  Acute Trusts (Funding)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cash income from(a) nonrecurring and (b) recurring finance provided by his Department and primary care trusts to each NHS acute trust in each of the past three years. [96474]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the total income for each national health service trust provided by the Department of Health has been placed in the Library. Almost all the income is received from commissioners rather than directly from the Department. The Department does not identify income as non-recurring or recurring. The variations year-on-year indicate increasing income in most cases, however with the establishment of primary care trusts some services may transfer from continuing NHS trusts resulting in a fall in income.

  Audiology Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for audiology services in each hospital trust. [97881]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on waiting times is published quarterly on the Department's website. The information can be accessed at http://www.doh.qov.uk/ waitinqtimes/index.htm

  Care (Elderly People)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government is taking to ensure elderly people are being given the free care to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [100294]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department issued guidance on continuing care in June 2001 and this included information on the agreement of eligibility criteria for National Health Service continuing care criteria. Strategic health authorities are currently ensuring that a single set of valid criteria applies across their areas and that everyone is assessed against these.

  Since 1 October 2001, the NHS has also been responsible for funding the nursing care of self funding residents of care homes providing nursing care.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is towards the sponsorship of darts championships by tobacco companies; and if he will make a statement; [97797]

  (2) what measures the Government is taking to assist the British Darts Organisation to find alternative sources of sponsorship; [97798]

  (3) if the Government will extend the transitional arrangements for the sponsorship by tobacco companies to cover the World Professional Darts Championship; and if he will make a statement. [97796]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: The Government has looked very carefully at how best to achieve an end to tobacco advertising and promotion including the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship, where the purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product, whilst at the same time considering those who currently hold tobacco sponsorship agreements. A phased approach has been adopted to the introduction of the prohibition.

  All new sponsorship agreements where the purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product will be prohibited from 14 February 2003. Existing agreements which were in place on 11 July 2001 or have been renewed since then will have until either 30 July 2003 or until 31 July 2005 before being prohibited, so long as they meet criteria specified in The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Sponsorship) Transitional Regulations 2003. One of the criteria for qualifying for the 31 July 2005 extension is that tobacco sponsorship agreements need to have been to the value of £2.5 million in the 12 months ending 11 July 2001. The regulations were drawn up following a public consultation which ended on 15 November 2002. The British Darts Organisation responded to that consultation.

  The Government does not intend to amend the regulations relating to tobacco sponsorship, and in particular exceptional global events, but does want to work with those sports that do not qualify for the 2005 extension to seek alternative sources of funding.

  The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has recently met representatives from the English Pool Association and World Snooker Ltd. to discuss the progress those sports have made in their
  1108W
  efforts to find alternative sponsorship. DCMS will remain available to meet other individual sports to provide advice and discuss any concerns they may have during the transition away from tobacco sponsorship.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to(a) raise awareness of domestic violence in the health profession and (b) provide health services and counselling for victims of domestic violence. [97749]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health published Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Professionals in March 2000. The resource manual provides a solid foundation for local multi-agency work and supports health care professionals and managers in developing their domestic violence policies, protocols and services to ensure victims receive the support they need. The Department is providing funding under the Section 64 Scheme to the Women's Aid Federation of England (WAFE) for their health and domestic violence project to help implement the resource manual in the national health service. As part of this project, WAFE has also published a directory of new health and domestic violence initiatives and undertaken a range of activities to raise awareness of domestic violence among health professionals.

  The Government remains absolutely committed to tackling domestic violence, a serious and abhorrent crime and has set up a Ministerial Group working across Government to provide co-ordinated and concerted action on this issue at the highest level. One of the key areas of the Group's work is to develop early and effective health care interventions. As 30 per cent) of domestic violence is known to start in pregnancy and existing abuse often escalates at that time, the initial focus for this work is in maternity care. The Department of Health is funding an innovative study at the University of the West of England and North Bristol NHS Trust to pilot routine ante-natal questioning about domestic violence. Outcomes from the Bristol pilot will inform the future provision of NHS maternity services.

  1Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom 1997–99

  Drugs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the drugs helpline advertised on the new style cards is(a) confidential and (b) available 24 hours a day. [100032]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The National Drugs Helpline is a confidential service that operates 24 hours a day.

  Elvy Court Nursing Home
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take on Southern Cross Healthcare's retention of the NHS funded nursing care element from fees paid by residents at Elvy Court Nursing Home, Sittingbourne. [100245]
  1109W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: I understand that local inspectors of the National Care Standards Commission home are currently investigating this issue at Elvy Court. I await the outcome of the investigation with interest.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the West Kent National Care Standards Commission's report on Elvy Court Nursing Home, Sittingbourne will be published. [100246]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Publication of the Elvy Court Nursing Home inspection report is scheduled for 14 April.

  Corticosteroid Therapy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department is giving to doctors following the recent Royal College of Physicians research into glucocorticoids. [99553]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently consulting on the draft scope of a clinical guideline on the prevention, assessment and treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures, which will cover osteoporosis of all origins, including men and women on long-term corticosteroid therapy. The guidance is due to be published in 2005.

  The Royal College of Physicians is one of the invited consultees for both the appraisal and guideline. They will be consulted throughout the guideline development process, and will have the opportunity to submit evidence and comment on each draft of the guidance.

  Health Care (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many job vacancies in the(a) Hull and East Riding Hospitals Trust, (b) Hull and East Riding Community Health Trust, (c) West Hull Primary Care Trust and (d) East Yorkshire Primary Care Trust there were in each year since 1997, broken down by job type; and how many of these vacancies were filled. [97728]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the funding allocation for the Health Protection Agency. [95737]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has confirmed the overall funding envelope for the Health Protection Agency, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the central support for microbiological diagnostic work, carried out by those laboratories transferring to national health service trust management. The total sum (in round numbers) in £104 million revenue and £10 million capital.

  Paediatric Continence Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has conducted an audit of paediatric continence services in the United Kingdom. [100417]
  1110W
  Jacqui Smith
  No. The provision of these services in England is a matter for primary care trusts, which are responsible for determining the level of services required to meet the needs of their local population. Common childhood conditions, including enuresis and paediatric continence, will be considered under the forthcoming national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, which is currently developing national standards.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have been waiting(a) up to 12, (b) between 12 and 15 and (c) between 15 and 18 months for in-patient treatment in each of the last 12 months. [97841]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of patients awaiting elective inpatient admission by the time-bands requested.

  Patients waiting for elective admission: position at month end (responsible population based)

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month

  Less than 12 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  January 2002

  1,014,841

  26,400

  3,156

  February 2002

  1,010,704

  23,873

  1,942

  March 2002

  999,735

  21,645

  224

  June 2002

  1.016,516

  20,425

  23

  July 2002

  1,019,403

  18,899

  12

  August 2002

  1,021,189

  18,202

  10

  September 2002

  1,014,355

  16,669

  14

  October 2002

  1,016,895

  15,490

  9

  November 2002

  1,012,623

  12,509

  6

  December 2002

  1,027,564

  10,897

  5

  Note:

  Data for April and May 2002 was not published due to data quality issues post Shifting the Balance of Power.Source: Department of Health form QF01 and monthly monitoring

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Greater London have been waiting(a) up to six months, (b) between six and 12 months, (c) between 12 and 15 months and (d) between 15 and 18 months for hospital treatment in each month since October 2001. [97823]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for elective admission within London DHSC area: Position at month end (responsible population based) Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month

  Less than 6 months

  6–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  0–6

  6–12

  12–15

  15–18

  October 2001

  98,224

  30,077

  5,948

  1,693

  November 2001

  99,522

  29,220

  5,306

  772

  December 2001

  100,508

  31,906

  5,124

  733

  January 2002

  100,896

  32,660

  4,700

  484

  February 2002

  103,218

  31,431

  4,523

  252

  March 2002

  103,720

  31,045

  4,403

  0

  June 2002

  105,236

  31,674

  4,288

  0

  July 2002

  106,274

  31,028

  3,774

  1

  August 2002

  105,497

  32,081

  3,683

  0

  September 2002

  105,208

  32,129

  3,411

  2

  1111W

  Patients waiting for elective admission within London DHSC area: Position at month end (responsible population based) Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month

  Less than 6 months

  6–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  October 2002

  105,034

  31,356

  3,195

  7

  November 2002

  106,214

  29,106

  2,447

  5

  December 2002

  107,602

  30,012

  2,054

  3

  Note:

  Data for April and May 2002 was not published due to data quality issues post Shifting the Balance of Power.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01 and monthly monitoring

  Neurology Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on(a) medical, (b) social and (c) applied research into (i) causes, (ii) treatment and (iii) management of neurological conditions in the last year for which figures are available. [99377]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC spent an estimated £24.6 million in 2001–02 on its neurological disorders portfolio; this covers all the areas of research referred to in the question.

  The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. The Department spent an estimated £2 million in 2001–02 on directly commissioned research projects on the treatment and management of neurological conditions. In addition to specific projects, the Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. The total investment is therefore considerably greater than just the spend on directly commissioned projects.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the national ratio is of care workers to residents in state nursing homes. [99623]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available because it is not collected centrally: much of the provision of care homes providing nursing is commissioned by local authorities from the private sector. The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) does not collect information about the numbers of care workers or nurses in care homes providing nursing. Rather, it inspects staffing levels to see that they are appropriate at all times to the assessed needs of service users, the size, layout and purpose of the home. The NCSC will make information available later in the year to the public and Government about registered services.

  Elderly People
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates to be the cost of(a) all injuries as a result
  1112W
  of a fall, (b) hip fractures and (c) osteoporosis to the national health service in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [100115]

  Jacqui Smith
  Standard Six of the national service framework for older people estimated that hip fractures cost the national health service in England around £1.7 billion per year. No estimate has been made of the cost to the NHS of all injuries resulting from a fall, or the cost of osteoporosis.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent on the funding of falls co-ordinator posts in 2002–3. [100116]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many designated falls co-ordinators are in post in England. [100117]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 226W, on PHLS laboratories, whether he will instruct PCTs to maintain funding levels to NHS laboratories beyond one year after the laboratories are subsumed into local trusts. [99071]

  Ms Blears
  National health service trust boards are being encouraged to ensure that the level of funding available for routine diagnostic microbiology services from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2005 is not less than contracted with the Public Health Laboratory Service during 2002–03.

  For the same period, the proposed Health Protection Agency (HPA) will ensure that the level of funding to HPA laboratories for specialist services they provide and which they commission from transferred laboratories are at least at the same level as for 2002–03.

  Smoking Cessation Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for the expansion of smoking cessation services. [100069]

  Ms Blears
  We have plans for a substantial expansion in National Health Service smoking cessation services, and have allocated £138 million to the NHS over the three years from April 2003 for this purpose.

  We have set the NHS a target of 800,000 smokers to have quit at the four week follow-up stage between 2003 and 2006. We have also set a target to reduce by one percentage point a year the smoking prevalence rate for women who continue to smoke throughout pregnancy and a target to update practice based registers so that patients with coronary heart disease continue to receive appropriate advice and treatment.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which statements he has made concerning social services
  1113W
  where service developments and extra spending are to be met from the 6 per cent. real terms increase in the personal social services spending. [100672]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a number of general statements referring to service improvements that should be possible with the 6 per cent. annual average real terms increase for personal social services for each of the next three years, 2003–04 to 2005–06. It is of course for local councils to decide on their relative spending priorities taking account of local needs and priorities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from overseas governments regarding the recruitment of social workers. [100143]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not received representations from overseas governments regarding the recruitment of social workers. Local authorities are responsible for managing their own recruitment policies and practices, whether recruiting in this country or from overseas.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with local authority leaders regarding the recruitment of social workers(a) in general and (b) from abroad. [100489]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is working closely with local authorities to reduce vacancies across the social care workforce and has committed funding of £1.5 million to the national social work recruitment campaign, which aims to increase the number of applications to social work. We have worked closely with key stakeholders to develop a resource pack to provide material which can be used by authorities for their own recruitment initiatives. Local authorities are responsible for managing their own recruitment from abroad.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to provide opportunities for home care workers and health care assistants to train to become(a) social workers and (b) nurses; and if he will make a statement. [100588]

  Jacqui Smith
  At the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) conference in October 2000, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced funding for a three year student support scheme for those studying for first level professional social work qualifications.

  The funds for this scheme were put into a ring-fenced sub-programme of the training support programme (TSP) grant and local councils have been invited to apply for funds to support both their own experienced care staff and those staff of voluntary and private organisations that are contracted to provide social services, who wished to undertake the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW). For the coming year these funds may also be used to support staff who wish to undertake programmes for the new social work degree, which commences in September 2003.

  The funds available in this TSP sub-programme are shown in the table.
  1114W

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  2001–02

  3

  2002–03

  13

  2003–04

  13

  A new social care training grant, the national training strategy grant, starts in April 2003. The conditions surrounding the use of this grant will be out for consultation by the end of March. There is £6 million ring-fenced within this new grant for a trainee social worker scheme which is to be used to support social care workers who wish to undertake either the DipSW or the new social work degree. Although this grant is to be paid to local councils, it has been suggested that 50 per cent. of the amount that is allocated to each local council is offered to those voluntary and private organisations that are contracted to councils to provide services. This will include organisations providing home care.

  Health care assistants have been able to prepare for nurse training through a cadet scheme or by undertaking a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at level 3. The Department is taking forward a number of steps to support and facilitate the expansion and coverage of cadet schemes. We are also nearing the end of the second year of an ongoing major investment programme, –60 million in 2002–03, to enable health staff without work related professional qualifications access a national health service learning account or dedicated NVQ training. Between April 2001 and September 2002, over 21,000 undertook NVQ training to levels 2 or 3.

  Additionally, we are aiming to increase health care assistant secondments to nurse training from 15 per cent. of the overall national training population in 2003–04 to 24 per cent. of the population in 2005–06. This approach to nurse training has proved to be very popular and there are now some 2,300 new health care assistants and other NHS employees supported each year under the initiative.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of vacancies is for social workers in(a) elderly care, (b) children care and (c) mental health in (i) London, broken down by borough and (ii) England. [100589]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold information centrally on social worker vacancies in each local authority or London borough. A survey undertaken by the Employers Organisation found that across all local authority social services in England as at 30 September 2001, around 10 per cent. of all field social worker posts were vacant.

  TB
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received immunisation against TB in(a) the last year for which figures are available, (b) the previous 12 months and (c) 1996. [97812]

  Ms Blears
  Information about the number of people receiving BCG vaccinations against tuberculosis is contained in tables 4 and 5 of the Statistical Bulletin NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2001–02. A
  1115W
  copy of the bulletin is available in the Library. It can also be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0218.htm

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many successful home visits to claimants were made by local authority benefit fraud officers in each of the last three years. [86992]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Over the last three years, we estimate Local Authorities made around 170,000 visits every year.

  The estimate does not include returns from all Local Authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dysphasia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prevalence and management of dysphasia in Northern Ireland. [99766]

  Mr. Browne
  The prevalence of dysphasia is not held by Departmental recording systems. The management of dysphasia is largely based around speech therapy and improving communication. There is a wide range of causes of dysphasia including head injury, stroke, learning disabilities, cancer etc. and supportive management of communication difficulties may be only one aspect of the treatment required.

  Energy Efficiency Grants
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what energy efficiency grants are available to agricultural projects in Northern Ireland for(a) farmers and (b) processors. [99322]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) is implementing Measure 1.9 of the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. This measure may assist farmers, working in groups, to implement solutions to specific environmental problems. The assistance available is in the form of a grant to implement remedial actions on individual holdings. Such actions could improve energy efficiency on farms.

  Also DARD's Rural Development Programme (2001/2006) is broad based and there may be scope for individual farmers, farmers groups, collectives and cooperatives to bring forward proposals for consideration. The scope for funding an energy efficiency project or programme will depend on the nature of the proposal. All projects or programmes will be economically appraised and must meet the appropriate Programme/ measure criteria.

  Community Fund (Belfast)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria will be applied to the spending of the money which the Prime Minister recently allocated for interface areas of Belfast. [100427]

  Mr. Browne
  On 12 February 2003 I announced the establishment of a new Local Community Fund with an initial budget of £3 million per year. The overall aim of the Fund will be to bolster communities that feel they have been left behind by the political process whether in Belfast or beyond. No decisions have yet been made on the areas to be targeted by the Fund nor on mechanisms for delivery. Work in ongoing on these issues and an announcement will be made in the near future.

  Physiotherapists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the advertised vacancy for a physiotherapist in Loane house, South Tyrone hospital is for a temporary full-time position; and what funding will be made available to recruit a permanent full-time physiotherapist. [100430]

  Mr. Browne
  A full-time physiotherapist post in Loane house has been advertised on the basis of a temporary contract because this is an additional post to the complement that existed following the transfer of services from the South Tyrone site. The Trust is currently undertaking a review of its physiotherapy workload, which will determine the longer-term need for the post and, therefore, the funding requirements.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what locations in the Southern Health and Social Services Board area physiotherapy treatment is available; and how many physiotherapists are based at each location. [100431]

  Mr. Browne
  Details of the locations at which physiotherapy treatment is available in the Southern Health and Social Services Board area, together with the number of whole-time equivalent staff based at each of these locations at 31 December 2002, are shown in the following table.

  Number of physiotherapy staff by location, SHSSB area, 31 December 2002

  Location

  Staffing levels1

  Armagh Community Hospital

  2.90

  South Tyrone Hospital

  4.49

  Fivemiletown Health Centre

  0.10

  Willowbank Surgery, Keady

  0.10

  Armagh and Dungannon Trust

  7.59

  Craigavon Area Hospital—GeneralOutpatients

  2.90

  Lurgan Hospital—General Out-patients

  4.49

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  7.39

  Craigavon Area Hospital—General Outpatients

  4.60

  Craigavon Area Hospital—A & E Clinic

  1.20

  Lurgan Hospital—General Outpatients

  3.00

  Banbridge Polyclinic—General Outpatients

  2.00

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group Trust

  10.80

  Daisy Hill Hospital—General Out—patients

  5.00

  Health Centres

  1.60

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  6.60

  SHSSB Area

  32.38

  1 Whole-time equivalent

  1117W
  Notes:

  1. The locations shown in the table are those in which physiotherapy out-patient activity is carried out. Staffing levels are expressed as whole-time equivalents, as this method reflects the activity of the staff based at the relevant locations.

  2. The services at Craigavon Area hospital and Lurgan hospital sites are provided by physiotherapists from Craigavon and Banbridge Community and Craigavon Area Hospital Trusts, who both use the same sites.

  3. Health centres included in Newry and Mourne Trust figures are: Rathfriland, Newtownhamilton, Crossmaglen, Warrenpoint and Mourne Hospital.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many physiotherapy outpatients were treated each week for the last three months, broken down by location, in the Southern Health and Social Services Board area. [100432]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of physiotherapy attendances during the quarter ending 31 December 2002 (the latest three-month period for which such information is available), in the Southern Health and Social Services Board area, is shown according to location in the following table.

  Number of physiotherapy attendances, SHSSB area, quarter ending 31 December 2002

  Location

  Average weekly attendances

  Total quarterly attendances

  Armagh Community Hospital

  200

  2,598

  South Tyrone Hospital

  168

  2,190

  Fivemiletown Health Centre

  4

  56

  Willowbank Surgery, Keady

  7

  97

  Armagh and Dungannon Trust

  379

  4,941

  Craigavon Area Hospital—General Outpatients

  8

  103

  Lurgan Hospital—General Outpatients

  13

  166

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  21

  269

  Craigavon Area Hospital—General Outpatients

  150

  1,948

  Craigavon Area Hospital—A&E Clinic

  52

  680

  Lurgan Hospital—General Outpatients

  104

  1.350

  Banbridge Polyclinic—General Outpatients

  51

  669

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group Trust

  357

  4,647

  Daisy Hill Hospital—General Outpatients

  323

  4,204

  Health Centres

  35

  461

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  358

  4,665

  SHSSB Area

  1,115

  14,522

  Notes:

  1. The data in the above table refer to outpatient attendances rather than to the number of individual outpatients. It is possible for a person to attend as an outpatient more than once in each week or each quarter.

  2. It is not possible to provide information on attendances for each week of the relevant quarter, as for many locations only a quarterly total is available. However, it is possible to provide average weekly attendances for each location, and these are shown in the table.

  3. The services at Craigavon Area Hospital and Lurgan Hospital sites are provided by physiotherapists from Craigavon and Banbridge Community and Craigavon Area Hospital Trusts, who both use the same sites.

  4. Health centres included in Newry and Mourne Trust figures are: Rathfriland, Newtownhamilton, Crossmaglen, Warrenpoint and Mourne Hospital.

  Textile Industry
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in implementing the Kurt/Salmon report into the textile industry in Northern Ireland. [100429]
  1118W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Kurt Salmon report includes a series of recommendations, the majority of which are for the industry itself to implement. Since the textile industry's endorsement of this Strategy, in 2000, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (through Invest NI) has implemented a comprehensive programme of support in line with its key recommendations. This support has included financial assistance for companies implementing these recommendations and the establishment of Catalyst, an industry grouping whose role is to provide the strategic focus, dynamic leadership and expertise to the sector. In addition, Invest NI has provided support in the areas of innovation, training, and product and trade development. A customised package of support has also been implemented on targeted sector initiatives and supporting industry trade associations to assist in the delivery of the strategy. Initiatives to date include Irish Linen plus Lycra, the Brand to Win programme, and the recent Medical Textiles conference held in Belfast's Odyssey Arena.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  NHS (Fraud)
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Solicitor General what progress has been made in the investigation of suspected fraud in the National Health Service announced by the Serious Fraud Office on 10th April 2002. [100293]

  The Solicitor-General
  The investigation concerns an allegation of a suspected price fixing cartel among those supplying prescribed penicillin based antibiotics and Warfarin to the National Health Service.

  A large volume of paper documents and electronic material was seized in searches conducted in April 2002 at 28 addresses in England, Wales and Scotland.

  The search involved over 150 officers drawn from the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad, the Strathclyde Police and the National Crime Squad. Lawyers, accountants and forensic computer specialists from the SFO, other government departments, provincial police forces and private sector agencies, supported the Police.

  The Director of the SFT assures me that good progress is being made and that the investigation is progressing.

  Paul Skuse
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the Attorney-General's decision not to refer the case of Paul Skuse to the Court of Appeal. [95934]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2003]: The Attorney-General decided, after very careful consideration of this sensitive and unusual case, not to pursue his application to the Court of Appeal as an unduly lenient sentence.

  The Attorney wrote to the hon. Member to set out his reason on 23 January 2003 as he believes the sentence passed— two and a half years imprisonment plus an extended licence period of two and a half years—was

  1119W
  not unduly lenient in this very unusual case, and taking all matters into account was of the view that the Court of Appeal would not increase the sentence.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the funds delivered to Afghanistan in 2002 for aid and reconstruction by the(a) USA, (b) EU, (c) UK and (d) Japan, and the total funds promised to that country in the Tokyo agreements. [100985]

  Clare Short
  At the international donor conference in Tokyo in January 2002 donors made pledged covering 1–5 years, totalling $4.5 billion for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Afghanistan. The total estimate for money disbursed in 2002 is $1.8 billion. The Afghan Assistance Co-ordination Authority (AACA) records show that Afghanistan received the following amounts of support in 2002 from:(a) USA, $602,167,421; (b) European Union (all member states), $452,820,329; (c) UK, $58,685,499; and (d) Japan, $142,698,441. However the UK actually disbursed $135,494,011 in 2002 and we believe that the AACA figures for the other donors are also underestimates.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99593]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not have a hospitality budget as such. Actual expenditure by DFID on official entertainment in the last three financial years was as follows:

  1999–00

  £62,000

  2000–01

  £48,000

  2001–02

  £55,000

  We estimate we will spend some £74,000 on entertainment in 2002–03.

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Iraq
  Mr Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian consequences of a war with Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [100264]

  Clare Short
  Most Iraqi people are very vulnerable to humanitarian crisis. The majority of Iraqi's live in urban areas, with a dependence on water, sanitation and food distribution systems which could be disrupted in the event of military action. People's private coping strategies have been worn away by years of misrule. There is also the very worrying danger that Saddam might use chemical or biological weapons causing 1120W
  injuries to civilians, and that any conflict might lead to large population movements creating enormous humanitarian needs. My Department is in regular discussion with the Ministry of Defence, the UN, Governments and humanitarian actors about minimising the humanitarian risks of any conflict to the Iraqi people, and responding to any crises which might arise.

  EU Sugar Market
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries within the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group will continue to have preferential access to the EU sugar market when the Everything But Arms countries have completed transition to free access.
  [100627]

  Clare Short
  All those members of the ACP group that are least developed countries (LDC) will benefit from continued preferential access to the EU sugar market, since they are also eligible for EBA preferences. These countries are as follows: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Zambia. For non-LDC members of the ACP, it is not possible at present to indicate whether they will have continued preferential access to the EU sugar market from 2009 since this depends on the provisions for sugar in the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) which are due to replace the Cotonou Agreement in 2008. Negotiations on EPAs have only just started but the UK is pushing for all ACP countries, not just LDCs, to benefit from duty and quota free access to the EU from 2008. EPA provisions on sugar will in turn be affected by the way the EU sugar regime is reformed.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much sugar entered the EU from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries under the Cotonou agreement in the last 12 months. [100628]

  Clare Short
  In the period June 2001 to July 2002, 1.51 million tonnes of sugar were imported into the EU, from ACP countries and India, under the EU Sugar Protocol and the Special Preferential Sugar import arrangements.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the potential impact of production of sugar by Brazil on the economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific and Everything But Arms countries if a global free market in sugar were to be established. [100629]

  Clare Short
  Winners from a free world sugar market are likely to be low-cost producers with the ability to compete on an open market, whereas the high-cost (thus less efficient) producers are likely to lose, unless their industries are restructured.
  1121W
  Brazil is estimated to be the lowest cost producer in the world and has the potential to respond very quickly to increased demand and supply large quantities of sugar at around the current world price. It is hard to predict what the situation would be like under complete liberalisation, although it is expected that Brazil will absorb a large share of the world market, as will Australia. However, among the ten lowest cost producers in the world (1993–98) are also Zimbabwe (before Australia), Zambia, Malawi and Swaziland who are therefore also potential winners.

  Some ACP countries like Swaziland are low cost producers and therefore likely to benefit from further liberalisation. Also efficient ACP LDCs, like Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique stand to gain. For ACP countries like Jamaica and Madagascar who are high cost producers and heavily dependent on the preferential access granted by the EU, the sugar industry might need some restructuring to be able to compete.

  Mr. James Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the total sugar production of the Everything But Arms countries(a) at present and (1)) at the end of the transition period to free access to the EU. [100631]

  Clare Short
  Figures from the Statistical Bulletins of the International Sugar Organisation (January 2003) report a total production of sugar from EBA countries of 1.15million tonnes in 2001. No estimate has been made of possible future production levels for these countries.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Works of Art
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the total value of art and antiques(a) possessed by and (b) used by the Scottish Office; and if she will make a statement. [90381]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A comprehensive estimate of the value of the art, furniture and other antique items on display in the buildings used by the Scotland Office is not available. The majority of such items are on loan from other sources.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [92242]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since then, expenditure on external consultancy has been as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  5,465

  2001–02

  17,864

  2002–03 (Estimated)

  6,100

  Gaelic Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Government provided to support the production of television programmes in the Gaelic language in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [100993]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure on this matter is for the Scottish Executive.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether she has issued guidelines to local authorities in Scotland on the introduction of facilities for the provision of retail and fleet liquefied petroleum gas; [96463]

  (2) whether she has issued guidelines to local authorities in Scotland on the introduction of facilities for the provision of compressed natural gas. [96462]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Facilities for the provision of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), like all hydrocarbon fuels, are licensed by local petroleum authorities (LPAs) under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) together constitute the Competent Authority (CA) that enforces the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (Scotland) 2000 which apply to such facilities. Those facilities are also subject to the land-use planning system administered by local planning authorities subject to guidance issued by the Scottish Executive.

  Scotland Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) senior management, (d) ministerial private offices, (e) information divisions and (f) policy divisions there have been in the Scotland Office in each year from 1999–2000 to 2002–03, giving the total cost of each for each year; and if she will make a statement. [90374]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by her Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and at what cost in each year. [92484]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Details of the number and costs of Special Advisers were given in the reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 31 January 2003, Official Report, column 1056W.

  The number of Press Officers employed by my Department from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 and their costs in each of these years are as follows:
  1123W

  Numbers of Press Officers in January of each year

  cost

  1999–2000

  4

  144,078.16

  2000–01

  4

  139,705.16

  2001–02

  4

  134,702.43

  1 Part year cost

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department, which includes the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland, has two special advisers, nine senior civil servants, three ministerial private offices, three policy divisions and one information division, which includes four press officers.

  Individual costs are not available in the form requested; but the details of administrative expenditure can be found in the Departmental Report and Resource Accounts for the Scotland Office.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in her Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [93512]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Details of staff absenteeism are given in the following table:

  Dates

  Working days lost due to sickness

  1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000

  396

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  662.5

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  601.5

  1 April 2002 to 30 November 2002

  479

  My Department is committed to reducing the levels of sick absence and has recently introduced a new management attendance procedure. Absence will continue to be monitored closely but no targets have yet been set.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parlimentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reasons underlie the change in spending by the Northern Ireland Court Service between 1998–99to 2003–04;and if she will make a statement. [99827]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following table reflects the net resource outturn, both actual and estimated, for the Northern Ireland Court Service for the Period from 1998 to 2004.

  Net resource outturn

  Appropriation account

  1998–99

  42,924.00

  Resource account

  1999–2000

  63,160.00

  2000–01

  70,749.00

  2001–02

  80,369.00

  1124W

  Net resource outturn

  Estimate

  2002–03

  97,9764.00

  Planned

  2003–04

  94,540.00

  The Northern Ireland Court Service has increased spending over the past number of years in order to deliver a substantial increase in customer service.

  1. Expenditure on Legal Aid, which is designed to ensure that all sections of the community have access to justice, is demand led and has increased by 59 per cent. over this period.

  2. The Northern Ireland Court Service has taken on additional responsibilities, such as the provision of security at courthouses (previously undertaken by the police), the implementation of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review, and the development of reforms such as the Justice (NI) Act 2002 and the Access to Justice (NI) Order 2003.

  3. The adoption of resource accounting has led to the introduction of non-cash charges such as depreciation being added in to the cost of running the organisation, which has increased spend by in excess of £10 million.

  4. In order to develop modern systems and infrastructure to support the administration of justice and to meet Government targets on electronic delivery of services, the department entered into two PFI arrangements during the period. These arrangements saw the introduction of modern information technology and the construction of the high-tech Laganside Courts Complex in Belfast.

  5. In order to achieve these improvements in service delivery, there have been corresponding increases in staff and accommodation.

  Public Records Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make an assessment of the effects of privatising the Public Records Office; and if she will make a statement. [100391]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office was subject to a Quinquennial Review in 1997–98, which concluded that its core functions in relation to its oversight of records management in other government departments and its custody of historical public records can only be carried out from within government. Quinquennial Reviews have now been replaced by other business improvement processes in Government.

  The PRO will be joining up with the Historical Manuscripts Commission to form the National Archives on 1 April 2003, and the new organisation will strive to offer services which offer even better value for money than those provided separately by the two organisations.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Welsh Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps she is taking to
  1125W
  (a) protect and (b) promote the Welsh language, with particular reference to broadcasting; and if she will make a statement; [100990]

  (2) what her Department's plans are to protect and promote (a) the Gaelic language and (b) the Welsh language, with specific regard to broadcasting; and if she will make a statement. [100622]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The Government's plans for Gaelic language broadcasting are contained within the Communications Bill. The Bill establishes a new Gaelic broadcasting body, the Gaelic Media Service (Seirbheis nam Maedhanan Gaidhlig) with broader powers to secure that a wide and diverse range of programmes are broadcast or otherwise transmitted for reception in Scotland. The Gaelic Media Service will build on the strengths of the existing Gaelic Broadcasting Committee (CCG), but will have a broader representative base, including the main broadcaster interests and others responsible for the development of Gaelic language and culture.

  For the Welsh language, the Government is maintaining index-linkage of the grant in aid to the Welsh fourth channel, S4C, as well as the requirement for the BBC to provide at least 10 hours a week of free programmes to the Welsh Authority. The Communications Bill will update the regulatory structure for the Authority, including a system of approvals for new public and commercial services.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effects of privatising Channel Four; and if she will make a statement. [100338]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government considered the future of Channel Four in the context of developing its proposals for broadcasting in the Communications Bill. Channel Four's current structure as a non-profit making statutory corporation works well, and it remains a central element in the Government's vision for the broadcasting industry in the digital future. I expect Channel Four to continue to fulfil a vital role in providing diverse and innovative public service programming of high quality.

  Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the grant made to Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum through the Regional Renaissance initiative is additional to funding of the museum as a result of its status as a Designated Collection. [100466]

  Dr. Howells
  The award received by Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum from the Designated Challenge Fund for 2002–04 is separate from the funds that will be allocated to the South West Regional Hub through the Renaissance in the Regions initiative.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of public spending 1126W
  on her Department and its predecessors in each year from 1983–84 to 2003–04 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [99836]

  Dr. Howells
  Expenditure on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its predecessor, the Department of National Heritage (which was formed in 1992) is shown in the following table. The figures exclude depreciation and cost of capital charges.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Total administration expenditure

  1992–93

  16.1

  1993–94

  21.7

  1994–95

  20.1

  1995–96

  20.4

  1996–97

  21.6

  1997–98

  21.4

  1998–99

  22.7

  19992000

  27.5

  2000–01

  30.0

  2001–02

  30.7

  2002–03

  39.1

  2003–04

  36.0

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people aged 75 or above receive free television licences in the Tooting constituency. [101052]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, who administer the free licence scheme as agents for the BBC, are not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,800 people aged 75 or over living in the Tooting constituency.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under the terms of her proposed Licensing Bill, what licensing arrangements would apply to(a) a village green and (b) other public open space which was used for licensable activities on more than five occasions per year. [98826]

  Dr. Howells
  The Licensing Bill provides that premises means any place. The Bill therefore applies in relation to outdoor places and events to the same extent as it does to indoor ones, save in the case of sporting events. Under the Bill, a premises licence would therefore be required in respect of a village green or other public space which is to be used for licensable activities on more than five occasions in the same year in the same way as it would for any other premises. Part 5 of the Bill provides for permitted temporary activities which may take place on a premises on up to five occasions in a year.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press releases have been issued by her Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92467]
  1127W
  Dr. Howells
  The number of press releases issued by the Department for Culture Media and Sport in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 is as follows:

  Number

  1995–96

  299

  1996–97

  414

  1997–98

  315

  1998–99

  338

  1999–2000

  294

  2000–01

  370

  2001–02

  227

  2002 to date (25 February 2003)

  185

  Quarterly figures for the past seven years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Smoking in the Workplace
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what policy her Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100935]

  Dr. Howells
  Following consultation with the staff a smoking room was designated in each building. Smoking is not allowed anywhere else in departmental buildings.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by her Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and at what cost in each year. [92468]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of press officers employed by DCMS in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03 (at 1 April in each year) and their remuneration is as follows.

  Date

  Number

  Remuneration (£)

  1997

  8

  227,207

  1998

  19

  207,619

  1999

  8

  236,150

  2000

  9

  245,039

  2001

  8

  265,631

  2002

  10

  275,177

  1 Includes two staff working part-time.

  Financial and Human Resource information for periods prior to, and including 1996–97 is not held on the Department's databases and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  With regard to the number of Special Advisers employed by DCMS in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 31 January 2003, Official Report, columns 1056–57W.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what circumstances supermarkets selling alcohol may also sell motor transport fuel from the same business site. [98490]
  1128W
  Dr. Howells
  Section 9 of the Licensing Act 1964 sets out circumstances in which persons and premises are disqualified from holding or receiving justices' licences for the sale of alcohol. It includes provision that "premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are primarily used as a garage or form part of premises which are primarily so used". It further provides that "the reference to use as a garage is a reference to use for any or more of one of the following purposes, namely, the retailing of petrol or dery or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles".

  Television Subtitling
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she plans to take to provide information to those who would benefit from television subtitles about(a) their existence and (b) how to gain access to them. [100265]

  Dr. Howells
  The Communications Bill gives OFCOM a duty to draw up a code relating to the provision of television services for the deaf and visually impaired. This will give guidance as to the means by which the understanding and enjoyment of the services by the deaf or hard of hearing should be promoted and might include guidance to broadcasters on the provision of information about subtitles. It is in the broadcasters own interests to actively promote the availability of the services they are providing.

  TV Licensing Agency
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were employed by the TV Licensing Agency in each year since 1997. [100456]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not held centrally. The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system but the day to day administration is contracted out to several organisations, operating jointly as TV Licensing. The number of staff employed by each of those contractors to fulfil the terms of their contracts is a matter for them.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Advanced Skills Teachers
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes in funding will take place from April for advanced skills teachers to share their expertise in neighbouring schools. [100223]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding for Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) in 2003–04 will be based on the same principles as now, but with additional funding available to allow for the planned expansion of the AST grade. Funding is provided to LEAs at an average of £14,500 per post of which £5,700 is for the outreach costs. The additional costs of AST posts are met through a broadly even mix of DIES funding through the Standards Fund (SF) and matching funding by the LEA. The amount currently available to LEAs in 2002–03 is –38.9 million of which the departmental contribution is £20.2 million. For 2003–04, the overall SF allocation to support ASTs is £66.4 million of which the DfES share is £33.2 million.
  1129W
  In addition to the matched funded grant we have made £17.7 million available in 2002£03 to support AST posts without a matching LEA contribution to work on specific Government priorities. There will be no new posts funded under these special schemes in 2003–04, although the match-funded grant allocations for 2003–04 include funding to enable LEAs to provide continuing support for existing posts when funding at the 100 per cent. grant rate finishes.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils obtained A⋆-C grades in all three core subjects in(a) wholly comprehensive local authority areas and (b) wholly selective local authority areas, in each of the last five years. [91583]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: Within wholly comprehensive LEAs the following percentages of pupils achieved GCSE grades A⋆-C in all of the three core subjects of English, Mathematics and Science.

  Percentage

  2002

  38

  2001

  34

  20001

  33

  1999

  32

  1998

  30

  Within the LEAs deemed wholly selective for grammar school ballots purposes the following percentages of pupils achieved GCSE grades A⋆-C in all of the three core subjects of English, Mathematics and Science.

  Percentage

  2002

  43

  2001

  42

  20001

  42

  1999

  40

  1998

  39

  The following percentages of pupils in all schools in England achieved GCSE grades A⋆-C in all of the three core subjects of English, Mathematics and Science.

  Percentage

  2002

  39

  2001

  38

  20001

  37

  1999

  36

  1998

  34

  1From and for the year 2000, in line with general performance tables practice, figures for LEAs aggregates have been adjusted for asylum seekers and refugees, but national information has not been adjusted for these pupils.

  The increase in the proportion of pupils achieving a grade A⋆-C in each of English, maths and science in wholly selective LEAs—4 percentage points since 1998–is half the increase (of 8 percentage points) for pupils in wholly comprehensive authorities. In addition,
  1130W
  the above figures have not been adjusted to take into account pupil's prior attainments at KS2 or KS3, or socio-economic circumstances of schools.

  For example, the proportion of pupils in mainstream, maintained schools 'known to be eligible for free school meals' in the 10 LEAs deemed wholly selective for grammar school ballots purposes is 11 per cent., compared with 17 per cent. in wholly comprehensive authorities, and nationally. Research has shown that lower levels of performance outcome are associated with lower levels of prior attainment and with higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage.

  General Studies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the content of general studies lessons is; whether general studies covers guidance on how to complete(a) health, (b) benefits and (c) career-related forms; and if he will make a statement on the value of general studies periods. [100438]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All National Curriculum subjects in England provide opportunities to promote pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Explicit opportunities to promote pupils' development in these areas are provided in religious education, citizenship and the non-statutory framework for personal, social and health education (PSHE).

  PSHE helps to give pupils the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead confident, healthy, independent lives. They learn how to make confident, informed choices and decisions about issues that affect their health and well-being. They learn to use a range of financial tools and services, including budgeting and saving, in managing personal money; and to use career services to help them develop career management plans.

  Young people in years 9, 10 and 11 receive advice and support on careers and work, including career-related forms, through careers education and guidance programmes delivered by their school, supported by independent information, advice and guidance on learning and career options from the Connexions Service.

  There is no GCSE or pre-16 subject of general studies. The awarding bodies do offer an A level course in general studies.

  Higher Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates were made of the delay times in repayments to the Treasury if graduate tax were adopted in place of tuition fees, when drawing up the proposals in the policy document, The Future of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [98132]

  Margaret Hodge
  The length of time to realise a particular tax revenue depends critically upon the assumptions being made. Given the number of variables, there is no single answer. In particular, it is sensitive to assumptions about the rate of additional tax and the threshold above which the tax is paid.
  1131W
  For example, the income threshold at which repayments begin under the loans system is higher than for most taxes (currently £10,000, rising to £15,000 in April 2005), but the rate at which repayments are made is also substantially higher than would be likely under a graduate tax system (9 per cent. of income over the threshold until the loan is fully recovered). Moreover, students and employers have the option to repay early any sums owed and evidence shows a significant number do so. This combination of factors means that the Government are more likely to recover "repayments" more quickly under a loans system than under a graduate tax system.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements he will make for accreditation of the(a) professional and (b) teaching skills of (i) full-time and (ii) part-time further education lecturers in connection with conditions on their continuing ability to teach in colleges. [100153]

  Margaret Hodge
  "Success for All" sets out our aim of a fully qualified workforce in further education colleges by 2010. Regulations introduced in 2001 require new lecturers to be qualified to teach within two years if they are full-time, or four years if they are part-time. There is no requirement for existing staff to become qualified, but we have set a target that 90 per cent. of full-time staff and 60 per cent. of part-time staff will be qualified to teach, or enrolled on appropriate courses, by 2006. Enabling powers to make further regulations were secured in the Education Act (section 136). The Learning and Skills Council is currently consulting on arrangements to achieve this and other targets.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the annual cost of compliance with access regulation requirements falling on the higher education sector. [100302]

  Margaret Hodge
  The last review on regulatory requirements falling on the higher education sector was carried out by the Better Regulation Task Force. I am placing a copy of the report in the House Library for reference. From this month, Professor VandeLinde, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick, will be chairing a task force to ensure that the burden of bureaucracy in higher education is reduced and kept to a minimum. The task force will help to ensure that significant new initiatives such as access regulation, will not place any disproportionate new burden on the sector.

  National Curriculum
  Mr.Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what periods of history are studied in the schools curriculum from year 7 to year 13; and what choice is available to students wanting to specialise in certain areas; [100436]

  (2) if he will require the history syllabus in the schools curriculum to cover all periods of history by year 11. [100437]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  History is a compulsory part of the national curriculum in England for all pupils in years 1–9,that is key stages 1–3.
  1132W
  The programmes of study for history require that pupils are taught knowledge, skills and understanding through various areas of study. At key stages 2 and 3 these include studies of local history, British history, European and world history. Certain periods are compulsory including at key stage 2, the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or Vikings in Britain, the Tudors and, either the Victorians, or Britain since 1930. At key stage 3 all pupils have to study key features of British history in a time span ranging from 1066 to the impact on Britain of the Cold War. Primary and secondary schools do have some discretion over the detailed content of their history courses as long as the statutory requirements are met.

  The full requirements of the history national curriculum can be seen at www.nc.uk.net.

  Beyond key stage 3 of the national curriculum, history is an optional subject and the content of courses are determined by the awarding bodies through their examination specifications for GCSE and A level history. QCA is responsible for approving these specifications. There is considerable choice in the GCSE, AS and A levels currently available, and it is up to schools to choose which course of study best meets the needs of their students.

  We are committed, as part of our review of 14–19 education, to introducing an entitlement for students to study the humanities in years 10 and 11.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs of the Learning and Skills Council are in 2002–03; what the estimated figure is for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [99813]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC)'s core administration budget in each of the three years, 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05 is £218 million. In addition, a further £17.9 million has been made available in 2002–03 mainly to cover one-off transition costs associated with establishing a new organisation. The LSC's core administration costs represent 2.9 per cent. of its total current budget from the Department for Education and Skills of £7,606 million, falling to 2.5 per cent. of its planned total budget in 2004–05. This represents good value for money and a saving of over £50 million on the cost of predecessor organisations.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what co-ordination has taken place with the Department for Trade and Industry to ensure that sufficient skills capacity is developed to deal with current and future volumes of radioactive waste through training in universities and research institutes. [100043]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2002, the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) co-ordinated a study of the skilled population required for the application of nuclear and radiological technology, including waste management, power generation, health and defence. This was sponsored by several departments. The study
  1133W
  considered the supply of skilled people over the next 15 years and recommended in its report that workforce development arrangements be included within the work of the evolving network of Sector Skills Councils. My Department is working closely with the Sector Skills Development Agency and the DTI to ensure that the nuclear industry is represented in the network.

  Science
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils educated in the state sector attained(a) level 5 and above and (b) level 6 and above in Key Stage 3 science in each year from 1999 to 2001. [99754]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils in maintained schools who achieved(a) level 5 or above and (b) level 6 or above in Key Stage 3 science in each year from 1999–2001 is shown in the tables:

  Key Stage 3 science test

  Key Stage 3 Science teacher assessment

  (a) Level 5 or above

  (b) Level 6 or above

  (a) Level 5 or above

  (b) Level 6 or above

  All maintained schools

  1999

  55

  24

  60

  29

  2000

  59

  29

  62

  30

  2001

  66

  34

  64

  32

  Maintained mainstream schools only

  1999

  55

  24

  61

  30

  2000

  60

  30

  63

  31

  2001

  67

  34

  65

  32

  Demountable Classrooms
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 357W, on demountable classrooms, whether he is now able to plan a visit to the St. Andrews junior and infant schools in Colchester to inspect the demountable classrooms. [99609]

  Mr. Miliband
  Further to the answer given on 6 February by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State London Schools, I would hope to include a visit St. Andrew's Junior and Infant Schools when I am next in the Colchester area.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on collusion between higher education institutions in the setting of tuition fees; and what mechanism he uses to prevent collusion. [100304]
  1134W
  Margaret Hodge
  Under current arrangements, the level of tuition fees for full-time undergraduate courses in England is fixed and the question of collusion does not arise.

  Our future plans for higher education make clear each university will need to have in place an Access Agreement with the independent Access Regulator before they are allowed to increase tuition fees above the current fee. Each university will be treated independently.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99434]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Number of questions

  Total number of named day written questions tabled to this Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February.

  409

  Number of questions answered on the named day

  167

  Number of questions for which a holding reply was issued and a substantive reply sent within three business days

  154

  Number of questions for which a holding reply was issued and a substantive reply sent between four and seven business days

  68

  Number of questions for which a holding reply was issued and a substantive reply sent between eight and 14 business days

  15

  Number of questions for which a holding reply was issued and a substantive reply sent between 15 and 28 business days

  5

  Number of questions for which a holding reply was issued and a substantive reply sent after 29 business days

  0

  The provision of quality responses in a timely manner to both parliamentary questions and ministerial letters is one we take very seriously. Outstanding parliamentary questions are monitored on a daily basis by the parliamentary section and reviewed weekly by the parliamentary clerk. The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to ministerial correspondence. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002, column 674W. The report for 2002 will be published in due course.

DEFENCE

  Research Acquisition Organisation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The defence research community has been subject to major change in recent years. The Public Private Partnership arrangements for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which led to the formation of QinetiQ, and the establishment within the Ministry of Defence of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, coupled with a move towards increased competition in contracting for defence research has required a major change in the management of the defence research programme.

  A review of science and technology in defence, commissioned in 2000 by the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Keith O'Nions, recommended the establishment of a new research management organisation to meet these challenges. This new organisation, called the Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO), comprising up to 80 technical and support staff, will be responsible for formulating a coherent research programme, drawing together the many requirements from across the Ministry of Defence, determining optimum procurement strategies and placing appropriate contracts.

  The majority of staff working in this organisation are currently located in two Ministry of Defence buildings in Central London (Northumberland Avenue) although some Research Directors work from other defence sites across the country. This is clearly a sub-optimal solution if the organisation is to function at maximum effectiveness. Recruiting new staff has also been hampered by the lack of sufficient accommodation at a single site. There is therefore a strong business case for collocating all staff in the organisation in one location.

  Following an extensive review, the existing Ministry of Defence site at Shrivenham has been identified as the most suitable to collocate the RAO, both from a cost effectiveness perspective but also driven by the requirement for the new organisation effectively to interface with its many customers. Close contact with the Defence Academy at Shrivenham will also be of mutual benefit. Consultation with the Trade Unions on this proposal has now been concluded and no concerns were raised. Ministers have therefore agreed that the move to Shrivenham should take place and it is our aim to commence the move by September this year and that full collocation will be completed by March 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authority Social Housing Grant
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  LASHG was an unfair funding mechanism that did not allocate funds to areas of greatest need, consistently under-spent nationally, and gave unfair advantage to debt-free local authorities.

  As part of the measures outlined in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", we have decided to abolish LASHG to allow a more strategic use of resources. The change is to take effect from 1 April 2003.

  We understand the concerns that have been raised over the timing of this change, and recognise the difficulties this is causing for the planning of schemes coming forward over the next few months. However, it would be indefensible to retain the current arrangements, at a time when there are pressing housing priorities that are not getting sufficient funding.

  We are also clear that there should be no hiatus in housing investment. We are therefore putting in place transitional arrangements to cover schemes that could have gone ahead in 2003–04 if we had continued with a £500 million provision for LASHG.

  The transitional arrangements will be as follows:
  for debt-free authorities, provision will be increased from £175 million to £275 million; the money will be allocated by the Housing Corporation direct to the RSL.for with-debt authorities, revenue support of up to £11 million will be provided to compensate them for the loss of investment income (at an interest rate of 4 per cent.) they would have expected on repayments from the Housing Corporation for schemes supported by their own resources; this will fund up to a further £275million of investment in 2003–04; this money will be paid through a special grant under section 88b of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  These arrangements will cover schemes which will have already started by 31 March 2003. We are also extending the deadline for submitting bids for new schemes to the Housing Corporation for 3 months to 30 June 2003, provided that schemes have planning permission, are approvable and are programmed to draw down the start-on-site tranche of grant by the end of January 2004. We do however need to ensure that the funding limits are not exceeded. If the total claims submitted by 30 June exceed the money available, the Housing Corporation will prioritise schemes with the Government Offices in terms of their contribution to the regional housing priorities. Transitional funding will therefore support investment in housing of up to £;550 million. This is an increase of £50 million on the provision for LASHG in 2002–03, and is higher than in any previous year. It is fully in line with the measures we have set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan to increase substantially the resources made available for delivering sustainable communities for everyone.

  Social Exclusions Unit Projects
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  With the Prime Minister's agreement, I have asked the Social Exclusion Unit to take on two new projects.
  83WS
  In the first, the Unit will work with other Government Departments to look at what more might be done to help people in the most deprived areas in England move into jobs.

  The Unit will consider whether existing policies are being delivered as effectively as possible in these areas. They will look in particular at whether more might be done to promote two ways of entering work: leaving the informal economy for legitimate jobs and businesses; and moving into self-employment and enterprise.

  I have also asked the Unit to work with other Government Departments to consider what more can be done to reduce social exclusion among adults with mental health problems.

  The Unit will look at how to improve rates of employment for adults with mental health problems, through support both in taking up and in retaining work. The Unit will also consider how to promote greater social participation and better access to services for this group.

  I have asked that the Unit report to Ministers on these two new topics early next year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Offenders (Travel Ban)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  The Government are committed to tackling the sexual exploitation of children wherever it occurs in the world. This includes where UK citizens go abroad with the intention of abusing children. We have already put in place a number of measures to deal with this problem but the Sexual Offences Bill currently before Parliament provides us with an opportunity to ensure that we are doing everything we can to deal with those who commit sexual offences overseas.
  84WS
  Under current legislation the courts do not have the power to stop an offender who has been convicted of sexual offences against children from travelling overseas. We believe this is wrong and that it should be addressed. We therefore intend to bring forward a Government Amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill that will introduce a new foreign travel banning order that will enable courts, in certain circumstances, to prohibit those convicted of a sexual offence against a child from travelling to specified countries. We hope to introduce this amendment by the end of March.

  The new order would be a civil preventative order made following an application from a chief officer of police. It would apply to those convicted of a sexual offence against a child under 16 either in the UK or overseas. The order would be available where the court was satisfied that it was necessary to protect children overseas from serious sexual harm by the offender and that there are no other, equally effective means, to prevent such harm. The orders would last for up to six months renewable on further application from the police.

  In addition to introducing the proposed foreign travel banning order, we will be consulting with interested parties on the arrangements for the notification of foreign travel by "registered" sex offenders. We are aware that this issue has generated considerable interest. We will consult quickly on this issue with a view to making the Government's intentions clear by the end of March. This will enable our intentions to be considered and debated fully during the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill through Parliament.

  A paper with further details on the Government's proposals has been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  I plan to deliver the Budget Statement on Wednesday 9 April 2003.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Paris on Tuesday 25th March and Wednesday 26th March when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

New European Constitution
2.36 p.m.
Lord Blackwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a commitment to holding a referendum as part of the ratification process for any treaty which gives effect to a new European constitution.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, a new constitutional treaty would need to be ratified according to the individual constitutional arrangements in each of the member states. This Government are committed to the existing system in the United Kingdom of parliamentary democracy rather than public referendums. Any new treaty would have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny by Parliament before the United Kingdom would ratify it.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Can she confirm that the Prime Minister has already accepted a number of significant constitutional proposals put forward by this convention, including the recognition of a European legal entity with its own constitution and with significant additional powers that amount, in the words of the Prime Minister, to a transfer of sovereignty to Europe? Does she recognise that there is a case to be made that such constitutional issues are at least as important as a number of other matters on which the Government have chosen to hold a referendum, including devolution to the English regions and the question of the euro? If not, can she explain to the House how they differ? Finally, does she accept, as part of parliamentary scrutiny, that this House has a right and, indeed, an obligation at the right time to take a view on whether it is appropriate to insist on a referendum before any treaty is ratified?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has had a good run for his money. I counted about five questions. A number of those issues are being considered, not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but also by Mr Hain, who is leading the government side in the discussions on the Convention of Europe. The noble Lord is right in so far as a number of the constitutional issues under discussion are significant, but no more so than those dealt with under the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice and the Single European Act. There is no fundamental shift in the nature of the relationship that is being contemplated that Her Majesty's Government believe would be of such an order of magnitude as to merit a referendum. I have been responsible for taking a number of Bills of this nature through your Lordships' House. There is no shortage in this House of either enthusiasm or, indeed, expertise on these issues. I am sure that we shall see that exercised on this Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, why, then, is a referendum justified for the single currency?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the single currency is a once-in-a-lifetime decision. Noble Lords on the other side of the House cannot have it all ways. If the noble Lord felt that what may come forward under any new treaty is of such importance, he has to explain why when he was in government he did not advocate holding a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House why, if the Government disapprove of referendums as being contrary to parliamentary democracy, they hold so many of them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we do not disapprove of referendums as such, but we exercise our judgment—in my mind quite rightly—as to when to hold such referendums.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the fact that the convention is very much in draft form at present and it is far from clear how fundamental the changes will be when it is finally agreed, does the Minister agree that it is premature to consider at this stage whether there should be a referendum?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I believe that is a point. Indeed, that was the judgment reached in judicial review held on this matter in the past few days. As matters stand, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that these matters significantly change the shift in a constitutional position in the way in which Europe organises itself to the extent that they merit a referendum on this issue. That is entirely different from what I described a moment or two ago as the once-in-a-lifetime decision on the euro.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness correct that merging our sovereign constitution with a higher constitution is no different from past treaty arrangements? Surely, this is a completely different order of treaty, which cries out for a referendum. Is she right in saying that these matters are only being considered when the communiqué from the Prime Minister's meeting with Mr Aznar last week agreed that there should be a new constitution for Europe? It is not being considered; it has been decided. Finally, does she not consider it extraordinary that your Lordships' House, which is supposed to be the guardian of the constitution, has had no full opportunity to debate this matter? Can she quickly send a message to her right so that we can have a debate in government time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in his usual skilful way, the noble Lord has also managed to ask a great number of questions. There has never been any doubt that we were looking at what the noble Lord has described as a constitution for Europe. The Government made that clear from the beginning. However, in such a constitution we are looking to simplify and clarify what is already in the treaties. We have discussed that as well. The noble Lord says that the issue is of such an order of magnitude that it merits consideration in a referendum. I do not think that it is of any greater order of magnitude than what was discussed in the Maastricht Treaty, which included the laying down of the stages for progress towards economic and monetary union, to come back to the point about the euro raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, citizenship of the Union, and extending Community action in at least eight different fields. If that was not a matter for a referendum, when the Conservative Party had the ability to decide whether to hold one, I do not see why it is so keen when it is out of office to urge one on us.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, given how few people inside or outside the House will have the faintest understanding of the five economic tests, would it not be sensible to cancel that referendum?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are committed to a referendum on the euro. I am very pleased that my noble friend has raised the five economic tests. My right honourable friend the Chancellor will give us the benefit of his considerable expertise on those five tests: on convergence, on the effect on investment in the UK, on flexibility of the economy, on the position of the City and on employment. Those are all very important issues that people will have to take into consideration if and when there is a referendum on the euro.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said about orders of magnitude, does she not find it at least a little strange that the Government should require a referendum to decide whether there should be regional government for one of the English regions but not to decide whether the whole of the
806
United Kingdom should be locked into Europe in a constitution that is a different expression from what has been put in the treaty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord poses his question in terms that I would not use about Europe. We have been considering a whole new tier of government for the regions. It is right that those directly affected, who would be able to vote for that new tier of government, should be consulted.

Yorkshire: Unemployment Rates
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
By what proportion unemployment has fallen in the county of South Yorkshire and in the Yorkshire region in 2002 and since 1997.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, claimant unemployment has fallen by 48 per cent—nearly half—since 1997. In South Yorkshire, unemployment has fallen by 53 per cent—more than half—since 1997. Employment and unemployment rates in the Yorkshire and Humberside region are similar to the UK average. Every local authority district in that region has an employment rate above the EU average.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome reply. Would she care to comment on the fact that, while the progress in the county as a whole has been very good, it has been particularly so in the hardest hit areas, such as in the nine parliamentary constituencies comprising the metropolitan boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham? Given that advance, does my noble friend consider that it would now be appropriate to give higher priority to tackling the social consequences of the economic devastation that the area experienced in the 1980s?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I join my noble friend in welcoming the progress that has been made in the area. I am sure that my noble friend is aware that in 1992 the unemployment figure for Yorkshire and Humberside was 250,000. It is now 85,000. That figure has fallen to a third of its previous level. That is true across almost the entire UK, accompanied again by redundancy rates at half their level of the early 1990s and other factors. My noble friend is right that, having built up the economic prosperity of South Yorkshire, aided by the New Deal, employment zones, action teams, step-ups, work pilots and the like, we must turn to building up the social and environmental infrastructure.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, those were heartening replies for those who live in Sheffield, Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham. As the House is aware, they suffered terribly from the pit closure programme. The unemployment figures have been awful. To what extent has the European regional development fund helped to secure jobs? Is the coalfield communities regeneration programme proving successful? Finally, South Yorkshire has now received Objective 1 status, which shows that it is still one of the poorest regions in western Europe. How will that help?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend has raised the situation of the coalfields communities previously. He is right about that. Objective 1 funding is a combination of the European regional development fund, the European Social Fund and some funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Put together, that Objective 1 funding allocates to South Yorkshire £1.8 billion between 2000 and 2006 to help make an impact on the economy. It is being spent on projects such as the New Deal. Together with the coalfield communities regeneration project, it is also being spent on progress to work in places such as Barnsley, which is helping unemployed recovering drug misusers, a minority ethnic outreach programme in Leeds and Bradford and the like. The money is being used to target those groups who are most distanced from the labour market, as well as seeking to regenerate the social and environmental infrastructure.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, what proportion of the increase in employment in this area is in the public sector, as against the private?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that. However, as a result of our public expenditure via the New Deal, lone parent and youth unemployment statistics are much more satisfactory than they would otherwise have been. I do not have the figures for public sector employment in South Yorkshire.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the Minister referred to social regeneration in South Yorkshire. Will she give some specific examples of how that might be achieved, as it is a grievous area in terms of social deprivation? I fear that it may be a breeding ground for more extremist politics.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. At the core of the problem is conventional unemployment. The noble Lord mentioned extremist politics. It is certainly case, as some of us said last night when debating the social security up-rating statement, that the gap in regional prosperity is not particularly a gap between north and south, but that there is a north and south divide in many cities, which particularly affects ethnic minorities in many communities.
808
The figures for the North West, the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside show that unemployment is down to one third of what it was in 1992 in those areas. However, in more than half the regions, ethnic minority employment has not only not improved but has actually got worse during the past decade. The noble Lord is right to remind us that such areas are a breeding ground for extremist politics of all colours.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite all that the Government have done and are doing, the northern region continues to have the highest regional rate of unemployment in the country? As there is normally a link between long-term unemployment and ill health, will the Minister say what the position is in the northern region?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we do not collect statistics for the northern region as such, but we have them for the North West and the North East. I assume that my noble friend is especially interested in the North East. The statistics for that area show that, whereas unemployment in 1992 stood at 148,000, it is now down to 54,000, which is one-third of what it was. We are seeing the same pattern in that region as in the rest of the country: not only is unemployment coming down but the regional disparities are narrowing. None the less, there is still some way to go, as we can see from house prices and wage rates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much of what the Minister says is welcome. However, does she accept that the programmes for economic regeneration and safer cities, the City Challenge and City Action programmes, and the introduction of the Single Regeneration Budget made quite a contribution in areas such as Tyneside, Teeside, Liverpool, Manchester, Don Valley, Leeds, Plymouth and many other parts of the country including the Docklands? When the Minister's Government came into office, unemployment was falling in all those areas.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would not disagree for a moment. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomes the significant achievements made since not only 1992 but 1997. She is right: at the end of the day, environment as well as jobs is crucial. When I was in opposition, I read some reports from the previous Conservative government, which showed that the growth in capacity must be locally owned and bottom up. That means local authorities and others going down to ward level. One needs to build that capacity so that, when the funding is taken out, the initiatives do not dry up.
There are various stories in that regard. In the Docklands, there may be more of a question mark about the success of local ownership than there is in some northern regions. As a philosophy, however, I agree with the noble Baroness that the process must he bottom up. One needs to do more than simply reduce unemployment figures.

Police Constables: Passing Out Parades
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the pass-out parades of probationer police constables held at police training centres should continue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, traditionally, passing out parades have been seen by the police service as a way for new police recruits to celebrate the completion of their initial training with their peers, parents, loved ones and friends. New constables will genuinely appreciate a formal recognition of their achievement and commitment. Passing out parades are one way in which to fulfil this need, and they work well when they are enjoyed by those taking part and focus on the serious side of operational policing.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will he ensure that, if the marching part of parades is replaced, it is replaced with an appropriate and fully ceremonial occasion that marks the rite of passage of a police officer entering the police service? Will he also ensure that they continue to be undertaken at the police training centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is very much up to the police training centres to decide how they wish to conduct passing out parades. In the past year, some 70 parades were undertaken in seven locations. The Metropolitan police service held 11 at Hendon in that time.
I agree that parades are an important rite of passage, and it is clear that police training recruits greatly enjoy them, as do their family and friends. The Home Office has no intention of wishing them to come to an end, but they need to be modernised and must be appropriate. We welcome the contributions that have been made towards ensuring that is the case.
Lord Condon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in most training centres the recruits use their spare time and off-duty time to prepare for passing out parades? They and their families draw enormous pride from the effort and smartness that they put into these occasions. The local community is usually heavily involved in celebrating the passing out of new recruits.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows far more about the parades than I could ever know. I am aware how recruits participate in the parades, and how they make a personal commitment in their own time. On the two occasions on which I went to training schools to see passing out parades, I was impressed by their commitment and enthusiasm.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister realise that his answer gives great pleasure, when he says that the Government do not intend to do away with passing
810
out parades? Will he confirm that there is no thought that they may replace the marching part of passing out parades, which is part of the spectacle? I think that is what lay behind the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as far as I know, there is no intention to dispense with the marching part of the parades. Clearly, it is for the training schools to decide what is appropriate. Having heard what noble Lords have said, I welcome the enthusiasm and contributions made to recognising the importance of these celebrations of achievement.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health and effectiveness of our police service demand that there should be a large proportion of faces of a different colour in those passing out parades, and that there should be increased recruitment from ethnic minorities? How are the Government progressing in encouraging greater recruitment from ethnic minorities?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably aware that when the Government came into office in 1997, we set targets for each force to ensure that the issue was focused on. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but my understanding is that we are making progress on the matter, as well as ensuring an appropriate gender balance.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister refer to these ceremonies as passing out parades, not as "pass-out parades", as it says on the Order Paper, which sounds like a period of unconsciousness.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, is it not a fact that, at a difficult time for the police, we should not underestimate the importance of camaraderie and discipline? Passing out parades have much to do with that. Parliament and the Government should do nothing to undermine that camaraderie and discipline if our police are to be able to withstand many of the pressures that they will face when they come on to the streets.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great sense. Clearly, esprit de corps is extremely important.

Cyprus: British Sovereign Bases
2.59 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their belief, as stated in the Official Report of 14th January (HL Deb, col. 124), that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union will not affect the arrangements that have been worked out for the British sovereign bases.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on 26th February, the United Nations Secretary-General formally tabled the third and final version of his proposals, which included the United Kingdom's offer to the United Nations to cede just under half the SBA territory if there is agreement on the UN proposals within the UN timetable. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced that in a written statement on 25th February. If agreed, the proposals would make no difference to the arrangements in the protocol in Cyprus's accession treaty, which will be signed on 16th April, or to the operational capability of the SBA.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reassurance. Will she accept that we on this side strongly support any moves that may lead to the unity, at last, of the divided island of Cyprus? However, will she confirm that if this area of land which is now on offer was operational beforehand, the operational requirements—particularly in relation to water supplies and acting as a buffer zone—are no longer relevant, and that we can therefore safely go ahead with this offer should it be needed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support—indeed, I think that in discussing this matter last March he said that anything that managed to achieve agreement would be something of a miracle. We very much hope that the proposals will receive support. I hope that he will be reassured to know that the MoD was, of course, fully consulted about the offer. It has said that the proposals do not make any difference to its operational capability or, I understand, to the availability of water supplies.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate Her Majesty's Government on making this offer as a contribution to trying to achieve a settlement between both Cypriot communities. Can my noble friend say what the latest prospects are for a settlement within the timetable laid down by the United Nations? Does she agree that unless both Cypriot communities and those representing them seize this opportunity now, it may well be a decade or more before they get another chance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. I believe that this is good news. It has been a creative and carefully timed initiative on the part of the British Government. It is, of course, made in strong support of the efforts made under the auspices of the Secretary-General. It is therefore part and parcel of trying to give support to the United Nations.
I should say something about the timetable. I understand that Mr Denktash is in Ankara discussing the proposals this afternoon. Both sides have been asked to give an indication to the Secretary-General about whether they will hold referendums by 10th March. We very much hope that both sides will feel that there is sufficient to go on to hold those
812
referendums on 30th March. I agree with my noble friend. We very much hope that this matter can at last be settled.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of the sovereign base areas have been surplus to requirements for some time, so that returning some of the land to Cyprus would not be a tremendous loss to the British Crown? Can she also tell us a little about how it will be done? Does it have to be ratified by Parliament, or does it, like other matters, come under the Royal prerogative?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated in answering the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I am assured that the military capability will not be diminished. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, therefore deduces that they have not been vital to that capability. I think that common sense shows that that is almost certainly the case. He went on to ask how this will be dealt with in Parliament. As I understand it, this—not the issue of giving away the sovereign base land, but eventually the issues about accession and all the issues we have discussed before—will be a matter for Parliament to consider. If I am wrong about that, I will write to the noble Lord.

Regional Assemblies
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is appropriate for public money to be used to campaign for regional government in advance of a decision to hold a regional referendum.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the government grant to regional chambers may not be used for political purposes, including campaigning for an elected regional assembly. That is a condition of grant about which we have reminded the chambers. We are satisfied that regional chambers are not using government grant in that way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is known to the department that money coming from local government is in fact being spent in some parts of the country to campaign for regional assemblies—a proposal that has yet to go before Parliament and receive Royal Assent. Are the Government not concerned that that directly breaches the code of practice set out in the Local Government Act 2000?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, and it is true, but that is a matter for the independent district auditor and not for the Government. I understand that the district auditor has been contacted on at least one occasion, perhaps more. The district auditor must draw his own conclusions; it is not a matter for the Government.

813
We are satisfied that central government money is not being used inappropriately. We have also reminded the chambers of the position.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in order to have a sensible discussion it is essential to get the maximum amount of information to the electorate before the referendum is held? Is he not also surprised to find that this topical Question is really not a topical Question?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, given that the Bill is currently before the House, there are plenty of opportunities to raise these issues—as there was in another place. I understand that the allegations made in another place were answered satisfactorily, both in writing and in Committee, by the Minister concerned. No one has sought to say that the information given by the Minister was inaccurate.
I repeat that the regional chambers are voluntary bodies and get their money from different sources. We have repeatedly said that the government grant is not for expenditure on activities of a political or exclusively religious nature—for example, campaigning, publicising or promoting the case for an elected regional assembly. It is not appropriate to use government money for those purposes. It is for the regional chambers to decide what to do with the other money they get. If there is a complaint about the money they receive from local government, the complaint should be made to the district auditor, not government Ministers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not clear from the answer that the noble Lord has just given that regional government will have to be paid for by the people in each region? Should they not therefore be consulted before they have to accept that commitment?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. I return to the initial Question. The precise purpose of the referendums is to decide whether regional government comes to an area. The purpose of the legislation currently before the House is to determine whether referendums in advance of a decision should take place. The people in the region will choose whether to have an elected regional assembly. It is for them to decide whether to call it regional government or home rule. They will be elected regional assemblies, and that is that.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is considerable enthusiasm for the Government's initiative on regional government in many parts of the country; that it is seen as the natural corollary of Welsh and Scottish devolution; that it bears on the earlier Question on regional economic disparities; and that there would be even more enthusiasm if there were a statement on the powers and functions of the assemblies prior to the referendum?
Lord Rooker: We could do that, my Lords. However, I think that the penny dropped during Second Reading of the legislation that there are no new
814
powers and no new funds. That causes disquiet in certain areas. There is an argument for and an argument against. That argument is for the regions after the House, if it so desires, passes the legislation and work continues on the local government changes. It is a complicated matter. We have made it clear that there will be a full government statement on what people are voting for, and the consequences of so voting, before they take part in a referendum.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Government's policy on regional referendum to hold them only when they will be won?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. We shall return to this point. The soundings aspect of the legislation concluded on Monday. The purpose of which was to see whether there was a desire in the regions for a referendum. Some people may want a referendum in order to defeat the proposal, as that would put it on the back burner for five years. As the legislation says, a defeat would kill the proposal stone dead for five years. The question is whether a region wishes to express an opinion for or against. That is how we will choose which region or regions will be first to have a referendum. As I think we have made clear, we do not expect that there will be more than one or two such regions before the next general election. The Bill has yet to be considered in Committee and on Report. I assume that these matters will be debated at length at that time.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in the event of the Secretary of State ordering a referendum in the North West and that referendum resulting in a no vote, can I have an assurance from the Minister that the cost attendant on the abortive local government reviews will be borne entirely by the Secretary of State and not by the council tax payers in the counties of Lancashire and Cheshire where there is virtually nil support for regional government?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer the specifics of that question. However, I invite the noble Lord to table an amendment in Committee. By then I shall have a considered response to the question.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in view of the lack of information available about the powers and structures of regional government, will the Minister say on what basis the Secretary of State will make his decision, following the sounding exercise which finished on 3rd March and well before the Bill receives Royal Assent, about the level of interest in a region with regard to a referendum?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to fudge the issue but these matters will be discussed at Committee stage of the Bill. At Second Reading we made clear that the Secretary of State would have to reach a considered judgment on whether there had been a sufficient level of interest in a particular area to justify a referendum, which would probably involve a year's

815
work on the local government boundary review and a large expenditure commitment. The Secretary of State would have to reach a judgment having taken account of the relevant soundings. No decision will be made or announced until after the legislation receives Royal Assent. It is not possible to prejudge the soundings in a particular area during the passage of legislation through Parliament. It would be quite wrong to do so until Parliament agrees the legislation.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, why were Members of this House not included on the distribution list of pro forma for responses to the sounding exercise on the level of support for referenda concerning this matter?
Lord Rooker: Because, my Lords, we made a cock-up for which I have apologised to the Front Benches.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his frankness if not on his parliamentary language. I am grateful to him.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the noble Lord back to my Question which is not about government money but about public money. I quote from the code of recommended practice of local authority publicity pursuant to the Local Government Act 2000 which states that,
"local authorities, like other public authorities, should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns".
Does not the department take a view about public funds being used to promote a proposal that has yet to receive parliamentary and sovereign approval?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot help but draw the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that she altered the wording of the Question after she first tabled it. When it first appeared in my department late yesterday afternoon, it referred to taxpayers' money. That phrase was later altered to public money. There is a difference. I take the phrase "taxpayers' money" to refer to national taxpayers' money; that is, money under the Government's jurisdiction. The term "public money" includes money under the jurisdiction of local government. We have a policy—I am aware that some people disagree with it—of providing as much quasi independent local government as possible in this country without too much interference from central government. There is a tried and tested procedure of the district auditor levying onerous penalties if local government steps out of line. I repeat that if the money that the assemblies have obtained from local government is considered to be misspent, the correct person to whom to complain is the district auditor who will take a dim and severe view if they have overstepped the mark.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, on the now famous forms which have been issued for people to express their view on whether or not they want a regional assembly, is it true that if they state that they do not want a regional assembly and do not want a
816
referendum, that counts as interest in a referendum and will therefore help to procure one? If so, that seems unacceptable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was present at the debate during which the matter was raised. I believe that the form has seven "tick" boxes. Some people also expressed their views in letters. It has been alleged that we took account of the views expressed in those letters rather than the boxes that had been ticked on the forms. I believe that we have stated that we have not done so. I appreciate that it is not an easy matter to assess, certainly not in seven tick boxes. The soundings have gone much 'wider that that.
The Secretary of State will have to reach a judgment as to whether there is sufficient interest in a region to justify holding a referendum. Once that decision is made, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, nothing will happen for a year as the boundary review will have to consider the relevant local government structure. It is important for people to know about the form of unitary local government. The two things go together. No unitary local government means no elected regional assemblies. It is as simple as that. We have made that clear. It will take about a year for that to happen. Therefore, there will not be any referendums or decisions on referendums to trigger the political parties legislation until the summer of next year.

Business of the House: Recess Dates
3.15 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a short Statement about Recess dates.
This morning my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date of the Budget, which is to be Wednesday 9th April. In the light of that, it is expected that the Commons will not rise for Easter on Thursday 10th April, as provisionally planned, but will now sit until Monday 14th April.
Noble Lords will naturally wonder whether that will affect our Recess dates. The answer is no. My intention is still as it was when I made an announcement last November; namely, that we should rise on Thursday 10th April and return on Monday 28th April. But I must emphasise, as ever—as everyone in my situation always says—that this is subject to the progress of business.
For the Whitsun Recess, the House can still expect to rise on Thursday 22nd May. It is, however, likely that we shall be back on Monday 2nd June rather than Tuesday 3rd June.
Following the decision of the House on 25th November to sit in September, many noble Lords have, not surprisingly, asked me precisely which two weeks we shall sit in September. I accept, of course, that people want to book holidays. I am able to announce today that, subject to the progress of

817
business, we shall sit for the same two weeks in September as the Commons; that is, from Monday 8th September to Thursday 18th September.
As your Lordships know, I have tried to give provisional Recess dates as far in advance as possible so that, for example, I was able to announce as early as 18th November last year the Whitsun Recess on 22nd May this year. The response I have had from Members—I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is important—and from the staff of this House who serve us so well, has been that giving dates as far in advance as possible has been greatly appreciated. For me this has been almost a unique experience in that, for the first time in my political life, I appear to have done something which seems to be universally supported.
I am aware that in making the September announcement today I have left uncertain precisely when we shall rise in mid-July, and when we shall return in October. I assure your Lordships that I shall provide those dates as soon as I possibly can.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to thank the Government Chief Whip for his confirmation that the Budget does not affect the business of this House and that its date need not concern us. We all appreciate that all the announcements on this matter are subject to the progress of business.
Your Lordships will have noted that the Whitsun Recess will now be a day shorter for your Lordships' House than for the Commons. The noble Lord referred to mid-July but declined to define it. Does he agree with me that, arithmetically, 17th July, when the Commons will rise, is after the middle of July? Monday 21st July is certainly after mid-July.
The time between 18th September and 14th October is apparently known in another place as the "conference recess". I fully understand that the September dates mean that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats will be able to go to their party conferences, but it would be very difficult if any dates that the noble Lord might announce in future were to discriminate against the Conservative Party conference.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the Budget is on 9th April, it strikes me that the subsequent four-day debate in another place will take place during the three-week campaign for elections to the Scottish Parliament. Although the economy is not devolved to that parliament, it is clearly impossible to separate the economy there from devolved matters, or from the person who happens to be the Chancellor, Mr Brown. Do the Government think the timing appropriate, and if so why?
Lord Roper: My Lords, we support what has been said about our gratitude to the noble Lord, especially for the fact that he has announced the September dates. Those mean that we on these Benches will be able to attend our party conference in September.
818
However, it would be extremely helpful in terms of booking holidays in the summer if we could have that date—presumably 17th July, the same as the Commons—as soon as possible.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I shall deal first with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the Whitsun break. I was quite precise in my use of language when I made my Statement in November. I said that the Whitsun break might or might not include the Monday, depending on the progress of business. That is precisely how matters stand. I do not think that the noble Lord would expect me to be able to say any more than that.
So far as concerns the noble Lord's definition of mid-July, I was honest enough to say that mid-July was not a precise date. I was well aware of that. I have not fed information into a computer to discover when mid-July begins and concludes. I can only reaffirm that it is my clear intention to announce to the House as soon as I can, subject to the progress of business, when the Summer Recess will begin. The progress of business is very dependent on three or four of us working as we normally do.
I had not always detected tremendous enthusiasm for attendance at all party conferences to which the noble Lord referred. However, he will be aware that the date of return in October has varied from year to year. It has not always been possible to accommodate the needs of attendance at party conference. None the less, I shall give the date as soon as I can.
I was asked about the date of the Budget and its effect on campaigning, at whatever level. As the noble Lord reminded us, the date should not affect this House directly, because we do not have a Budget debate in the same way as in the Commons. In the normal way, a Budget debate and all that is associated with it is something to which all parties have equal opportunity to contribute. It will no doubt be debated in all parts of the United Kingdom, as it normally is. It should not directly affect campaigning in the way suggested.
I appreciate the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for my early announcement about a number of dates. I simply reiterate that as soon as I am able to give precise dates about any of the outstanding ones, I shall certainly report them directly to the House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, but I want to follow up the answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. Have the Government abandoned the convention held by successive governments that major announcements of policy are not made during the course of a parliamentary election campaign? The Budget is a major announcement of government policy, and it will take place during a parliamentary election campaign. Surely that is a serious matter. Is the Civil Service content to see that? In my day, the Permanent Secretary would have gone berserk at the

819
notion that we would make major policy announcements during an election campaign in Scotland.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the process of government does not come to a complete standstill during election campaigns, as is well known, and the dates of the sitting or non-sitting of either House of Parliament are not directly affected. When the normal parliamentary processes continue, inevitably there will be discussion, announcements and Statements. I agree entirely that care is taken about the way in which the language of government statements is delivered, but the noble Lord is surely not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have the normal freedom to determine the date on which it is appropriate to make his Budget Statement. It would certainly be an odd precedent if that were established.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when deciding on which date the House rises in July, will the noble Lord bear in mind the words of his colleague the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House when successfully persuading the House to vote for the shape of the new parliamentary year? He said that there would be compensatory time off in July, so that the House was not required to sit extra days as a result of voting to return in September. That comment is on the record.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, what is clearly on the record is the resolution that the House passed last year. It states:
"That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September".—[Official Report, 25/11/02; col. 565.]
That is the resolution that binds me and everyone else. The language is quite precise.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that St Swithin's Day, 15th July, has traditionally been considered the middle of July?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, even more importantly, 15th July is my wife's birthday.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Fowler set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Baroness Park of Monmouth to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Travel to European Union Institutions and National Parliaments
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
After representations from Peers from all parties, I have been in correspondence with the Senior Salaries Review Body. I have requested that it recommend a new allowance to enable Members of the House to claim reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses for up to two return visits per year on parliamentary business to European institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg, and to the national parliaments of EU member states or EU candidate countries. The SSRB has agreed to my request. The new allowance is broadly in line with a similar allowance in the Commons.
If noble Lords agree to the resolution, from 1st April this year they will be able to claim reimbursement for European Union travel along the lines that I have outlined. It is very important that the scheme is properly run and administered. For that reason, it will be necessary for all Members of the House wishing to make use of the allowance to seek prior approval from the Clerk of the Parliaments. The House Committee is likely to consider the details of the implementation and administration of this allowance at its next meeting.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 2003 for reimbursing Lords in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of a European Union state or a candidate country and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in connection with such travel, subject to the following conditions—

(a) for any Lord, reimbursement is for not more than two visits in any year beginning with 1st April;

(b) the amount payable in respect of travel out of and into the United Kingdom is not more than the business class return fare between a station or airport serving London or the area of the Lord's main residence and a station or airport serving the city visited;

(c) subsistence for each visit is limited to two nights at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation;

(d) the Lord must submit in advance to the Clerk of the Parliaments a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in achieving this result. It has been a matter about which we have had some concern for some time and I am delighted that we are now put,

821
broadly speaking, on the same basis as Members of the House of Commons and will be able to carry out appropriate travel.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble and learned friend. The facility is to be welcomed but it is not the same as that which is available in the House of Commons. I shall explain that briefly.
One will be able, under this provision, to go to Strasbourg to meet a group of Members of the European Parliament to discuss lawnmower noise but one will not be able to go to the Council of Europe to talk to its delegates about the matters for which they are responsible. The Council of Europe is included in the arrangements in the Commons.
Perhaps even more important at this stage of European history is the fact that the Western European Union is the only European forum that is concerned with security and defence. Members of the House of Commons can go to Paris, the planning cell in Brussels and so on to visit the WEU, which at this stage may well be particularly relevant. I therefore hope that further consideration can be given to the matter so that Members of this House can enjoy similar arrangements to those that are available to Members of another place.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me on two counts, the first of which directly relates to this resolution and the second of which is very closely related to it.
First, paragraph (d) concerns getting prior approval from the Clerk of the Parliaments. I give a hypothetical case. What would happen if a Member of your Lordships' House was told on a Saturday when he was at home that it was urgent for him to go to Strasbourg, let us say, first thing on Monday morning? How would he be able to get such prior approval, even though it was for an entirely bona fide visit?
I turn to my second question, which, I repeat, I know is slightly wide of the mark; however, it is a very old chestnut. By coincidence, I had the privilege of leading a delegation from European Sub-Committee A yesterday to Brussels. We left on the 6.50 a.m. train and returned at about 7 p.m., to which no one objected. We had a fascinating trip. I realise that expenses and the allowance in your Lordships' House are for expenditure incurred. I also realise that no such expenditure is incurred on such trips by individual Members because the expenditure is covered within the budget of the European Committees.
Will the noble and learned Lord yet again put to the SSRB the proposal that there should be some way of providing financial recompense to Members of your Lordships' House who go on such visits? We were on business of your Lordships' House for 12 hours, which is, dare I say, perhaps longer than noble Lords might have been in this Chamber or in committees. There should be some form of financial recompense. I understand that it would not involve an allowance for
822
expenditure but we were working for 12 hours on behalf of your Lordships. The SSRB might like to consider the matter again.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I join in the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for the generality of the announcement and sympathise with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and my noble friend.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House confirm that under paragraph (d), when we disclose the,
"persons or organisations to be met",
that information will stay within the confines of this Parliament and will never be divulged to the corrupt octopus in Brussels?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am always grateful for the non-tendentious way in which the noble Lord introduces his questions. In fact, the only reason that I was determined to see if we could have the travel allowance for going to Europe was to please the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
We have obligations in respect of public money, and we also have obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. It appears to me to be a commonplace that if public money is to be expended by any of us or on our behalf, it must be a matter of public record and given appropriate safeguards.
The resolution is in exactly the same terms as the resolution in the Commons. I remind my noble friend Lord Hardy that I said that the allowance would be broadly in line with a similar allowance. I take the points about the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, and I am always willing to take such matters further with the SSRB. I must say that I was in correspondence with it for several months. It broke with its normal timetable to consider the request and it has acceded to it generally in the form in which it was put. If any noble Lords have supplementary matters for me to consider, I shall establish whether the SSRB will meet them or perhaps be able to advise noble Lords about other sources of funds that may be available for certain parliamentary duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, asked a question about Saturday evening. I was about to volunteer the home telephone number of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The advice that I have received is that that is the sort of legitimate detail that we shall consider in the next meeting of the House Committee.
The question of recompense is more difficult. Noble Lords well know that every allowance that we receive—I add in parenthesis that they are really quite reasonable now—is not subject to the beady investigative eye of the Inland Revenue. We should be cautious about getting into the territory of recompense for 12 hours' labour—unless, of course, we take a much more radical and lateral approach, and have a wholly elected House that is fully remunerated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions
3.36 p.m.
Lord Fowlerrose to call attention to the Green Paper on saving for retirement (Cm. 5677) and to the promotion of adequate pension provision in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion calls attention to the Government's Green Paper—which, incidentally, has not previously been debated in this House—and asks whether the Government's present policies will have the desired effect of promoting adequate pension provisions. In my view, few issues in domestic politics are as important as this.
I should perhaps start by declaring an important interest. A month ago, I passed the not-altogether-magic state retirement age of 65. I know that that is difficult to believe. Dare I say that this is one of the few places in which one can make such a confession and still be regarded as a young whipper-snapper.
I must admit that reaching 65 this year does have its advantages. A kindly local authority gives you free Underground travel to avoid the congestion charge and, best of all, you stop paying national insurance, thus avoiding the Government's entirely unjustified increase in national insurance in April. It also enables you to road-test a central policy of the Green Paper; namely, the Government's intention to encourage people to go on working after the age of 65. It has taken me a long time to attune to new Labour but in this respect our aims are exactly the same. I am one of the people whom the Government want to encourage. Sadly, I must report that, as in so many other areas, the Government are strong on aspiration but weak on delivery. What I found was that the Post Office was entirely impeccable in issuing my freedom pass, that the Inland Revenue was super-efficient in issuing a national insurance exemption certificate but that the Pension Service—as a former Secretary of State, it gives me no great pleasure to say this—achieved a standard which, in road-test terms, could best be described as "1960s Skoda".
In September, my wife and I sought pension forecasts. According to page 42 of the Green Paper, such forecasts are crucial to understanding one's financial position. By the New Year, no reply had been received. I therefore rang the Pension Service myself to be told, of course, that there was no trace of the letter and, what was more, that it was now too late for me to get a forecast. The only way in which I could get the information was to apply for the pension, but I said that that was the point: I wanted to decide whether to apply for a pension. I asked whether there was a leaflet setting out the position on deferment. No, came the reply, there used to be a leaflet but there was not one any more.
Suffice it to say, finally, following phone call after phone call, I received my pension forecast, although I might point out that my wife, who has now sought information by letter, phone and Internet, has still received no reply. Fortunately, she has some years to go before retirement—and it looks as though she will
824
need them all before she receives a reply from the department. But, I say in all seriousness, if this was the private sector, Ministers would be quick to condemn such a service.
As to whether or not to defer your pension, the position is anything but clear. Basically, the pension increases by 7.5 per cent per annum for each year deferred but obviously you lose the payments in-between. My actuarial friends say that you need to live into your eighties in order to make it a good investment.
I dwell on my own experience for a minute or so in order to make a fundamental point. Pension complexity should be at a minimum in any sensible policy. If you do not achieve that, then the public will not understand the system, and those managing and administering pensions will often themselves be defeated. The Government go along with that aim, at least in one respect—the title on the cover of the Green Paper is Simplicity, security and choice. I do not wish to be unfair. I welcome their proposals to simplify the tax regime and, yes, to reward people for working longer.
However, the question remains whether the Green Paper provides an answer to today's pensions crisis. My answer to that is that it does not—and, above all, my feeling is that Ministers have missed an opportunity to take pensions policy forward. That is not just my view. It is the view, among others, of the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of' British Insurers and Age Concern. Those are bodies that any government might listen to, but all too often the response of this Government is a version of Jim Callaghan's famous response: "Crisis: what crisis?"
The pensions crisis that I see is this: the working population is saving too little to ensure good lives in retirement; final salary schemes in the private sector are closing—and today we have news of moves to prevent the scheme members that remain from transferring their assets; and we are heading rapidly towards a position of two nations in retirement—the private sector facing problem after problem, and the public sector with unchanged schemes which the Government finance or stand behind. In that context, frankly, it is breathtaking that MPs should choose this moment to improve the terms of an already generous parliamentary scheme.
Of course no one claims that everything that has gone wrong in pensions can be blamed on the Government. I do not remotely want to claim that. They cannot be blamed for the new FRS17 accounting rules, or the worldwide collapse of share prices. But they can be blamed—they should be blamed—in a number of other crucial respects. They should be blamed for their £5 billion a year pensions tax. That was a policy introduced in 1997 on the basis that stock markets were rising and was actually termed a "reform" by the Prime Minister. That reform has so far cost pension funds—or, to be more accurate, all those saving for retirement—over £25 billion. It has inflicted damage on millions of pension savers

825
throughout the country. The Government should not underestimate the public anger that there is on this policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I would not normally do so and certainly not during an opening speech. Is he now saying, contrary to Mr Willetts, that on behalf of his Benches he would now reinstate ACT?
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I shall address that specific point. I am not speaking, as the noble Baroness says, on behalf of my party, but as a Back Bencher. If I was speaking as a Front Bencher, I would be doing so from those Benches. If the noble Baroness does not understand that distinction, then I think that, with due respect, she might study the position a little more clearly. But I shall seek to set out my position on that.
I believe also that the Government should be blamed for short-changing funds on contracted-out rebates. It sounds a technical issue—which is why the Treasury love to make its savings in pensions, and that has always been the case—but what it means is that in 2002 pension funds received £1.5 billion less than was their due.
Above all, the Government should be blamed for their complacency, which—dare I say?—has just been exhibited. They have defended their inactivity on the basis that far more was being saved in non-state pensions than was the case. Thanks to some outstanding work by David Willetts—my party's very excellent spokesman on pensions—whom the noble Baroness has just mentioned, we now know that when the Government claimed that in 2001 £86 billion was put into non-state pensions the true figure was actually £43.7 billion—about half. That was a mistake that was made.
In short, I do not believe that around the country and in politics generally, there is any serious disagreement that in the pensions area things have gone very wrong. But politics—and I accept the challenge—is not just about criticism, it is also about suggesting answers. I suggest that the question now is whether from the ashes we can find some broad agreement on the way forward. I believe we urgently need a new consensus on pensions. Pensions policy is not just for a Parliament, it is for the next 40 or 50 years and preferably longer.
The search for such a consensus is not now some forlorn hope, as perhaps it was back in the 1970s when I first started taking part in pensions debates. What strikes me today is the amount of agreement there is on the way forward—not of course in every detail, but in broad approach. The Institute for Public Policy Research—not exactly a Conservative front organisation—and the National Association of Pension Funds reach very similar conclusions. I dare say that I and my Liberal Democrat neighbour in the Isle of Wight, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, would find much that we could agree upon. The big
826
question—and the question the Minister needs to answer—is whether the Government will join in seeking such consensus.
So what should the aims of pensions policy be? The first aim should be to provide an adequate pension for everyone in retirement. That is patently not achieved by the basic pension today. There is no argument about that; otherwise we would not have pension credit. Next we should aim to have a genuine partnership between state and private provision. Here there has been a radical shift by the party opposite, which I very much welcome, with Ministers aiming for 60 per cent private provision and 40 per cent state. I hope that the Minister will confirm in her speech that that remains the Government's aim. Our third aim must be to have a system which the public understand. Only if people understand what the state will provide and what it will not can we talk sensibly about individual saving.
No one can claim that the present state system meets the requirement of simplicity. I always remember from my own pensions review in 1985 that about half the people covered by the state earnings related pension scheme did not know and did not realise that they were so covered. Ironically it is this Government who abolished SERPS but of course they have added the state second pension and pension credit.
As far as the pension credit is concerned, I supported that introduction. But my view has always been that this should be a benefit for those who, through no fault of their own, did not have the opportunity to build up a pension. I do not believe it should be a permanent feature of the system for the rest of the century, as it would act as a disincentive when opportunities to build up a pension are provided.
It is here that we have the big question for future policy. It seems to me that a consensus is now forming on the basis that there should be one state pension, which is certainly more generous than at present and probably with a higher rate for older pensioners. To achieve that you would fold in at least the resources now going to the pension credit and the second pension.
You would then have a better pension but also a clear distinction between what the state provides through the taxpayer and what the individual should do in saving for his own retirement. It was this kind of solution that I sought to achieve in the mid-1980s. To those who say that this is a revolution, let me say that today it is being put forward by the pension funds and the actuaries, neither of which figure in the Che Guevara list of well-known revolutionaries.
Side by side with that policy, it is essential that governments should do everything in their power to encourage savings above the state level. That means, as the Green Paper says, better advice and adequate checks. But it also means the Government taking positive steps to promote saving. That could mean matching contributions from the Exchequer to encourage savings, especially for moderate earners. It should certainly mean removing absurd disincentives to save, such as the current rule that forces everyone

827
with a personal pension to take an annuity at the age of 75. The Government underestimate public feeling on that issue.
As to cost, I need few lectures from the Minister on cost, having spent six years in charge of the biggest budget in government—I still bear the scars of battles with successive Chief Secretaries, most of whom still seem to inhabit the Benches here and some of whom, I notice, still keep an eye on me from the Back Benches. The Government are not on strong ground when they talk about cost when they are removing £5 billion a year in taxes—and also now spending on state provision less as a percentage of gross domestic product than almost any other European country.
The Government have unnecessarily boxed themselves in on cost. Pension age should also be brought into the equation. If the choice is between lower pensions and a slightly higher retirement age, I know how I would vote. The Government may want to encourage working after 65, but they have set their face against any increase in the state retirement age. If the United States can, over a period, move to 67, I see no reason why we cannot do at least the same during the next 20 or 30 years.
I emphasise again for the Minister's benefit that I speak for myself on the proposals. After a quarter of a century of speaking for my party—well, at least for some of my party—I value my independence. But I perhaps speak for more than myself when I say that there is a widespread feeling outside the House that the Green Paper is a lost opportunity. That feeling is shared by organisations in no way inherently hostile to the Government.
The public can see clearly enough the crisis in pensions. They are prepared for radical solutions. No one would claim that that is what the Green Paper offers, but the pensions debate should move on and seek wider goals than the Government has so far set out. I beg to move for Papers.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on moving the Motion and welcome him to the over-65s club. He spoke much about what the Government have done; I shall consider the private sector and see what are the feelings of people who work in business and industry about pensions.
The bull market of the 1980s and 1990s was a good time for pension funds and for company executives, because the rapid rise of share prices meant that companies could reduce and sometimes even eliminate their contributions to pension funds. The extra cash could be used for investment or increased dividends. So, as the market rose, pension fund surpluses increased and so did company cash flow and profits.
That encouraged fund managers to increase their exposure to equities, so that most had portfolios of about 80 per cent equities and 20 per cent bonds, even though their liabilities were for payments for pensions—a more bond-like liability. Amazingly, many actuaries concurred. They assumed that the
828
equity market would continue to rise and so, ignoring the risk, they valued equities higher than bonds, even though a pension fund has bond-like commitments.
In three short years, the situation has been reversed. The fall in equities has been so great that if, during the past 16 years, interest and dividends had been reinvested, pension funds would be better off owning government bonds than equities. JP Morgan's UK government bond index has returned 448 per cent since the start of 1987, compared with a total return of 387 per cent from the FTSE all-share index. That seems to cast doubt on the calculations of most actuaries and the abilities of most pension fund managers and trustees. They failed to adapt to an era of low inflation. There must also be a case for examining whether the relationship between company executives, trustees, pension fund managers and actuaries had become too cosy, and whether conflicts of interest were forgotten.
In January, I was in the United States of America, and attended a meeting addressed by Mr Jack Grubman, who was the Wall Street analyst who was fined many millions of dollars for promoting: the shares of his bank's clients rather than shares on their own merits. At this meeting, someone asked him how he handled the conflict of interest of being an analyst and also working for a bank. His response was:
"What used to be called a conflict of interest is now called synergy".
Here in Britain, we have yet to see the full effects of that synergy.
On 20th February, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, told us that the pension fund deficit of the FTSE 100 companies was £77 billion—the equivalent of 93 per cent of last year's profits. Monday's Financial Times told us that pension funds lost £100 billion last year. The extra costs associated with withdrawal of the advance corporation tax privileges—about which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, spoke—pale into insignificance against that.
The Chancellor withdrew the privileges on tax on dividends but not on interest, bonds or other paper, such as loan stock or convertibles. As it has turned out, the encouragement to hold on to bonds, not shares, was exactly the right message.
Business must respond and we must find a way forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler: some schemes will have to examine their retirement ages and may have to raise them. Pension entitlements may be linked to average salaries, instead of final salary, which is usually at the peak of someone's career. Some companies are reducing their pension liabilities by closing their defined benefit plans to new employees. Others are switching to defined contribution schemes. But those are savings for the future. There is still the cost of tackling growing deficits by changing from equities to bond-like securities. Of course, that will affect investment in industry.
Employees may be prepared to pay more into their pension schemes. Current problems may encourage them to do so—provided that they can have confidence in their pension fund managers. I hope that

829
companies will consider the effect on staff relations of changing the rules—especially those companies that took pension contribution holidays during the 1990s. Trust and morale take years to build up but can be destroyed in days.
Managers also need to convince savers of the need for hedge funds and complex derivatives. The role of those activities in our pension funds needs to be explained, explored and understood far better by regulators and pension fund managers, to convince us as savers that it is not just a sophisticated form of gambling with our money, and that nor are there any time bombs in five, 10 or 15 years when many such contracts run out.
I hope that, whatever is decided, the Minister can assure us that it will be facilitated by simplification of the tax regime that the Government have promised. It is nonsense to hold the Government responsible for the effect of all that on company profits. It is the result of mismanagement and misjudgment, which occurs in every sector of business. Managers must try to learn the lesson and move on.
4 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England. As is often the case in this House, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for providing an opportunity to consider a matter of fundamental, immediate and long-term importance. It seems to be his special knack.
The context of the debate is an unprecedented degree of uncertainty about the future of pension provision. It could be argued that none of the factors commonly agreed to be the causes of the current pension crisis is new. Increased longevity, falling stock markets, a decline in employer contribution and failure by individuals to make adequate provision for their old age are all factors that have been seen before. However, the combination of all of them at once, coupled with the closure of defined benefit schemes, has led to widespread alarm.
Pensions have always been a settlement between the Government, employers and individuals on how best to manage the risk of incapacity and poverty in old age. At present, it seems that that settlement is being ripped up on all sides. Companies and governments seek to pass risk to individuals, with strong exhortations to save more at a time when investments are falling. Many who thought to remedy pension deficits by investment in property might be about to find out soon that what they believed to be a prudent course of action is just as insecure. Uniquely, the Government have the power to create the necessary climate in which to manage those risks in the long term.
The proposal to simplify the taxation regime has been universally welcomed. We on these Benches endorse it also. However, the reaction to the Green Paper has been mixed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said. When the CBI breathes a sigh of relief that the issue of compulsion on employers has been ducked
830
and Help the Aged castigates the failure to address the level of the basic state pension, it is a fair bet that the Green Paper aims for lots of targets and misses most of them.
Our colleague in another place Steve Webb and we have advocated some of the proposals in the Green Paper for some time. We welcome the proposal to scrap rules that prevent people drawing down pensions while remaining in employment. The greater stringency concerning the winding-up of occupational schemes is also to be welcomed. However, the suggestion that there should be insurance to protect pension schemes should companies go into liquidation is likely to be so costly as to be unworkable.
Setting a new retirement age of 65 for new public sector workers from 2006 is a proposal characteristic of the Green Paper. Such legal protection for older workers is to be applauded. However, without similar provisions for the private sector or action to address both the unemployment and under-employment of people in the 10 years pre-retirement, it is unclear whether flexible retirement will become a reality or whether it will be an option for only the well-off.
One of the most interesting commentaries on the Green Paper was made by Will Hutton in the Observer on 16th February. He set out the demographic position, stating that the number of pensioners in Britain was set to grow over the next 40 years to 16 million, with many having a longer life expectancy than that of pensioners today. He then made a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, repeated in her statement on uprating last night. At present, the Government provide 5 per cent of the GDP for pensions, while occupational and private pensions supply a further 3 per cent. Even if the pension age increases, just to stand still the claim on GDP will have to rise by a further 4 per cent. In the Green Paper, the Government make the assumption that their contribution will remain at 5 per cent and that all further growth will come from private and company pensions. We already have inadequate state pensions. At a time when private investment is risky, the future looks bleak for many pensioners.
No doubt, the Minister will respond in her characteristically challenging and informative way about targeting and will talk again about the Government's approach to means testing, pension credit and the state second pension. I take to heart the changes in the nature of means testing. But study after study has shown that older people, particularly those with lower entitlement, do not claim means-tested benefits. The investment in the Pension Service may change that, but not if the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is much to go by. The DWP's expenditure estimates for 2002 include an expectation that 1 million people will fail to claim pension credit. The complexity of the pension credit and the inadequacy of the state second pension are no solution to pensioner poverty. That is why we would scrap the state second pension, thereby removing the cost and complexity of contracting out, in favour of an increased basic state pension.

831
In the short time available, I wish to concentrate on just one element of the Green Paper: the position of women. The noble Baroness put the situation succinctly in our debate on 17th December, stating that,
"most women work fewer hours for lower pay and for fewer years than most men. So they acquire less national insurance rights and have less occupational pension coverage. But that reduced pension income … has to last them for longer. Therefore at each stage of the way we have to intervene to ensure women's greater financial prosperity in old age".—[Official Report, 17/12/02; col. 584.]
Chapter 7 of the Green Paper is long in description and very short in proposals, particularly on state pensions. It glosses over in one paragraph an issue that, above all, has shaken women's faith in the state pension system: the married women's stamp. The noble Baroness will know that my colleague in another place receives hundreds of letters from women who paid the married women's stamp and now receive derisory pensions of a few pence a week. At a time when we need to promote faith not just in private pension provision but in state pensions, the 1.5 million women still working who have paid the married women's stamp should be written to in plain English and advised of' their pension provision. That would allow them, while they are still working, to make advance NIC contributions that may enable them to retire with some dignity.
A group of people not mentioned specifically in the Green Paper are black and minority ethnic elders. Now and for the foreseeable future, they lose out in the pension lottery. The present generation of black and minority ethnic elders suffer because of the time of their migration to this country, broken contribution records and sometimes language issues. At its most stark, the position is as follows: if you are a Bangladeshi woman pensioner, statistically you are likely to be one of the poorest people in this country. Will the Minister tell us whether, at this key point, when we are considering overall pensions policy, work has been carried out in the Social Exclusion Unit and her department to find out whether that pattern will be repeated in future generations? If so, will her department take the position of future generations on board in any proposed pensions Bill?
It is time for the Government, employers and individuals to develop the new consensus about which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, talked. Some immediate issues need to be dealt with to begin to build the necessary trust for that work. The Green Paper contains some interesting proposals but it is still incomplete.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for drawing attention to the crisis in the pensions industry with such clarity and power. There are signs of the crisis every day. Yesterday, Rolls-Royce announced that its pension fund deficit was almost five times the amount of its annual profits. Today we read that the pensions watchdog OPRA is apparently approving emergency
832
rules that somewhat unmusically prevent employees from transferring their own pensions to another pension fund.
I thought that it was policy to encourage portability of pension funds. I invite the Minister to deal with that point in her reply. The speed with which our perceptions on the soundness of the pensions industry have changed is remarkable. Five years ago, when I worked in the City, we congratulated ourselves on the fact that the industry in this country was well funded. Most leading companies, apparently well advised, took contribution holidays for several years running. Now that the position has changed so dramatically, it is not so clear how many of those companies have the will to increase their contribution substantially. Shareholders can hardly complain if they do. They took the benefit of the holiday in the good times, and they should not only recognise that but encourage companies to do all that they can to fund their promises. On that point, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
I am not optimistic that shareholders will do so. In my 10 years in the City, I found that there was a sublime disinterest on the part of institutional shareholders in anything to do with the welfare of employees. Their predominant interest in employees was whether the company could cut its labour force. The private industry will need great encouragement and, indeed, prodding to do what it should in that area.
I shall not go into the causes; they have been rehearsed. I agree with those who think that the initial £5 billion raid on pension funds in 1997 was unwise, even in the climate that existed then. I feel passionately that it would be iniqitous and obstinate of the Government to continue it. That would reveal that the Government were not prepared to play their part in grasping the problem and acknowledging the errors of the past.
Basically, as has already been said, final salary schemes are unfunded promises. They are particularly vulnerable to bankruptcy. The concept of a final salary scheme has virtually died for new employees, but the money purchase or defined contribution scheme offered instead is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Anyone who has saved for 10 years under such a scheme has had a negative return on their investment, except for the tax relief. They are understandably disillusioned and averse to further investment.
People work side-by-side, with the fortunate ones having a final salary scheme that may well be honoured and the unlucky ones having an inadequate money purchase scheme. That does not make for the best relationship between company and staff. One organisation that I chair is finding that about half of those offered the money purchase schemes refuse them. Those people are mainly the lower paid and more vulnerable workers, those who will be most disadvantaged on retirement. In that organisation, we must wrestle with a problem for which we have a clear responsibility. Fortunately, we can fund the deficit substantially, but there is no easy solution for the future.

833
It has never been easy to interest people in pensions for the future. The young have more immediate needs; the reward of investment is long deferred; and the topic is complex. When we add to that the fact that the returns look questionable, there will be even less interest. The Government have not necessarily been speedy to recognise that there is a crisis. However, if they regard the issue of retirement as fundamental to society, they will be speedy to act. I hope that, to seek best practice and involvement, they will set up a wide-ranging review to try to establish the facts, bottom out the extent of the black hole, predict the future and engage employers, unions, actuaries, pension providers and consumer representatives in a radical and urgently needed re-think of a problem that will not go away. They should do that regardless of whether it achieves a consensus, for the situation warrants it.
I hope that the Minister will not regard my speech as a party-political contribution. The issue of retirement transcends party politics. It engages with an enormous range of socio-economic and moral issues. It engages us all. That is the spirit in which we should approach it.
I feel that, for some reason, the clock has gone slowly while I spoke. Although I am well within time, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution. I look forward keenly to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I hesitate to speak in the debate along with so many illustrious experts. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who is one of the most experienced experts in the field, on securing the debate. It is timely for the House to debate the issues now, and the Green Paper was extremely important. I know that it has been much criticised for not grasping some nettles, but there is much good in it, and credit must be given where it is due.
The current pensions crisis is not caused just by falling stock markets; there are also the implications of rising longevity and declining birth-rates and the ensuing changes in the dependency ratio, an issue that I am always raising in the House. We must ensure that all departments are alive to the broad, worldwide and societal implications of ageing and longevity. We should be as aware of that as we are of the global implications of climate change, but that is not always the case. I remain to be convinced that the Government have taken that on board as they should.
I turn to what I think is good in the Green Paper: a simpler pensions framework and tax regime—it is time that we had that; clearer and better information about pensions and savings; and simpler products, as Sandler recommended. People do not understand pensions and savings, but they need to. There is agreement that we need a more proactive pensions regulator. That is vital, if we are to ensure that there is confidence in occupational schemes. The Green Paper also refers to the regulation of equity release, putting all types of scheme on the same footing. That is important, if the underdeveloped market is to develop as it might.
834
The Green Paper also speaks of the need to make retirement more flexible and give more encouragement to older workers. That is essential, but we need more detail on how it will work in practice. It has taken a long time for it to get here and for the Inland Revenue to consult on ways of enabling workers to draw part of their pension, while working for the same employer. That issue was highlighted by the Employers Forum on Age, which I was privileged to establish in the mid-1990s, so I am pleased that that is being done. Paying enhanced state pensions to people who defer retirement to 70 is very sensible.
The case for a rise in the state pension age has not yet been made, and I agree with the Government on that. However, if longevity continues to increase as it did in the last part of the past century, we will have to reconsider the issue, especially if more and more people aged 60 and over work longer, as we hope that they will.
There is the issue of compulsion on individuals and employers. The establishment of the Pensions Commission, chaired by Adair Turner, is welcome, as long as that is not a way of deferring a decision for too long. Sooner, rather than later, the commission or the Government will recommend that there should be some kind of compulsion on those who can afford to make provision for their retirement, particularly, perhaps, the self-employed or certain employers.
There are things missing from the Green Paper, however. We have not learnt what the long-term future of the basic state pension is to be and how it will interact with the pension credit, welcome though that is for rewarding saving and increasing the income of the poorest pensioners. We need to consider especially the issue of the take-up of pension credit, a point raised by Age Concern.
The Government's estimates assume that two thirds of people will take up the credit. We need some kind of assessment of what a minimum income in retirement ought to be. Again, I refer to the Age Concern modest but adequate model which is an excellent way of looking at this issue. It would have been better if the Government had found a way of ensuring that employers continued to contribute to employees' pensions schemes. What matters most is the level of contribution, not the type of scheme.
Defined contribution schemes can be more flexible and more appropriate for today's mobile work-force. However, the ABI says that the average employer voluntary contribution to defined benefit schemes is more than double that to defined contribution schemes—11 per cent as opposed to 5 per cent. Just 9 per cent of relevant employers are contributing to stakeholder pensions. Why is that? That was not dealt with in the Green Paper.
Equity release schemes do not just need regulating, they need developing. Little in the Green Paper looks at how equity release schemes might be an option to increase retirement income for the two-thirds of people who own their own home. For example, for specific uses they could be ring-fenced for care home fees, for home improvements, and so forth. Illogical

835
benefit rules on the treatment of capital, which is not included if it is tied up in housing equity but included if it is turned into income, do not help.
The Green Paper proposes little on reforms to the current tax relief regime. I am attracted to the ABI's idea of additional pension tax credit. Does the Government need to provide more incentives? It cannot be right that most current tax relief goes to the wealthiest—namely, taxpayers paying 40 per cent. That seems illogical.
The Minister will not approve of one of my final points. I am sad that half of British pensioners who live abroad are unable to receive any uprating to their pensions—depending on the country in which they now live—even if they spent their whole working career in this country before retiring. It is illogical that a winter fuel payment is paid to people living in French Guadeloupe, but there is no compromise for people moving in retirement to live with family in another country—for example, in Zimbabwe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, there could have been more in the Green Paper about the position of women, who are most at risk of poverty in retirement. I am disappointed at the lack of specific proposals to tackle this and I am shocked by the ABI statistics that in 2000 men retired with, on average, two-and-a-half times the income of women.
To conclude, it is important to remember that the pensions crisis did not begin when the stock market crashed in 2000 or even when the Labour Government was first elected. In my time at Age Concern, it was there all along, lying hidden. Now we all know what the issues are—pensioner poverty, the savings gap, rising longevity, and so forth. The Green Paper tackles some of those issues and deserves credit for doing so. However, at the same time, it ducks other issues which I think we shall have to face before too long.
4.23 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, whose knowledge of these matters is immense. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Friends Provident. Until recently, I was chairman of the House of Commons Pension Fund. I am still the trustee of another pension fund and, of course, I am now a pensioner—a year earlier than my noble friend Lord Fowler. I must tell my noble friend that I have had a freedom pass for a year. On three occasions already it has failed to work. That is because the strip becomes demagnetised. Apparently, it does not happen often, so someone kindly suggested that it was because of the magnetic personality of the owner.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, six to seven years ago we were proud that our pension provision was way ahead of most other members of the European Union. Tragically, we can no longer say that. The gap has considerably narrowed. The whole private sector, on which the Government rely, is in turmoil.
Noble Lords have mentioned some reasons for the turmoil. Clearly, they are not reasons for which the Government are to blame—namely, the demographic
836
position; the issue of longevity and early retirement; the dramatic decline in the stock markets during the past three years; FRS 17 which, although not wholly responsible, has added to the tremendous switch—the trickle of a few years ago has now become a flood—from defined benefit schemes to defined contribution schemes; and, of course, the black hole that we are constantly reading about in many company pension funds—again, partly due to FRS 17.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Fowler, and others, that one of the major causes of the situation is the removal by the Government of tax relief on pension funds at a cumulative £5 billion per year. There is also the point made by my noble friend concerning the position on contracted-out rebates. There is a neat symmetry in the savings gap which the ABI has identified as £27 billion and the over £27 billion cash flow already taken away from pension funds by these government measures. I know that there are different elements involved, but there is a neat symmetry in that £27 billion has been lost and at least £27 billion extra is required.
The Government's solutions are simply not working. I suspected that the stakeholder pension would not meet its target of employees earning less than £20,000 identified by the Government. It is clear that the target is not being met. I understand that 90 per cent of companies which offered stakeholder pensions to employees had a nil response.
Therefore, stakeholder pensions are failing. But that may not be surprising. One of the biggest mis-selling scandals of all time would have occurred if the Government had encouraged people earning less than £15,000 per year to take up stakeholder pensions. Because of the minimum income guarantee and even allowing for the pension tax credit, that is clearly the position.
Recently, Mr Richie, of Scottish Equitable, made the point well when he said:
"For the majority of low earners, the combination of pension credit and lack of scope to pay for persuasion and advice within the 1%charge cap looks toxic".
Therefore, a large number of the people identified in the Green Paper—namely, the 3 million people seriously under-saving and the 10 million people not saving enough—are simply not going to be tackled within the private sector.
I understand that the Minister recently said in public that the Government are shifting their position on the 60:40 target of 60 per cent provision by the private sector and 40 per cent by the public sector—as opposed to the previous 40:60 ratio. Will the Minister indicate whether that is the case? If so, it acknowledges that the private sector is unable to provide for a substantial part of those who are under-saving. That is an important point.
With all that background, the Green Paper simply does not match up. The gap between the problems, which are clearly set out, and the solutions is huge. I believe that various inter-departmental working groups have put forward schemes, but the dead hand of the Treasury has come down solidly on many of

837
them. One can see that a whole series of proposals have been made. Clearly, some parts of government have wanted to go a good deal further to produce a solution to the problem. The Treasury has allowed a quarter solution. But it does not measure up.
The Green Paper has a number of good measures, many announced earlier, including flexibility and raising age thresholds, although I agree with my noble friend that we must be more robust on age thresholds. There is a lot of tinkering, some good points on education, but endless reviews that fail to deal with the substantive point. Andrew Smith said in a Statement on 11th July in another place that one of the two acid tests for the Green Paper must be what would increase the level of savings for retirement. On that acid test, the Green Paper totally fails.
In this context, I turn to defined contribution and defined benefit schemes. There is much to be said for the shift to defined contribution schemes, although obviously, for those who have them, defined benefit schemes are better. They fit life styles better and give an element of security to the owner of the pension if a company goes into liquidation. The problem is that in the switch from defined benefit to defined contributions employers are not contributing enough. That is the real issue, and it is the issue which the Green Paper does not address. Therefore, as regards the problem of encouraging people to save for the long term rather than for immediate gratification, further incentives are needed, especially for employers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the ABI proposal for a pension contribution tax credit is one way. For a cost of £1 billion—much less than the £5 billion lost as a result of the Chancellor's earlier measure—£3 billion-worth of additional savings would be produced.
The Inland Revenue document on simplification of the tax system goes much further and is more robust than the Green Paper in producing solutions. The principles in the document are right and provide a good platform on which to work. I hope that they will be taken forward. However, some details require further adjustment. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with them.
Pensions must be sold. They are not bought, like most savings schemes. The private sector must be encouraged to go out and sell them. Frankly, I have always worried that the 1 per cent pricing cap will be insufficient to cover the costs of many companies which sell them. Equally, the Government must contribute to the cultural climate. I quote from a recent Daily Telegraph leader:
"Government, regulators and industry need to create a more positive environment for the investing public".
One of the problems of the past five years is that there has been cost and blame on many people who have been good providers and tried to provide properly. Therefore, a culture has been created in which the whole industry is believed to be faulty. It is most important that the Government create a different environment.
838
I wanted to make many other comments, but my time is up. The critical issue is that on the acid test of whether the Green Paper will increase the level of savings for retirement it fails. The Government will have to think again.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on publishing the Green Paper and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on introducing the debate. I agree with him that we want to find a consensus which will last 20 years, not two. In that goal, there is an analogy with the 10-year plan for transport, which people now say should be extended to 20 years. It is highly desirable, because transport investment must be passed by each Parliament and it is not possible for infrastructure to be conceived in two years. We all know that motorways such as the M25 take 20-plus years to build.
Why do I emphasise that analogy? I do so because we must be careful. There was an all-party consensus on transport in both Houses, but the policy was in danger of being derailed by what happened at Hatfield. We must therefore distinguish between the short-term and long-term trends which face us and the Green Paper is good at doing that.
We know that the proposals will cause outrage somewhere or other. I refer to demographics in other factors—not so much to the Stock Exchange as to the longer term trends. Whatever we do about taxation will cause outrage with one group or another; for example, as regards retirement age and compulsion. Intergenerational equity also arises. One has only to watch Rory Bremner's programme to gain a good social insight into all of that and many other key questions.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I want to begin with incentives. The biggest of all the long-term strategic changes, accelerated by the fall in the stock market, has been the underlying problem of the economic ratio between lifetime earnings in exchange for work and a proportion of those lifetime earnings in exchange for non-work. We all understand earnings for work, but we are talking about earnings for non-work.
In crude terms—it is not too far out of the ball park—we are looking at a ratio in our lifetime of 2:1; that is, twice the number of years in work as in non-work. Within the foreseeable future, we could rapidly be moving towards a ratio not a million miles away from 1:1. You do not need to be Einstein to realise that if the ratio were 1:1, you would have to pay "tax" at the rate of 50 per cent—forget defence for the moment—merely to pay for the same amount of time when you are not working. Clearly, that is unworkable and we must address the problem. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about getting everyone around the table in order to achieve a common analysis and a solution to the problems. Otherwise, we shall have only distrust and mutual recrimination.

839
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described what he and his wife experienced in trying to postpone their state pension. It is interesting, but how is the ordinary punter supposed to know about the capitalised value of a state pension? In the late 1970s, I was a member of a Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth. I know a little about economics, but I was astonished by the capitalised value of the state pension. It totally transformed the position of the so-called distribution of wealth. How are people supposed to make such decisions and how are they supposed to know whatever figure will not sell them short? There must be trust in the Government, trust in the employers and trust in so-called independent advisers—but I am afraid to say that I increasingly do not trust them because of the kickbacks. A great deal of academic literature is published about the trust society and the trust economy, and most important in all this is the issue of trust.
I want to make a point about working longer. When Beveridge introduced his scheme, it was normal to make explicit the distinction between the two classes of society. The manual workers would die within three years of retirement. Beveridge's proposals were therefore economic because many would be dead by the age of 68. Today, we can expect to live for 15 years after retirement at the age of 65, which changes the picture. However, given that we cannot take it with us, a difference will remain between people whose life expectancy is at the lower end of the scale and people whose life expectancy is at the higher end. How are people supposed to know when means testing will kick in for them and whether in the present jigsaw puzzle it will be in their interests? Should they say, "Forget it, I'll take whatever is on offer in the state system"?
I turn to the other end of the income scale and to a point on which I do not see eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in so far as I followed his drift. The noble Lord believed that the document on taxation produced before Christmas was important. That much I agree with—it was a well-written document. I believe that a pricing cap of 1.4 per cent is good. In a debate two or three months ago, I suggested that we did things the other way around; that is, scrapped the tax incentive and gave everyone the same tax expenditure. Currently, 50 per cent of the tax expenditures go to the top 5 per cent of the people, which is an unsustainable position.
It is more difficult to combine the ratio of final salary schemes with part-time work. If we are moving towards not having a cut-off retirement age but a gradual retirement age, we shall have to consider that issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, we must avoid people thinking that their social contracts with their employers have been torn up. I want to build on the suggestions in the Green Paper in regard to institutions that we can trust. The Consumers' Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux could do more to establish independent bodies that people can trust. Independent Financial advice must be independent, without the kickbacks that have destroyed people's confidence.
840
Many people are saying, "We may as well club together and buy a racehorse". That is not a good position from which to go forward. The pension commission has a good agenda to look at over the next three years, and I very much welcome that.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by my noble friend Lord Fowler to debate this issue of substantive public policy. Before contributing some ideas, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in revisiting earlier sections of the Green Paper which refer to the scale of the challenge. We need to get it in context. However, the Green Paper does not lay out the nature of the challenge as clearly and as starkly as we need to see it.
There is a tendency for any generation to view the world around it as normality and to project that normality forward as the natural state of the world. We have a tendency to do that in regard to pensions and savings, and we do so at our peril. The truth is that we—if I may use my noble friends and myself a s an example of a single generation—are part of a golden generation that has a unique opportunity in the history of mankind.
Two things have come together over our lifetimes. First, as has been mentioned, there has been an extension in life expectancy. For the first time, people expect to have a comfortable life after the age of 65. At the beginning of the century very few people lived for very long beyond retirement age.
Retirement has become affordable for many of us because of the second thing that has happened in our lifetime—the massive expansion in the working population, partly because of population growth and partly because of increased participation. That growth in the workforce has led to economic growth and to rising incomes from which people can afford to save. It has also driven rises in financial assets and housing values. This has led to the belief that it is affordable for many of us to have a pension expectancy in retirement which will lead to a comfortable lifestyle. It is a unique perspective in history. But it is one which, I suspect, will not be easily repeated by the generations that follow. We need to understand that fact and face up to it. There are a number of reasons. Most importantly, the growth in the population and the growth in the workforce that we have experienced will not continue. In fact, the working population is set to decline. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out, will change the dependency ratio. Whereas there are now three people in the workforce for every person in retirement, by 2050, as the Green Paper points out, there will be half that number—that is, 1.5 workers for every person in retirement. That means a greater share of GDP will be going to non-workers.
The other consequence of lower growth in the workforce is a lower growth rate in GDP. A report published recently by the European Union estimates that declining population growth rates across the EU mean that GNP growth rates will average about 1 per cent over the next 50 years as opposed to 2 per cent to

841
2.5 per cent historically. In some countries, Germany and Italy, there may be a zero or negative growth rate in GDP.
Fortunately, the UK will do slightly better—the Government's Green Paper suggests somewhere between 1 per cent to 2 per cent—but it will still be significantly lower than past growth rates. Less rapidly rising incomes, less income available to save and less rapidly rising asset prices, both shares and property, will impose a double burden on the working population. Not only will they have to support more old people but they will have less income and less rapidly growing assets from which to save significant amounts for their own retirement. There will be a dramatic change, which we have to recognise in order to consider policies that will be up to the scale of the challenge.
What can we do about it? The answer clearly is not more public funding. That would merely reflect the problem. The current unfunded deficit for government state pensions has been estimated at more than £1,000 billion today, which puts the £100 million unfunded liability of private pension schemes into context. That assumes only inflation adjustments, which is completely unrealistic to give people a reasonable standard of living after another 50 years. If one were to keep state pensions in line with GDP, one would double the funding costs over the next 50 years on a smaller working population.
So we cannot rely only on the state sector. As the Green Paper concludes, we must have more savings, and we need a radical shift in the savings rate in order to achieve that. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the extra flexibility that is promised for pension systems, but that does not go far enough.
I suggest, first, that all parties should consider again the possibility of a much wider tax-exempt savings vehicle, where one can put in savings which, after a period of two or three years, are exempt thereafter from tax as long as one holds them. These savings could be used not only in retirement but before retirement in emergencies or in situations where people need to call on their funds. The scheme should be much more flexible, much simpler, much easier than the current narrowly defined pension schemes. In particular, as other noble Lords have said, they should be exempt from the annuity rules.
Secondly, I suggest that we should recognise the substantial amount of wealth that has been accumulated outside of financial assets in property and in housing. I endorse the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we should do more work on enabling people to realise such wealth through properly structured and supported equity release schemes. We should also recognise its importance by abolishing inheritance tax and allowing this important source of wealth and savings to be handed down from one generation to the next. This will give more people the opportunity to get a foot on the ladder. As we know, property ownership is now widespread in the population.
842
Thirdly, the Government should consider matching contributions to their savings schemes, particularly for the lower paid, a point referred to by my noble friend Lord Fowler. We know that it is extremely difficult for those on low incomes to afford a sufficient amount of savings to make a substantive difference to their retirement, particularly with schemes such as the minimum income guarantee around and the complexities that add to the costs of products they have to sell. If the Government were to commit one pound to every pound put aside by individuals and their employers, they could end up potentially with a multiple of four—one pound from the individual, one pound from the employer and two pounds from the Government. This would mean that the small savings of an individual would add up to a substantial amount and would change the savings culture where it needs to be changed.
Fourthly, I repeat a proposal I have made before. The Government should now face up to crystallising the reality of the liabilities they have for state pension schemes—the £1,000 billion. It is a real liability. I propose that the Government crystallise it and make it specific to individuals so that they can see, without going through the time delay referred to by my noble friend Lord Fowler, how much they have in their own pension pot. This could be backed by government bonds. The knowledge that they have such an amount accumulating would encourage people to top it up rather than believing they were starting from scratch.
Finally, despite all the possible ways of encouraging savings, we need to face up to extending the retirement age. It is unrealistic for people to expect that, given the demographic and economic facts I set out earlier, they can accumulate enough over their working life to pay for the kind of retirement period we now have, particularly when people are retiring earlier. We should recognise that and allow people to work longer, extending the state working age, if only to encourage people to save more to fund the period until they have the state pension.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on an excellent speech and on winning this debate. I declare an interest as the chairman of a large industrial pension scheme—a final salary scheme. I shall concentrate my brief remarks on the private sector, the role and responsibilities of the employer and of those in employment, as opposed to self-employment, where the problems are more acute. As my noble friend Lord Fowler rightly suggested, the solutions for those in self-employment probably lie in a much more generous second state pension funded by contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is a distinguished, enjoyable and interesting debater. One always listens to him with great interest, but your Lordships cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with the statement that this problem, described so accurately by my noble friend Lord Fowler, is all due to the mismanagement of companies and trustees. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not including me among those who are

843
responsible for these problems, which are due to many causes. My noble friends Lord Alexander and Lord MacGregor cited a number of reasons for our predicament. I am not slinging any mud, and neither, I think, have many of those who have contributed to the debate.
What is happening among employers? Some very large companies, including Rolls-Royce, have been mentioned. What is happening out there in industry? Companies with final salary schemes are, by and large, moving towards closing them to new entrants and offering defined contribution schemes instead. That will not reduce the cost to employers of continuing final salary schemes for many years to come. Some may have to reduce certain pension benefits in the future—not accrued benefits—and many are asking employees to increase their contributions. But I stress that employers' costs will rise. In common with many other companies, my own fund, which offers a final salary scheme, has had to make changes. The estimate of the actuaries, Mercers, is that employers' costs will rise by up to 30 per cent over the next five years, for a variety of reasons. In some of its press releases, the TUC seems unfairly to have implied—and I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Lea—that employers were trying to save money. That is just not the case.
I shall put three very brief questions to the Minister. If she is able to answer even one in her reply, I should be very grateful. Before doing so, I should like to put some flesh on the bones of what my noble friend Lord Fowler described as the problem in terms of the present rate of savings. The Green Paper, incidentally, indicates that probably about 50 per cent of all those in the workforce are not saving enough. PricewaterhouseCoopers, a firm for which I work, has estimated that the average total pension—state and private—is set to fall in Britain by 25 per cent by 2050. That means that if one is to maintain very roughly the one-third pension in relation to past earnings, employees and employers must put up their contribution rate by 50 per cent. That is a significant sum.
My three points are in response to the Green Paper, which invited responses. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Alexander said in calling for a wide-ranging review. It is trailed in the Green Paper by the employer working group. The Minister will obviously tell us more about how that is being set up. But actuaries, consultants, employers and trade unions all need to think hard about how we are to increase the contribution rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has yet to speak, but I think his party has trailed the first point that I want to make in the press over the past two months. All employees, in both the public and private sector, should have an annual statement from their employer of their total pension entitlement—state pension, employer pension scheme, additional voluntary contributions—earned to date and prospectively earned at the date of retirement. I share the concern of the National Association of Pension Funds that this will be very costly to introduce, given that the Government want a million employees covered by this
844
annualised pension benefits statement but, by gosh, when it is produced, it will shake up a lot of employees and a lot of employers. I suggest that the state should pay half the administrative cost of such a procedure by way of tax credit or tax relief.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord MacGregor and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, both referred to the suggestion of the Association of British Insurers of a pension contribution tax credit. The principle, with which I agree, is to skew our tax system, which currently provides blanket corporation tax and income tax relief for pension contributions from employers and employees respectively, and introduce an incentive similar to the American 401K scheme, which I belonged to when I was employed in America. An employer's pension scheme must qualify for certain thresholds relating to the level of employer contribution, the number of people covered in the workforce, the treatment of low-paid workers and the treatment of women. If employers reach those thresholds, the state will contribute additional tax relief. My noble friend Lord MacGregor indicated the estimates—they are only estimates—of the likely benefit, and I very much agree with him.
My third and final point, touched on obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, concerns the need to improve the quality of experience and training of employee trustees, many of whom are trade union representatives or are drawn from the working or retired workforce. I think that that should apply to the investment advisers as well. I agree with Paul Myners and Derek Higgs, who both recently produced reports, that independent trustees should be appointed, perhaps the independent non-executive directors of the parent company. Such people would not have a vested interest from the standpoint of employees or employers and could offer a fresh light on a very complicated subject. If any of your Lordships were to sit as a trustee, I wonder how many would understand the complicated legislation.
I look forward to the pensions Bill which will undoubtedly come in the next Session. I am sure we all await it with great anticipation.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, in participating in this debate, I should begin by reminding the House that I am a member of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordship's House which is embarking on a major inquiry into the economics of an ageing population. I have little doubt that there will be a repeat of the experience we had in our recent inquiry into globalisation—an equally vast subject—and that we shall be inundated with evidence. I do not in any way wish to prejudge that inquiry, but the Green Paper is one of the key initial pieces of evidence. I welcome both the Green Paper and this debate on it. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on initiating the debate.
The starting point for any discussion of pensions has to be the mixture of changing demographics and changing expectations, which mean that more people

845
are living longer, with the belief that they should be able to spend the longer period of their life in retirement in better comfort than ever before. Life expectancy has risen and is continuing to rise. The remorseless arithmetic of improvements in medicine, diet and lifestyle—at least for the well-off nations of the world—means that life expectancy at 65 has risen by 16 years for men and 19 years for women.
There appears to be no end to that process, which is of course to be greatly welcomed. I suspect that it may be set to rise at an even faster rate than that allowed for by the official estimates. We always make estimates based rightly on current knowledge. But it would be rash to assume that all the great medical advances have been in the past, and none is for the future; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, this comes against a backdrop of declining birth rates.
The Green Paper needs to be seen as part of a process, not in isolation. It was quite right that the Government turned their attention first to the questions of pensioner poverty and the affordability of the state scheme. I know there are many who are keen to do more, but there has been a really significant increase in the income of the poorest pensioners, within the context of a scheme which, in marked contrast to many in the rest of the European Union, is affordable in the medium and long term.
As we know, the Green Paper talks about four areas: informed choice; saving at the workplace; building trust in the financial services, and extending working life. It is on the first and last of those that I intend to concentrate my brief remarks. Inevitably I come to this debate without the expertise of many of the contributors from whom we have heard. However, I have had the singular misfortune to have had in my career four major periods of employment, each with its own pension scheme, interspersed with a few periods of self-employment, when I have had to make my own pension arrangements. In the first of those periods I was working in the Palace of Westminster, and I was able to benefit from a scheme in which the authorities made a contribution in my name—as it happens, with Equitable Life. If I am unclear as to what I might expect from my periods of employment should I reach an age when I am dependent on those policies, it is largely because I am afraid to ask.
No one underestimates the importance of pensions, nor the fact that for a whole range of reasons far too many people have failed to face up to the problem, preferring to put off to the indeterminate future decisions that in reality need to have been made when first going into work. But for too long there has not been the framework to help individuals to make sensible decisions, and it has been too easy to ignore the warning signs.
So, I for one entirely welcome the first set of proposals in the Green Paper, those on informed choice for the individual. The simplification of the tax regime and the improvement in individual information on pensions will give people more of the information
846
they need to make the right choices and, indeed, will put a quite proper onus on them to ensure that adequate provision has been made.
I also greatly welcome the introduction of a single lifetime tax-free limit on pensions, designed to help saving at the time and in the way best suited to the person's needs. As job patterns become yet more flexible, so too must patterns for saving for retirement.
The other area on which I should like to comment briefly is that relating to the extension of working life. There are real issues here. Many of the explanations for encouraging people to retire early have little foundation in hard evidence. But the loss of productive capacity by losing too many people who have a full contribution to make to the economy and who wish to do so is more often than not just crude age discrimination.
The Government's intention to implement legislation covering employment and vocational training in these areas is to be especially welcomed. I also welcome the extension of the New Deal programme to the over-50s. I doubt whether anything can do more to improve the quality of life for people than to find them interesting and fulfilling work. That is every bit as true for the over-50s as for the young.
I know that there is controversy about the extent to which targeting is now in the system as far as concerns old-age pensions. But the real short-term issue is how we increase the take-up of benefits by those entitled to them. I have no doubt that were the Opposition to change their position from one of confusing pensioners by saying that the scheme is bad and should be abolished to one of encouragement to pensioners to take all that is their due, that would be a real contribution.
In commenting on the Green Paper it would be wrong not to make reference to the present circumstances as regards pensions—and to what is regularly described as a "pensions crisis". What has happened has been that a fundamental weakness in the system has been exposed all too clearly by the collapse of the stock market. I do not believe—in their fairer moments the Opposition do not believe—that that is down to government policy. David Willetts said as much at the end of last year when he very fairly drew attention to factors such as those we have been discussing: increasing longevity and changes in the labour market.
Nor would I want to blame fund managers entirely, although my noble friend Lord Haskel made a number of interesting points. I believe that in the new low-inflation environment in which we live, the need to look again at the question of bonds rather than equities should at least be revisited. The argument in favour of equities seems to be that that is what has always been done. I for one was impressed by the case made by the former head of corporate finance at Boots, John Ralfe, explaining its move to bonds. The devotion of the industry to equities at the very least needs to be reassessed. Too often managers have claimed expertise based on a record of delivery which reflects little more than that they were operating in a

847
strong, long-running bull market. The evidence does not seem to support the view that the risks of equity holding have really been properly assessed, as millions now know to their cost.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Boots' experience is that the change saved Boots 97 per cent of what it had paid in fees, and costs for management reduced from £10 million per year to £300,000. At the very least there is a case to be answered. I think fund managers would do well to try to do so.
No doubt there will be continuing debate, and much further evidence will be considered, but I wholeheartedly welcome the Green Paper as setting the right framework in which future decisions can be made.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, three years ago a person with a pension fund of, say, £100,000 could expect an annuity of about £9,100 per year. In the intervening time that fund has fallen in value to about £68,900 and the annuity it will purchase has also fallen to only £4,837 per year. That cannot be right. It is not sustainable. Why should people be forced to take up an annuity when they are 75, given the figures that I have mentioned?
Back in 1997, at a stroke the Government withdrew the advance corporation tax relief to which several noble Lords have today referred. I believe that that one action started the pension crisis rolling. We are not saying that it is all the fault of the Government, but that one action really did start it rolling.
In raiding pension schemes the Government took billions: £5 billion, to be exact, in the first year and every following year. That affected not only individuals but companies and public authorities. Can the Minister tell the House whether a risk analysis was undertaken before that decision was made?
I have made a rough calculation—I am very much the amateur among professionals here today—which indicates that even at today's low rates of interest it probably would be better to spend the equivalent of the annuity out of capital and leave some of the funds to one's descendants than to put them into a pension fund.
I was intrigued to learn that in 2001 actual pension savings totalled £43.7 billion, compared with the Government's expectation of £86.4 billion, again referred to earlier. What a record! Either the Government have greatly underestimated the damage that has been done to the pensions industry, or perhaps the department has simply got its sums wrong.
I would have hoped to have seen some real incentive in the Green Paper to encourage saving. However, like others I was a little disappointed in that regard. The part by which I was encouraged and about which I want to ask the Minister, is paragraph 24 of the summary, which states:
"We will introduce a single regime with a lifetime limit on the amount of tax-privileged pension saving".
Is that an ACT replacement, or what will that be? Again, I should be grateful for some help on that.
848
Not only are the Government almost certainly losing out on their private pension piggy bank; the state pension is now so complex it must be costing ever more. Each year the number of pensioner households rises. Following the introduction of pension credits, over 55 per cent of households will be drawn into means testing. Can the Minister tell the House the estimated cost of the state pension and the provisions that have been made for 2003–04 with the addition of the pension credit scheme? Can the Minister assure the House—perhaps I get suspicious in my old age—that those administration costs have nothing to do with the reason why the whole question of the state pension was not included in the Green Paper?
Many organisations think an opportunity has been missed to simplify the state pension system, which they consider to be too complex and too reliant on means testing. Other noble Lords have asked the Minister to give the Government's target of the retirement savings coming from the private and public sectors. The last time I heard, the answer was 40 per cent public and 60 per cent private, but I gather that there may be a wobble on that as well.
Like the other noble Baronesses who have spoken, I am seriously concerned about the effects of the pension squeeze on older women in particular Recent figures from the Equal Opportunities Commission have highlighted the salary gap between men and women in similar jobs. On top of that, women take a break when they have children. Their husband's pension scheme will usually have a survivor rate, for which many are grateful, but I understand that current pressures are resulting in a cessation of final salary schemes for new entrants and a lowering of survivor rates for existing members. I am anxious about that.
As other noble Lords have said, women are often lower paid. They work fewer years than their male colleagues, but they live longer. I had hoped to see more in the Green Paper that is relevant to them.
The pension pressures affect public service employers every hit as harshly as they affect individuals and private companies. From next year, the local education authority in my home county of Leicestershire will have to find an extra £6.9 million to cover teacher pensions. That has huge implications. That extra burden is a large portion of the swingeing increases in council tax that we shall see all over the country.
As other noble Lords have said, there is insufficient pension cover provision in our country at the moment. Some 50 per cent are not saving enough and many do not plan to save at all. I find that particularly worrying among our younger generation. I think they look at some of the results over the past few years and decide that it is not worth saving. The Green Paper should have addressed those concerns. We heard earlier about longevity and people being able to enjoy better health.
We should also remember another great change that has taken place in the workforce. Those in my generation might originally have expected to work for one or two companies alone, but today's generation

849
will work for many companies. I would have liked more flexibility and encouragement in the Green Paper for pensions to be transferred more easily.
Finally, I am greatly worried about the rampant indebtedness in this country at the moment—not just nationally, but among individuals, too. How do the Government address that, knowing well that people are spending today rather than saving for tomorrow, when we should be considering saving to cope for the years of retirement that we hope to enjoy?
I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns and hopes about the Green Paper. I realise that mine is a personal viewpoint. I have fears, but I also have hopes. I hope that the Government will move their rhetoric into action. We have a lot of consultation at the moment, but we need action at the end of the tunnel.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the debate. His knowledge on the subject is second to none. I declare an interest as an old age pensioner. I am also proud to be a member of Frank Field's pensions group, which has put forward a number of useful ideas.
By way of background, I would first like to share some thoughts that should guide our approach to pensions. It is a well accepted principle that an individual can take out an insurance policy to insure himself, but a nation cannot insure itself. The risk has to fall on someone. The same applies to pensions. An individual can have an inter-generational charge through his pension savings on other individuals, but overall the nation pays.
So there is very little difference in national cost between funded and unfunded schemes at the same level. They all come out of the gross national product in the year paid. Additionally, funded schemes carry the advance costs of capital accumulation and rather higher running costs, but have investment advantages. I also recognise that there is no difference between pension and other sorts of saving other than the tax treatment. A tax privilege given to one person is a tax cost on another. One person's tax break is another person's tax hike. The cost of all pensions comes out of the same rice bowl. If people live longer, they simply have to work longer in the paddyfields. It was well said of Robinson Crusoe that he could not retire because if he did he would have starved to death.
I welcome the Government's move, albeit at a snail's pace, to encourage later retirement and to reward it with a more generous state pension. It is high time, too. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I did not bother to check the penalties for delaying one's pension from 65 to 70. I was horrified to find, when I started to draw it at that age, that I would have to work another 14 years, until I was 84, until I got back the money that I had forgone. This is hardly a way to encourage people to work longer after 65.
850
As time is short, I shall deal specifically with one area. There is a tendency in the pensions world to address problems of entry. Sadly, much less attention is given to the problems of exit. Encouraging people to save is one thing, but how they draw down those savings is equally important. Current annuitisation arrangements do not encourage saving and do not work with the grain of human nature by allowing people to pass on to their heirs some element of their unexhausted savings. I particularly praise the work of Tom Ross and his Pensions Policy Institute. Its suggestions have the ring of common sense and I hope a number of them will be implemented.
Many people today have little more than the old age pension to retire on. A high percentage of citizens feel that they cannot afford to save. Those who have saved and are currently scraping along on their old age pension and tiny personal savings could find themselves living next door to a spendthrift neighbour who has never saved a penny and is on minimum income guarantee, with all the rental and free dental benefits that flow from it. That neighbour is better off than them, because they have fallen into the savings trap by trying to make some small provision for their old age.
So why save? To encourage people to do so at the moment is to give them false advice against their own long-term interests. I accept that the Government have recognised this moral hazard and are starting to do something about it by changing pension subsidy from the minimum income guarantee to pension credit, but there is still a nightmare of complexity. So I should like to make a new suggestion, as more needs to be done.
Implicit in my remarks is that the basic state old age pension should be sufficient for a person to live on with dignity and without the need for means testing. However, as demographic pressures get worse, I am sure it will never be enough. If people, particularly those on below the national average wage, are to be encouraged to save additionally and voluntarily, it must be done in a manner that is simple, safe and understandable, carries no up-front commission, is low cost and, in retirement, genuinely rewards previous thrift.
My suggestion is that we revitalise the well trusted National Savings movement and introduce a new National Savings pension bond. The idea needs refinement, but basically people could use the bond throughout their working lives to save up to a maximum of £25,000, indexed, which is a huge sum to a great many working people and roughly double what they currently save. Such savings through the National Savings movement could be invested in index-linked bonds or a new fund specifically designed to finance our crumbling infrastructure.
This country has a tide of savings seeking a safe haven and an infrastructure that is crying out to be rebuilt. In the name of common sense, it must be possible to bring these two together to create a more prosperous economy that will help to pay more generous pensions through a mechanism other than a tortuous PFI.

851
I come to the key element of my suggestion. People saving through the bond on retirement would automatically get an annuity at a pre-guaranteed indexed rate, based on their contributions and age at retirement. I estimate that, on a full fund of £25,000, this would give an annuity of roughly £30 to £35 a week at 65. That is about 30 per cent additional to the old age pension. Such a guaranteed annuity would remove the lottery associated with pension exit policies and give the same security that is available to those in the Civil Service and elsewhere.
In itself, however, such a scheme would not be enough if such savings were penalised and means tested for social security. The annuity paid from the special pension fund should be disregarded for social security purposes. That would do away with the present pension trap and genuinely reward citizens in their old age for the income that they have forgone by saving through their working lives. Such a scheme would be a real incentive to save and would keep some element of ownership in pension provision.
The National Savings movement is trusted, and computer technology makes life-time savings accumulation easily recorded and cheaply administered. Government could stand behind the annuity payment rate. Invested into infrastructure, it would be doubly worth while. In many respects, it would be a voluntary funded National Insurance scheme, providing a safe haven reward and bringing real security to those on low incomes in retirement.
Unless we make savings understandable and worth while on exit, there is no answer to the question, "Why save?" The timing is never right to make pension change, but perhaps some of these concepts could be grafted on to an existing scheme to make them more attractive and to help them to achieve what we must all aim to achieve—higher levels of secure savings for people who work longer to enjoy a better old age.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing this timely debate on the Green Paper. I note that it is intended that there should be further consultation over a whole range of issues, which is surely to be welcomed, as is the Green Paper itself.
I still hold the view, which I believe is also held by the NAPF, that the simplest way in which to ensure at least a basic income in retirement is by substantially increasing the basic state pension. I am aware of the Government's objections to this course, as they are restated in the Green Paper. The policy of targeting, which really involves means testing, introduces a whole range of complicated benefits, such as the MIG, the pensions credit, the second state pension and so on. Means-tested benefits are expensive to administer and involve lower take-up. Had the National Insurance Fund been used for the purpose which many people still believe it was intended, there would now be no difficulty about funding increased non-means-tested benefits. Instead, it has been used only partially for that, and has been diverted by successive governments to other purposes.
852
We now face problems with occupational pensions. I have always believed that the provision of occupational pensions was one of the success stories of the last century. The introduction of the original pension plan in the mid-1970s by my late and very much missed noble friend Lady Castle, with SERPS and contracting-out arrangements, occasioned a growth in final salary schemes. As a result, a generation of retirees has been able to retire at an acceptable living standard. However, many large firms have recently decided to close their final salary schemes to new entrants and to replace them with defined contribution schemes, to which the employer often pays a great deal less and the employee bears the risk himself. Moreover, there is no certainty about the eventual outcome, which will depend upon the uncertainties of the stock market. Unions are threatening industrial action to protect members' pension rights.
The Government have sought to deal with the situation in which too few people are saving for retirement or covered by occupational schemes by the introduction of stakeholder pensions. The employer's sole responsibility is to provide access to stakeholder providers—no employer contribution is required. Moreover, the amount that must be paid into such schemes to provide for a pension of a reasonable standard can seem very high to young people at a time when they may have other expenses, such as repayment of student loans, mortgage repayments, cost of childcare and so on.
The Government are concerned that people are simply not saving enough. I agree that it is a problem, but people are likely to save only if they can be reasonably sure of security. Those who have saved via savings accounts have seen interest rates decline, so that the income that they once expected from their money has diminished. If they have invested in the various types of investment accounts, the value of their original investment may have drastically declined. The times are not propitious for saving.
So what has to be done? A great deal more could be done to encourage the growth of occupational pensions. Unfortunately, successive governments have not been as supportive as they should have been. Admittedly, there have been some tax incentives, but the previous Conservative administration, anxious to improve the take-up of personal pensions, actually encouraged people in occupational pensions to withdraw from them and take out personal pensions. As we know, that had disastrous results.
The present Government, through their activities over ACT, actually undertook a raid on pension scheme assets, the results of which we are still seeing. Employers also contributed to the present pensions crisis by awarding themselves contribution holidays at a time when the stock market was producing substantial returns. Now, of course, employees are having to pay the price. A number of us protested at the time, but were assured that actuaries had attested to the security of the pension promises, so employers

853
largely got away with it. They should not continue to do so and should be prepared to pay into schemes to ensure that pension promises are protected.
There have also been one or two instances in which the insolvency of companies has affected the pension scheme, with the result that unfortunate employees face severally diminished pension expectations, sometimes losing out altogether. Therefore, the issue of the security of pension provision is of considerable importance.
The Government's Green Paper attempts to address these problems. They are aware that many professionals in the pensions industry have been complaining about over-regulation—with some justification, since pension administration seems to have become very complicated. But the Government rightly point out that it is a question of getting the balance right. Some regulation is absolutely necessary for the protection of pension scheme members.
Much of the Green Paper is concerned with security, and a new pension regulator is proposed. That seems a good idea, but I would be interested to know about the interaction with those already involved with pension security. We have OPRA, a pensions ombudsman—and, of course, there is OPAS, of which I am a board member, which gives a free service to individuals with relatively minor pension problems. How would the new regulator fit in with existing arrangements?
As a form of protection for employees with defined benefit schemes that are under-funded when an employer becomes insolvent, a centralised clearinghouse arrangement is suggested. The TUC has suggested the establishment of a pensions protection fund, which could be coupled with insolvency insurance to cover any shortfall in employer contributions at the time of wind-up. These are all propositions worthy of consideration, but actuaries tell me that a fund would be viable only if it were underwritten by the Government.
The Pickering Report made a number of suggestions clearly designed to save defined benefit schemes, including the suggestion that it should be part of the contract of employment that employees should belong to the company's scheme. I am inclined to support this, but a lot depends on the security of the scheme. The same is true of the suggestion occasionally made that there should be compulsory contributions. Again, employees must be assured that their investment is reasonably safe, otherwise that will not be popular.
Pickering suggested that survivors' benefits be discontinued and indexation abandoned, with a view to making such schemes more acceptable to employers. I hope that these recommendations are not accepted, as the first would be damaging to many women, who often have not had the opportunity to build up pension entitlement themselves, and the second, since people now live longer, would be disadvantageous to the older pensioner. I do not even like the suggestion that it should apply only to
854
pensions of £30,000 or more. Once the principle is accepted, the figure can be varied. It is not a good idea and should not be pursued.
Finally, there is a section dealing with the special problems of women. The problem of poverty in old age is largely that of women. This is because many women have an interrupted work pattern. For many, improved state provision is the only answer. The original SERPS attempted to deal with the problem by basing entitlement on the best 20 years' earnings, but that provision was quickly dropped. The problem of interrupted work patterns still remains, and the Green Paper does not really address it. Awareness of pensions issues among women may be low, as the Green Paper said, but that is not why so many women are poor in old age. They simply do not have the money to invest in pension provision, no matter how aware they may become.
The Green Paper provides a useful basis for further discussion and one hopes that, as a result of the wide consultations envisaged, solutions to the problems envisaged will arise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for initiating this debate. First, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. From a City perspective, I can see the effect on pension funds of the raid on their assets which has cost them £5 billion annually. While by no means claiming that to be the only cause of the current pensions crisis, it clearly has not helped. The change in accounting standards with the adoption of FRS 17 is also not the cause, but it very much highlights it. Abolition of the carry-forward provision for the self-employed in relation to retirement annuity premium relief has rubbed salt into the wound.
The Government's pensions Green Paper, following the Pickering and Sandler reviews, made important general points—not least of which is that up to 3 million workers are "seriously undersaving" for their retirement, and that an independent commission will now investigate whether workers should be forced to make additional private pension arrangements.
The plan to rationalise the eight different pension tax regimes is welcome. I note the proposed lifetime ceiling of £1.4 million and endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that the Lord Chancellor's pension package of £2 million should be subject to a tax clawback. I agree also with the comments of the pension analyst from the financial advisers Hargreaves Lansdown, who said that the ceiling,
"should make understanding a pension easier".
One of the most radical proposals in the Green Paper will, from 2010, allow employees who delay drawing their pension to take a higher compensatory amount, of 10 per cent per year as opposed to the current 7.5 per cent. New public sector workers from 2006 face the prospect of having their retirement age

855
increased from 60 to 65. However, as stated by Ros Altman, governor of the London School of Economics,
"Whilst the Green Paper has addressed the need to allow employees to work longer, it has done little to encourage them to save more"
There are no more incentives offered to employers or employees to save through pensions, no objectives for savings, not even the admission of a crisis.
Separate plans to encourage savings through simpler charging structures do not seem likely to succeed. The take-up of low-cost stakeholder pensions, launched last April in an attempt to encourage poorer-paid workers to save, has been disappointing.
The Green Paper has also promised long consultation, but little action, for employees whose final salary pension schemes were being closed or wound up. There is, I believe, an argument that the Government should change the rule that treats current employees of firms that are winding up their pension schemes less favourably than those who have already retired.
The Pensions Policy Institute, commenting on the Green Paper, said that the paper had failed to address the problems of state pensions that shrink as the years go by. It said that the new means-tested benefits go up every year in line with earnings, but the state pension climbs more slowly in line with prices. That means that the state pension will have shrunk so much by the time today's workers retire that most people will have to claim the means-tested part.
The PPI continues its examination by stating that most of a current pensioner's income comes from the state. Yet Ministers assumed that individuals would do more towards saving for retirement when in reality many people are not doing so. In fact, said the PPI, saving into private pensions has "stalled" with people starting later and saving more irregularly. The Government must, in its view, reform the state pension if they are to avoid tomorrow's pensioners being worse off than this generation's. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary David Willetts said:
"The Government has been wrong to exclude reform of state benefits from the many consultations. It is not too late for the Government to change its mind".
The accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, in a press release of April 2002, calculates that the incremental cost of the new pensions credit could increase from about 0.2 per cent of GDP, in 2004–05, to more than 1 per cent of GDP by 2050, assuming an indexation of the guaranteed credits. Even with the price indexation of the basic state pension, these calculations suggest that total government spending on state pensions and related benefits will increase by about 1 per cent of GDP over the next 40 to 50 years, equivalent to around £10 billion at 2002 GDP values. Furthermore, about 70 per cent of all pensioners would be likely to be eligible for the means-tested pensioner's credit by 2050. In total, the number eligible could double, from about 5.5 million in 2004, to about 11 million pensioners by 2040 taking into account the ageing of the population.
856
PricewaterhouseCoopers believes that there are alternative ways of spending that significant additional amount which would make the state pension system much simpler and reduce significantly the reliance on means testing. I understand that, at present, on the Government's own estimates, only 65 per cent to 75 per cent of eligible pensioners claim the MIG. Two alternative long-term strategies have been suggested by PWC to address those drawbacks of the pension credit. First, the Government could gradually phase out the pension credit after 2010 and recycle the money into a stronger second state pension, raising almost all pensioners above the means-tested income support level by 2050. Or, secondly, the Government could increase the basic state pension to the level of the MIG and index that to earnings, paying for it by avoiding the additional cost of the pension credit by 2010, and gradually increasing the state retirement age from 65 to 67 between 2020 and 2030.
So, in conclusion, there is a pensions crisis which has not been fully tackled by the Government. To stem it, a savings climate needs to be re-established. Removing the rule of compulsory annuities, although with a minimum protection still in place, would be a great step in changing the climate back again. Rewards could be given by way of tax incentives for those who keep their ISAs for a long time. Tax credits should be restored to pension funds and the reliefs taken from the self-employed reinstated. Reform also needs to be made to the state pension, which will be made much more complex by pension credits. For that reform, one of the PricewaterhouseCoopers measures seems appropriate. I would favour the plan to phase out means-tested benefits in the long term so that the whole system becomes simpler.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society, now trading as the Children's Mutual; a trustee on the employees' pension fund; and a non-executive director of two other companies, both of which have occupational pension schemes.
My noble friend Lord Fowler distinguished himself in the world of pensions through his work over many years in another place. His contribution today should be noted by all sides of the House and by those outside who read our proceedings. When he said that the Green Paper was a disappointment, he understated the situation. It is a long time since I read such a long Green Paper with such a limp conclusion.
It is true, as several Members have said, that the Chancellor's £5 billion raid did not create the current problems any more than the stakeholder pension scheme—as disappointed as the Government must he with that—has helped the situation. The day before yesterday, I think, the Financial Times—like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who is still in his place—drew attention to the pension holidays enjoyed by some firms whose pension funds were in surplus. It has been suggested that taking a holiday at that time amounted to mismanagement. However, companies exist basically to create wealth—that is, to invest, to

857
produce a product, service and dividends, and to create shareholder value. If an independent actuary—I emphasise the word "independent"—states to pension trustees, of which I am one, that their fund is in surplus, it is correct that we should not necessarily seek from our employer an increase in any one year. If we are sufficiently in surplus, it is perfectly appropriate that those funds should be taken as a holiday because, in a private-sector-oriented society, they would be better spent on investment in the company, on new products, new developments or whatever is needed for that company to succeed—because, unless it does succeed, the pensions will be in trouble. We must remember that we need companies that succeed.
The situation in the outside world for those of us who are having to deal with it is very serious. So far as I can see, there has been almost no reaction from Her Majesty's Government to date. Almost all defined benefit schemes will soon be closed to new entrants. Almost all new entrants will join defined contribution schemes—rather like the US scheme, but not with quite the same benefits. What is even worse is that young people still have the option of whether or not to join a scheme. I venture to suggest that we should look at what the Australians do. They make it compulsory—and so it should be.
Mention of young people brings me to the question of what incentive exists for the brightest entrepreneurs in our society if they are to be restricted to a lifetime fund of £1.4 million—made worse by the fact that Members of another place and paid Members of this House, from the Lord Chancellor downwards, are to be exempt.
In addition, none of us, as trustees, guessed that mortality rates would be adjusted in the way that they have been in recent times. We have to rely on outside recommendations. It is not for individual trustees to work out what the mortality rates will be at any point in time.
Above all, as other noble Lords have said, there has been a collapse in share prices—and we cannot be confident that there are not more falls to come. Perhaps some funds should have held greater investments in bonds. Yet an examination of the post-war period suggests that those who invested in equities have done broadly better than those who invested in bonds. It is wrong to suggest that funds are not invested in bonds and cash. A great many are.
Every time a company announces a deficit, the press pounce on the fact—which pushes down the share price and compounds the company's problems.
The deficits faced by pension schemes have to be understood. Few schemes are in difficulty as regards paying pensions currently or in the foreseeable future—that is, over the next few years. As I have said, all trustees keep some of the funds in cash or in readily available bonds.
There is less of a problem so long as we remain under MFR, with time to increase any deficit by putting up company contributions and by asking employees to
858
increase their contributions. It seems to me that, given a 10-year extension period, the problem could be dealt with.
But looming over us all is FRS 17 and the date, 31st December 2005. The accounting rule is tougher; it is a snapshot of a fund at a point in time. It was created when the markets were stable and certainly at a time when the present volatility did not exist.
So what can and should be done? The Government should re-examine FRS 17, talk to those who proposed it and ask for it to be postponed. It was created in a different era. After all, if the FSA can suggest to the life companies that their solvency ratios can be recalculated and they can still be solvent, the same should be possible for FRS 17. The Minister shakes her head. I do not accept that it is impossible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was mouthing—perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me—that we had already done that, and they are resolute.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, if they are resolute, the Minister will have to try and try again. It is too easy to retire at that point. The FSA was resolute about not changing on solvency ratios, but it has now changed. In the mean time, I suggest that the MFR should be confirmed for the next 10 years. Furthermore, just as the Government have capital allowances for defined periods in the industrial world, they should consider introducing pension allowances, with a matching contribution from companies.
The Government have to understand how important it is to get people to save. It is calculated that in order to receive a reasonable private pension today, the necessary pension contribution is about £200 a month. That is where Sandler and stakeholder pensions, frankly, do not have a role. Sandler is geared towards simple products for people at modest levels of contribution.
In conclusion, today, OPRA introduced emergency rules aimed at banning employees from leaving a company scheme. It looks very like the market value adjuster—so criticised by Her Majesty's Government—that life companies recently introduced. This country has a proud record on company and private pensions, but it is crumbling fast. The Government need to move swiftly to help, and to help positively. If OPRA sees an emergency, then there truly is one.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I, too, want to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Fowler for introducing the debate—and, on a slightly different note, my gratitude to him for persuading me to take part. I have listened to nearly two-and-a-half hours of extremely well-informed debate about what I hope the Minister will acknowledge is a very serious problem. I do not see how she could sit and listen to the very knowledgeable contributions from all parts of the House and still maintain what many have described as government complacency in the present situation.

859
In the few minutes I have, I want to mention only two matters. Most of the general points have been made. There seems to be widespread agreement that there is a need to close the annual gap—put at £27 billion a year—between what is needed to finance decent pensions and what is actually being saved. The issue is, therefore, not "whether" but "how".
My noble friend Lord Naseby made reference to the stakeholder pension, as did my noble friend Lord MacGregor. It is clear that the Government, from the outset, set great store by the introduction of the stakeholder pension. In their 1997 manifesto they used the words:
"high value for money, flexibility and security".
A few months later they identified the target population as being around 5 million people with incomes between £9,000 and £20,000 a year. They introduced an element of compulsion on employers: any employer with live or more employees is "designated" as being within the scope of the stakeholder pension.
I was very surprised, therefore, at the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to my supplementary question on 25th February. He agreed that, as he said, about 335,000 employers were designated—the ABI confirmed to me this morning that that figure is about right: it is in the order of 330,000 to 340,000. However, he gave the figure for stakeholder pensions sold as 1½ million. I could not come back on that point—one does not have a chance to do so at Question Time. But I am now told on good advice that that figure was a considerable exaggeration. The figure that I was given by the ABI this morning is about 1¼ million. Independently, the Library has confirmed with the Treasury the same figure—1¼ million. I hope that the Minister will therefore recognise that her colleague misled the House by a factor of 20 per cent. She should not shake her head in disgust. We rely on Ministers for truthful figures. I am afraid that I was not given a truthful figure because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with typical spin, tried to make the Government's position appear better than it really is. That must stop. We need to be realistic about the matter.
As regards the current figure of 1¼ million, 40 per cent—I quote the figures in the Green Paper—of their sample fall into the bracket of what the Government aimed at; that is, the wage range of £9,000 to £20,000. So, about half a million people in that bracket have bought stakeholder pensions over the period. The Government originally aimed at a figure 10 times that. I therefore agree with my noble friend Lord Naseby who was absolutely right to say that stakeholder pensions had been a failure.
But one must go beyond that statement and ask the reason for that state of affairs. One reason, that I mentioned on 20th February, is the cap on costs. If a pensions provider can gain access to employees in the workplace and can see a number of people over a short period, he may be able to keep his costs below the 1 per cent cap. However, it is impossible for him to keep his costs below the 1 per cent cap when dealing with, for example, the self-employed trader or the employee who cannot be seen in the workplace. Is it not ironic
860
that the largest picture on the cover of the Green Paper is that of the archetype, self-employed trader, the market stallholder? One cannot sell a stakeholder pension to a market stallholder and keep one's costs below the 1 per cent cap.
The Government boast about "driving down charges" of selling stakeholder pensions; but if that process leaves large swathes of the target population outwith the reach of pension providers, it is an utterly self-defeating policy. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government are prepared to discuss with the Association of British Insurers the operation of the 1 per cent cap.
The second point, which I can deal with more briefly, concerns the need to demystify the jargon of the pensions industry. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Vinson, referred to the need for informed choice. Here I want to mention the valuable initiative taken by the insurance industry through its "Raising Standards" campaign. Consumer research shows that most of us have put off planning our finances due to confusing documentation, a lack of clarity about financial products and poor service.
The "Raising Standards" quality mark scheme was set up by the industry in 2000 directly to address those consumer needs. It is mentioned in the Green Paper in passing but I hope that the Minister will today give a warm welcome to the "Raising Standards" scheme. It is being run by the Pensions Protection Investments Accreditation Board. I believe that that body is doing an extremely good job. Over 50 per cent by market share of the lifelong savings industry currently operates the "Raising Standards" scheme. That means that customers receive point of sale literature written in plain language, with charges clearly set out; and that the brand is monitored through an annual customer satisfaction index. Pension providers belonging to that scheme have to reach a very high standard of retention, with low penalty charges and so on. I hope that that positive effort on the part of the insurance industry is welcomed by the Government as it is one way to help to close the savings gap.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I declare an interest as a pension fund investment manager for the past 26 years. I duck to avoid a brickbat from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others who believe that the crisis is the fault of pension fund investment managers.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing the debate. I agreed very much with his trenchant and perceptive introduction. I also agree with him that the Green Paper is a lost opportunity and also, indeed, that we need more radical solutions.
The debate has been dominated by speakers from the Conservative Benches. I believe that 10 out of the 16 speakers so far sit on the Conservative Benches. I agree with the analysis of the problem of those who have spoken from those Benches but I do not think that we have heard very much in the way of radical solutions. However, I pay tribute to the noble

861
Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Turner, to the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Vinson, who made radical suggestions, and in particular to those who are prepared to grasp the nettle of compulsion. We on these Benches believe that that is essential.
The International Monetary Fund, in its annual report on the UK economy issued this week, put its finger on the pensions dilemma facing this country. With its usual cautious wording it stated:
"Directors observed that the strength of the United Kingdom's underlying fiscal position depends importantly on containing future public pension obligations, which in turn depends on adequate individual retirement saving".
I am afraid that if you believe the British are doing that—making adequate individual retirement savings—you will believe anything.
What the language of the IMF means in plain English is that we in this country have got away with a rotten basic state pension for many years because most employees have been covered by generous and secure occupational pension schemes, certainly throughout the public sector, the former nationalised industries and widely in the private sector, certainly in larger companies.
But now we can feel the ground moving under our feet on private pensions. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and others pointed out, this week alone we have seen Rolls Royce report a pension fund deficit equal to four times its annual profits. The leading City investment bankers, Credit Suisse, First Boston and Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein have estimated the current pension fund deficit of the FTSE 100 companies at between £70 billion and £100 billion. As we have heard, company after company are closing defined benefit schemes to new members, making members pay more for worse benefits and, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, pointed out, having to dig deep into their profits to keep schemes solvent.
As noble Lords pointed out, many of the companies now reporting massive pension fund deficits were only too happy for many years to boost their profits in the fat times by taking contribution holidays just when they could have afforded to pay more into their funds to protect their pension schemes against lean times like the present. In fact one company, Associated British Ports, last week closed its final salary pension scheme to new employees while it is still on a contribution holiday. The occupational pension promise in this country depends on either the company or the pension fund staying solvent. If they both go down at the same time, there really is nowhere at present for pensions and scheme members to go.
With occupational pension funds under such pressure, protection for members and pensioners when schemes wind up moves right to the top of the agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made the welcome suggestion that we should seek consensus where possible. We on these Benches, and my colleagues in another place, welcome the emphasis in the Green Paper on the need for sharing assets fairly when pension schemes are forced to wind up. We are happy to work with the Government to get this much needed
862
reform agreed and enacted in the very near future. Where there is a significant shortfall in a fund on wind-up, we believe that pensioners and scheme members with modest entitlements should be first in the queue. Their priority payments might be limited to a multiple of the basic state pension rather than, as at present, giving all pensioners, however well off, the biggest slice of the cake, leaving only crumbs in some cases for long serving employees about to retire.
Arrangements of that sort, however, only share the misery more fairly when a scheme winds up. They do not provide any more money for its members in total. We offer to work with the Government to see whether it might be possible to establish some form of national reinsurance or indemnity scheme to rescue pension schemes which become insolvent for reasons other than dishonesty by insolvent employers, which is covered already.
I am bound to say that such a scheme would be very difficult. It will certainly be a non-runner unless the Treasury is prepared to stand behind any industry-wide scheme as the underwriter of last resort. That could be done on the model of the Pool Re scheme, the mechanism by which owners of commercial buildings are able to obtain cover against terrorist risks which would otherwise be uninsurable. Of course, the problem is moral hazard, as in banking. Well funded and safe pension schemes backed by strong companies will be reluctant to pay a levy to support weaker schemes, particularly if that might encourage some schemes to sail close to the wind and not face up to the need to make payments. With DB schemes under so much pressure already, we need to be very careful before loading any more costs or bureaucracy on to them.
Many examples have been discussed in the House over the past year, in which the Treasury has been only too happy to toss letters of comfort and guarantees of contingent liabilities around like confetti to support PFI and PPP contracts, such as in the bailing out of British Energy and the case of Network Rail. The Treasury will have to decide whether the plight of British pension funds demands equal commitment.
On those two issues, we would be happy to work with the Government. However, they must go back to the drawing board on their proposals for a lifetime limit on pension savings by better-off employees. I refer to the £1.4 million cap. The Treasury document issued with the Green Paper gave a grossly misleading picture of how many people may be affected by such a cap. It states that only 5,000 people now have personal pension schemes worth more than £1.4 million. So what? The £1.4 million limit, with a 60 per cent effective tax rate for those who exceed it, will bite just as hard on members of final salary pension schemes, whose pension rights will be given a capital value when they retire.
The Treasury document states that 90,000 people earn more than £200,000 a year. I shall take the topical example of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who earns £180,000 a year and is entitled to a pension of £90,000. I have been officially told in

863
an Answer that the capital value of his pension rights is officially, "at least £2 million". A typical final salary scheme pays a pension of at least half the final salary, so most of those 90,000 people would be caught by the £1.4 million cap. I estimate that, typically, members of a final salary scheme retiring on annual salaries down to no more than £120,000, and in some cases down to £100,000, would be caught by the cap if it were in force.
That is a much wider swathe of British management and the professions than one would presume from the government documents. I would be delighted if the Minister cared to analyse my estimates further and write to me stating how many people the Government believe would be caught. Quite a bit more of upper-middle England will be caught than noble Lords might believe.
The other problem with the lifetime cap is that it discourages pension saving by anyone who may be caught by it. The limit should be at the front end of saving for a pension, not the back. The Government's present proposals will force savers to take a massive gamble with their pensions. All professional advice is that one should start saving early, but if people do that in a relatively well-paid job 20 or 30 years before they plan to retire, how can they know whether their pension rights will grow to £1 million, £2 million or even more in real terms by the time they retire? Stock market returns fluctuate greatly.
The principle of restrictions on high earners contributing to their pension funds is fine. We do not oppose that. However, to be fair and transparent, a lifetime limit of £1.4 million or any other level must be calculated not on an unpredictable capital value of pension rights on a single day many years away but on the cumulative total value of contributions that have built up an individual's pension rights over the years, including employer's contributions.
Many speakers today, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, referred to a pensions crisis, as I did myself in a debate last May. I do not think that there is any point pursuing that question further except to ask the Minister gently, if this is not a pensions crisis, what one would feel like.
The future for pensions in this country is sombre. We have a poor basic state pension, right at the bottom of the European league, topped up by a mishmash of means-tested benefits. Above that, a tried and tested structure of high quality occupational pension schemes almost without parallel in the world is cracking before our eyes. We on these Benches will work with the Government to stop the rot, but the hour is late and the problems grave.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords who congratulated my noble friend Lord Fowler on introducing the debate, which is on a matter of the very greatest importance. It is deplorable that we have not been given a government debate—a full day's debate in government time—either in this House or, as I understand it, in another place. Perhaps it is not surprising that we have not had one, because there is
864
an almost universal view that the Green Paper is inadequate to deal with the situation that we face. There is a crisis in pensions provision and savings. It is very important that the Government recognise that that is so. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government recognise it.
We have had a most distinguished debate, with contributions from no fewer than four former Cabinet Ministers and from experts in every part of the House. There have been a number of important and constructive suggestions from my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Naseby, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and others to which I hope that the Government will give careful consideration.
The original Green Paper in 1998 said that it was expected that the proportion of pensions provision would change from 40 per cent private and 60 per cent public to 60 per cent private and 40 per cent public. When I raised that matter last night, the Minister said that it was now an aspiration. It is a strange aspiration, given that almost everything that the Government have done has put pressure in the opposite direction.
Having said that, one cannot complain about a lack of legislation. Since I entered the House, we have had endless Bills on pensions and social security. The first of those was concerned with stakeholder pension provisions. Opinion on stakeholder pensions varies from "disappointment" to "dismal failure". My noble friend Lord Jenkin pointed out that the take-up has been much smaller than the Government thought. They thought that 5 million people might take them up; in fact, the figure is a little more than 1 million. As has been pointed out in a number of representations that I have received, the crucial matter is that 90 per cent of company-designated schemes are apparently empty. The scheme has been designated, but pensions have not been taken up.
The stakeholder pension was described by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a "safe haven" product. That was a strange expression to use. If someone had invested the full amount in a stakeholder pension when the system was introduced, what would its value be now in percentage terms if it had been invested in something entirely sensible, such as a general tracker fund? The stakeholder pension is, of course, subject to all the variations to which any pension of a defined contribution scheme is subject, in relation to the stock market and so on.
My next point is on the effect of the state second pension. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put forward reasons as to why that was not satisfactory, and I am inclined to go along with what she said. We also have the pension credit provisions, which are of immense complexity. In evidence to the PAC inquiry, it was stated that the computer that will be needed to operate that system will be eight times bigger than that used for the self-assessment of income tax. Another trouble with complexity is that we do not get the take-up that we want. I know that the noble Baroness shares my concern about that very serious problem.
Another problem concerns means-testing, which has a huge effect on the level of savings. If one saves but the proceeds of those savings are means tested, that

865
is a real deterrent. The Pensions Policy Institute suggested a short while ago that in the current situation three-quarters of existing employees will be on means-tested benefits by the time that they retire. I leave unanswered the question of who will pay for that. It is a serious indication of the level of pension that people at that stage may reasonably expect to get.
The savings ratio under the Government has been virtually halved. I received a very complacent reaction the other day in answer to a question from the Dispatch Box from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The A BI estimates that the savings gap per year is about £27 billion, which is of grave concern.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the ACT raid on pensions funds and to the cost to the industry, which is about £5 billion a year—cumulatively, I suppose that it runs to about £25 billion. I make only two additional points to the very valid points that have already been made about that. First, the change was justified by the Chancellor—and, indeed, by the noble Baroness the Minister—because it would encourage investment. The reality is that it has not had that effect. Companies not having the advantage of the ACT concession are now finding that they must spend money topping up pension schemes rather than investing.
Secondly, when the Prime Minister was challenged on that matter, he said, "We don't need to worry because of the high level of the stock market". I am not clear whether he is still of that opinion; it seems unlikely. That has had a major effect, which resulted in the move away from final salary schemes and towards defined contribution schemes.
A number of noble Lords rightly pointed out that there will be a need, in view of the pension holidays that have been taken, for employers to contribute more. One very much hopes that they will do that rather than change their scheme from defined benefit to defined contribution or close the scheme altogether.
The fundamental problem that we face with savings is that there is a crisis of confidence about whether one will get an adequate return from savings. The latest figures, published a few days ago, suggested that there was probably no positive return over a considerable number of years, other than the fact that one had had tax relief; without tax relief, one would certainly have a negative return.
The situation is epitomised by the problem of Equitable Life, which has had much publicity. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, said that he was affected and was afraid to ask what his benefits were now worth. The Government have not faced up to the problems that have arisen with Equitable Life: I refer to the failure of the regulator to protect policyholders' interests. They set up the Penrose inquiry, which is wholly unsatisfactory. The main culprit in all of that is probably the Treasury as regulator. The inquiry was set up by the Treasury on terms of reference that were defined by the Treasury and the Treasury will decide how much of the inquiry to publish. At the same time, the ombudsman put his investigation on hold. Will the
866
Minister assure us that the terms of reference of the Penrose inquiry will not prevent Lord Penrose, if he finds that the regulator or a succession of regulators has failed, recommending that compensation should be paid? That will be very important if we are to restore confidence in that side of the industry.
This debate is being held under considerable time constraints. The previous Green Paper of 1998 stated:
"Over time, the share of national income devoted to pensions will increase, but a higher proportion will come from private, funded pensions. State spending will increase but income from private pensions will increase even more as stakeholder pension schemes become established and occupational pension schemes are strengthened and supported".
The Government have not strengthened and supported such schemes. The chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries only the other day said that occupational pension scheme membership and provision is declining sharply. The Green Paper stated that, over the past 20 years, newly retired pensioners have had a higher income than their predecessors. Unless something very radical is done by the Government, that will not be true in future.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have had an extraordinarily well-informed and interesting debate, for which I, like others, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I apologise that we did not have it a month ago but, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, knows, I was having eye surgery at the time and could not have done it.
It is undeniable, as many noble Lords have said, that people are failing to save enough to fund their retirement. I do not disagree with the figures that have been quoted: around 3 million are currently not saving enough and a further 5 million to 10 million may not be saving as much as they would wish.
The analysis is shared by all of us, so I shall not spend much time on it. Fewer years in the labour market are being asked to support longer years out of the labour market. We enter work later because of more extended education, we leave work earlier and we live longer. As my noble friend Lord Elder said, the figure is a year or two for every decade.
Moreover—this issue has been underplayed in this debate—there has been a trend to retire early, which, incidentally, has been a trend across Europe. By state pension age, around two-thirds of men and half of women—almost 3 million people—have left the labour market. The key point—noble Lords will be aware of the statistics—is that if one wants a modest occupational pension of £100 per week, one needs to save £30 per week if one retires at 65 but one needs to save £85 per week if one retires at 55. That involves 10 years less to pay in and 10 years more to live off it. That means that one virtually has to treble one's contribution.
The Government's priority, despite the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Blackwell, who quoted parts of the Green Paper, is to encourage more people to work to 65 rather than compulsorily—as opposed to voluntarily—requiring them to work

867
after 65; for example, until the age of 67. That is not to say that that is a closed issue; however, in view of the statistics that I have provided, that is where our priority currently lies. Too often, people have a twilight of dependency on benefits between when they leave the labour market and when they draw their retirement state pension, which means that they go into it already having depleted their savings and without having a pension build-up. That is a major problem.
The question behind tonight's debate is: why are people not saving more, and what can we do about it? One suggestion that has been offered in the discussion group meetings and consultation exercises in which I have been engaged—this point is often made by financial consumer groups—involves financial realism; that is, people cannot afford the expense. Low earners in particular—those earning less than £11,000 or £12,000 a year—cannot be expected to save into a funded scheme. It is reasonable to expect those people to rely on basic state provision and an unfunded support system. However, of those who are not contributing, one-quarter are younger than 24 and/or earning less than £10,000 a year. The problem is that if one does not start early, one does not build up.
Equally, there is a real problem for those with very low incomes of going for compulsion. That problem was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Behind that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly said, there is the problem of the fear of debt in this country.
Women, in particular, put their part-time earnings into household expenditure hoping, too often wrongly—a matter to which I shall return—that their husbands' pensions will be theirs. So the first explanation is that they cannot afford it, and the second is—and this is a more comforting explanation—that they do not understand all that information, and that if only we gave them more all would be well.
There is a great deal of truth in that. The point about Sandler was not to seek to regulate the salesmen and saleswomen but to regulate the simplified product. That way we might be able to rebuild confidence, together with pension credit, which was like a wrap-around to allow one to enjoy more. That is true. We certainly need simplicity of products and information about them.
There are others who, although understanding the situation well enough, face conflicting demands, such as student debt, mortgages, university costs for children and possibly even care for the elderly. So they put off making pensions provision or thinking about it until their late forties or fifties. We are therefore almost asking people to be counter-intuitive; to start their pensions early and delay some of their other expenditure as late as possible in order to benefit from compounding. That of course is counter-intuitive to natural priorities.
That is reinforced by another dimension, which has been highlighted by our research, our focus-group work and from our meetings with organisations. Many
868
people believe that it is an issue that they can put off. They are not perhaps sufficiently worried and do not have enough sense of what your Lordships have referred to today as a "pensions crisis".
People recognise that they have not put savings away in a pensions format. They see high employment—and we have the highest employment since 1977. That is before taking into account the extra that comes into households of second earners, which has increased dramatically since the 1970s. So there is a real sense of security through earning at the moment, added to low inflation, which as we know makes the value of one's savings last much longer, together with soaring house prices. It is a comfort blanket, in particular regarding people's homes.
It would be sensible, as one noble Lord mentioned, to improve products that allow safe withdrawal of income from property without trading down. The Financial Services Authority will need to explore that area.
Putting off pensions provision—and I return to a point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Greengross, with which I rather agree—is essentially a problem for women. Psychologically, they have the mindset that his pension is theirs; that they not only have the comfort of a house but of a husband, or even—and this is a worse illusion—a property and a partner. Yet we know that one marriage in two ends in divorce. Furthermore, 60 per cent of the population think that "common law wives" exist and that they have rights. They are wrong on both counts.
That suggests that many women will enter old age without even a national insurance pension, let alone an occupational pension. How many women know the difference between the lower earnings level and the primary tax threshold? I guess that there are few. Yet, if only they knew that by working an extra one or two hours in order to get over the LEL, they would build up an independent pension, how much we could help them.
Much of this may be transitional. To a degree women carry an older mindset that they will look after children or the elderly, while also trying, but not yet succeeding, to build up an independent pension of their own.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the married women's stamp. Women have made at least three elections to continue with the reduced married women's stamp, as well as being exposed to several publicity campaigns, including one as late as October 2000. I refuse to accept that women are children and cannot take responsibility for documents they signed once when they married, a second time in 1977–79 and again in responding to campaigns in the 1980s.
The next reason why people may not have developed a pension is because they think it is not financially worthwhile and that the returns are not good enough. Perhaps they do not appreciate the effect both of compounding and—disturbingly—the benefit of employer contributions, let alone the tax wrap-around in which their 5 per cent may produce a

869
12 per cent or 15 per cent contribution that goes into the pot. They may overestimate the problems and the price of inflexibility—that they cannot get at it. Therefore, they fear not only poor returns but that they are locked into a no stop-loss situation.
Finally, and this is the biggest obstacle, there is the perception of risk. There has been mis-selling. Have the sharks now become playful dolphins? There is the risk to DB schemes, from Maxwell through to Maersk. There are problems of seeking additional contributions to DB schemes. As regards problems with DC schemes—and I agree with several noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—providing the money going into the pot is the same as for a DB scheme, over time it can have the advantage of portability without necessarily producing a lower return.
It will be difficult for people to build up a decent DC scheme when, as with one major food retailer—I am tempted to name and shame—both the employer and the employee put in 2 per cent. That will not produce a decent pension. I pay credit to, for example, insurance companies which put in 12 per cent and 4 per cent from the employee. That can produce a return not dissimilar to a decent DB scheme.
If those matters have contributed towards people failing to save, what is the appropriate response of government? I was particularly disappointed in your Lordships—as a junior Minister I scold former Secretaries of State, if that is not impertinent—with respect to the language directed at the Government regarding complacency. The suggestion seemed to be that they have a quiver-full of solutions with which to address the problem. I suggest a situation and ask your Lordships to think about it. If the FTSE today stood at 7,000; if therefore half the companies in the country were still taking contribution holidays—indeed a quarter were taking such holidays last year—and if therefore finance directors were not pressing for compensation to go from DB to DC schemes, and more importantly to halve their contributions in the process, and were not exposed to the rigours—and unfortunate ones at this point in time—of FRS17, would we then be talking about a crisis? I ask your Lords to what extent you would hold the Government responsible for what underpins the situation in which we now find ourselves.
The Government's response is to do as the Chancellor is doing, which is to build for the future and continuing health of the economy in terms of jobs and pensions—because my job is your pension, and your pension investment is my job. The best guarantee of a decent pension in one's 60s is a decent job in one's 20s. Every former Secretary of State in the Chamber today, every Minister and every contributor knows that. The fact that we have the lowest unemployment since 1977 and that there are 1.5 million more jobs in the economy is building up prosperity, even if we have not yet managed the trick of turning that prosperity into pension savings.
870
I suggest that the somewhat futile debate about ACT is not germane. I have tried, but cannot work out the hypotheticals of what if it had never happened. However, I shall make three points. It was a tax privilege that encouraged the distribution of dividends rather than their retention. Pensions are already, and continue to be, heavily tax-privileged, which is why I suspect there was so much pressure to scrap the annuity rule at 75 because it is such an attractive proposition. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, what matters at best value added is management not tax rates.
The second point is that through the windfall tax we have reclaimed £5 billion. But it was connected at the same time to a cut in corporation tax worth £3.5 billion a year. I calculate that 10 speakers have mentioned ACT, but not one has mentioned the cut in corporation tax. Funny that. If reinstatement was such a good idea, as some noble Lords have suggested—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, would not commit himself on this point—I point out that Mr Willetts has made it clear that he has no intention of reinventing ACT, unless of course policy changes.
So what can and should the Government do? First, and I think that noble Lords will agree, they should meet the needs of those who cannot save. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that what needs to be provided is a floor standard for citizens of a secure basic retirement pension in order to deal with poverty today and to reduce the risk of poverty for future pensioners.
One popular proposal suggested today is to scrap pension credit, state second pension and to add it to the basic state pension. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wanted to link the entire thing to earnings. At a stroke, as far as I can see, that would add something like £46 billion to public expenditure by 2030. Heaven knows what that would do to the 60:40/40:60 ratio. That is for him and his Front Bench to work out.
Basically, with such proposals they are asking the basic state pension to carry a lot of weight. That is arguable—my noble friend Lady Turner has honourably argued that for many years—but there are two key points. First, the basic state pension is a national insurance pension. It is contributory. None of your Lordships mentioned—I am sure that you know—that 51 per cent of female pensioners now do not enjoy a full NI pension in their own right, because they do not have a complete NI record, and they are the poorest.
So any increases in the basic state pension, which go to everyone, go to us, but not to her, because she does not have a basic, complete state pension. If we are not careful, such proposals will redistribute wealth upwards, as opposed to what we are trying to do, which is to target wealth downwards to the poorest. I challenge your Lordships to address the point about a basic state pension funded by national insurance.
The second point is that that preserves inequalities. We have debated that before, but if we really want to help the poor, and we can either give £1 to everyone or £5 to the poorest fifth, I know where my priorities lie.

871
The first role of government is to be a provider and, through the basic state pension but, above all, through the state second pension, which is heavily redistributive, and pension credit, which ensures that value is retained for small savings—and which does not presently exist, because income-related benefits cancel it out—we are meeting that task.
The second role of government is not just as provider but as enabler, to help extend savings provision, to help to deliver and to construct vehicles to deliver private contracts. How do we incentivise people to save? We must keep people in the labour market longer. I agree with your Lordships' calculations about the 7.5 per cent on the increment past 65, which is why one proposition is to increase it to 10.5 per cent and to advance that. We need to bring more marginal people into the labour market—lone parents and disabled people—and we are succeeding in that. In the Green Paper, we are consulting on whether joining an occupational pension scheme should be a compulsory option available for employers to impose on employees.
I was also intrigued that no one mentioned vesting. Let me give your Lordships an example. Ms Patel is earning £20,000 a year and putting 5 per cent into an occupational pension—£2,000 after two years. At present, without immediate vesting, the money could be taken out after one year and 364 days. Her £2,000 would be worth £1,200. With immediate vesting, it is worth £3,400. Especially for women, part-timers and those who change jobs when they are young—often quickly—immediate vesting will transform the early size of the pot, therefore compounding the possibilities.
We are also helping through tax simplification and through stakeholder pensions. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Rodin, but my statistics state that more than 1.25 million stakeholder pensions have been sold. That is an honourable figure; although we want more. There is a debate about capping; but I disagree with him—what is depressing that figure is not capping but the failure of employers to contribute. Where employers contribute, 85 per cent of employees take up stakeholder pensions; where they do not, only 15 per cent do. That is a more important driver in achieving a spread of stakeholders than is the I per cent capping charge.
If my noble friend Lord McIntosh said 1.5, that may have been a misreading of 1.15, given the latest statistics that he had at the time. If so, I apologise to the House for any slip of the tongue that may have occurred.
We again had the request about annuities at 75—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, put the case most eloquently that one should not be forced into that. Leaving aside issues of morbidity drag, about which I suspect that others know more than I do, and the risk—which I do not rate especially highly—of people blowing it all on a cruise, the real question is why people do not want to annuitise at 75. I suggest that that is because the pensions vehicle is so attractive by virtue of its tax privileges that people
872
want to use it for devices and reasons other than merely as a secure income in old age—as an inheritance vehicle for their children.
If I want to leave money to my children, there are plenty of other ways in which I can do that. I do not have to ask the state to do it by wrapping it with the tax privileges associated with pensions. Leave it through property, building societies, bonds, or whatever one wishes, but do not unreasonably ask for the privileges of high-rate taxpayers to enfold around a pension and then have the right to leave it to one's offspring at the expense of those who have no such tax privileges.
If the first role of government is as provider and the second is as enabler, I think that we all would agree that the third is as educator, addressing the issue of information. I hope that with our combined pension forecast we shall do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, called for. It will come as a cold blast of reality to many people when they read what they might otherwise be getting. That has already started to work: when we have tested that on a pilot basis, people begin—even if only modestly—to put extra money into their pensions. We hope to roll that out on a voluntary basis with other companies over the course of the year. We also want to develop the mass marketing of financial advice; I do not think that there is any disagreement about that.
Finally, there is the question of government as regulator addressing the issue of risk to rebuild trust and confidence in the pension system. That touches on some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about the minimum funding requirement, the role of the new regulator and questions about wind-up—I welcome many of his comments about that. It also addresses the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about transfer.
I understand that schemes are usually required to provide transfer value populations on receiving a request from a member. That time limit can he extended by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in all sorts of circumstances. It has currently decided to extend it until legislation is amended. Dependent on the outcome of consultation, regulations could come into effect before June. That may not have the significance suggested by the article in the Financial Times today but, if I have any further information, I shall be happy to write to your Lordships.
Given the Government's role as provider, enabler, educator and regulator, there is one final role, which is, as I said, to help to build trust and develop partnership. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Lea said, we must all own the problem: employers, employees and the financial services industry as well the Government. We await the full responses to the Green Paper as we shape our response. I am sure that your Lordships' debate, which I thought was extraordinarily good, will help to inform that response. I thank your Lordships for that.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I have only a minute or so in which to end the debate. I should like to thank everyone who has taken part. We have had 16 speeches from the Back Benches, which I cannot now go through, but they were all excellent.
Twice the Minister raised with me the question of the £5 billion pension tax and what we intend to do about it. It is interesting that Ministers are at last asking about the policy of the next Conservative government; I welcome that. I am clear that it should be a policy aim to restore the tax advantage. That should be our aim. I am in no doubt about that; I hope that the Minister will note it. I must enter the caveat that Gordon Brown always mentioned before the 1997 election: obviously it depends on what kind of economy we inherit.
I fear that I must tell the Minister that I was not convinced by her reply: I was not convinced on pension tax; I was not convinced that the Government fully appreciate the pensions crisis; above all, I was not convinced that the Government have the policies to meet the crisis. I give notice that we on these Benches will raise the issue again and again, but for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Pensions
  Communications Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Zimbabwe
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouthrose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the head of the World Food Programme, James Morris, has described the situation in Zimbabwe as a humanitarian nightmare. I hope, after reviewing the records of the international bodies, to propose what could still be done to help a Commonwealth country where the people, brave as they are, are near to despair.
Here is a country that, until two years ago, was the bread basket of southern Africa, with a sophisticated, successful economic and public infrastructure; with no race problems, and blessed with the rule of law. Its present collapse is attributed to land reform, which has been presented as driven by a just process of redistribution of land to the indigenous population. However, it has become an instrument of naked power enforced by paid young thugs. It is used for ethnic cleansing; it has destroyed the economy—inflation reached 280 per cent last month—and consigned more than 1.5 million African men, women and children who used to work on farms to starvation and homelessness. They are specifically excluded from the national food assistance programme.
874
Meanwhile, the Africans from the communal areas were cynically exploited to drive farmers off their farms. They were each given a few hectares of land for subsistence farming without seeds, tools or, above all, title, until they, too, were driven back to the communal areas to starve, as Ministers, soldiers and party members took over the farms.
This, not drought, has led to the famine. The rule of law has been destroyed. The police, public servants and the courts have all been taught that Mugabe is the law and the party is the law. As well as rampant corruption, there is no justice. Others will speak today of the horrific breaches of human rights, from torture and rape to the brainwashing that is now conducted in camps by the feared Green Bombers, who are now forcibly indoctrinating teachers, a much-respected profession.
According to a farm orphan support trust set up in 1997, 47 per cent of the population was at that time 15 or younger; 26 per cent of the adult population was HIV positive; the orphan population was growing by 60,000 children each year, and, by 2003—this year, my Lords—one third of all children under 15 years of age would be orphans.
The first thing that AIDS victims ask for is food for their hungry children. In Zimbabwe there is none. According to the World Food Programme,
"nationwide shortages of basic commodities and fuel, high parallel market prices and runaway inflation are a formula for disaster. More than half of Zimbabwe's 12 million people are now living with the threat of starvation. We are seeing hunger-related diseases. Children have dropped out of schools. Desperate families in rural Zimbabwe have resorted to eating wild fruits and tubers, some poisonous, just to survive. The government has declined permission for us to conduct nutritional surveys that would help target what resources we have to the hardest hit areas … Food is seen as a weapon in domestic politics".
James Morris made that statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.
So what have we done and what could we do to help? The Commonwealth sent only 42 observers to do the one thing that Zimbabwe needed then—to tell the world what was happening at the elections. Of the troika appointed to review Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth, the two African members, in the face of disaster, take the view that things are getting better; that the land programme has been a success and all that remains to be done is for the British Government to pay compensation for the land. They say that Mugabe has set aside 4 billion Zimbabwean dollars—no doubt at parallel rates—to pay for improvements in some happy future. Zimbabwe, they say, should be allowed back into the Commonwealth.
What about the EU? The French had no difficulty in pursuing their own agenda in Africa by inviting Mugabe to Paris, since Article 3.3 of the original Common Position on Africa of February 2002 had always allowed member states to admit those on the prohibited travel list,
"on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political dialogue that promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe".

875
Mr Chirac, before an audience in which Mr Mugabe was by no means the only corrupt tyrant present, spoke movingly about their obligations to behave well. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what success we have had in sequestering assets.
What about G8? The statement on the G8 summit last year made no reference to Zimbabwe but celebrated the establishment of NePAD, the African-led initiative that,
"puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer review mechanism".
Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo rightly called the event a historic moment for Africa.
The strategy of HMG has been quiet diplomacy—I respect their reasons—working through the SADC countries most affected by the collapse of Zimbabwe, especially South Africa, the architect of NePAD. They have accepted the argument that it is an African issue to be settled by Africans. It would seem reasonable for the NePAD peer-review mechanism to be used and for the good governance policy to be related to Zimbabwe. But that has not happened, because all along there has been another player whose agenda is far from that of either the G8 or the EU—Libya. As President Mbeki explained to the G8 representative last November, the African Union is the supreme African institution, and NePAD is merely its socio-economic development programme, drawing its authority from the African Union. The peer-review mechanism, to which countries submit voluntarily, is an AU mechanism. There are others, including the Constitutive Act, the African Parliament, a commission on human rights, which all seem more appropriate than NePAD for political action. President Mbeki said that NePAD could not place itself above African continental law. He suggested that African countries were being invited to treat the AU, the parent of NePAD, as a dangerous irrelevance.
I fear that that puts paid to the policy of hoping to work through NePAD to help Zimbabwe, for Gaddafi is Mugabe's dearest friend. Nor is it reassuring that President Mbeki, as president of the Non-Aligned Movement, secured Mugabe a unanimous vote of confidence at a meeting in January, together with a motion blaming the,
"grave humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe",
on drought, the IMF and the World Bank.
It is a final irony that South Africa and the African Union bloc recently pushed through the appointment of Libya as Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission.
I suggest that nothing will be done to help Zimbabwe to help itself through the Commonwealth, through NePAD, if its true status is that of a mere arm of Gaddafi's African Union, or through an EU in which too many have their own African agenda.
So what about the UN? Throughout 2002, there was not one single motion or speech on Zimbabwe in the Security Council or the General Affairs Council by the UK, South Africa or Nigeria. Naturally, I hope that discussions were going on behind the scenes.
876
The Secretary-General's January 2003 press conference made brief reference to Zimbabwe, attributing its crisis to the forces of nature and mismanagement and adjuring Zimbabweans to work together.
However, Zimbabwe has at least surfaced in the Security Council's Resolution 1457, which mandates the UN investigative panel on the plundering of resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo by the Zimbabwean army and government, among others, to investigate further. It requires the Government of Zimbabwe to co-operate and invites all those named in the report to respond by 31st March. The Security Council notes:
"The elite networks involved in resource exploitation (top army commanders, businessmen and government structures) are changing their tactics as national armies begin withdrawal from the eastern Congo—the government of Zimbabwe had adopted strategies for maintaining the mechanism for revenue generation, many of which involved criminal activities once their troops have departed. They seek to maintain their grip on the main mineral resources and have transferred ownership of at least US․ 5 billion of assets from the state mining sector to private companies under their control in the past 3 years".
The path that Zimbabwe's friends should now choose is to bring the full force of the UN to bear, using the power and resources of the United States, which is there to be harnessed. That should be done on humanitarian grounds, which cannot be gainsaid—nor should they be ignored by the UN. Those grounds will necessarily include the trauma arising from the acts of genocide, torture and the use of food as a political weapon; from the collapse of the rule of law; the urgent HIV/AIDS crisis and the famine daily more apparent.
The UNDP has representatives on the ground, and the Government have just carried out their own audit on the land reform, on which the UNDP was originally to advise in 1998. The World Food Programme is closely engaged. The UN Rapporteur on Human Rights has recently reported on the attacks on the judiciary. None of that could be enough, given the present preoccupation of the UN, and indeed of the world, with Iraq, if it were not for that potential engine for action, the United States, and the present active engagement with the process of James Morris, Walter Kansteiner at the State Department and Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID. All those powerful men want to arrest the collapse of the country and to restore the rule of law before Zimbabwe becomes a black hole in Africa. We should be acting with the UN, sending in humanitarian monitors, and working with the World Food Programme to arrest famine, to fight AIDS and to cast, above all, through that international presence, a bright light on oppression, torture and corruption. It would not be a political intervention: it would be a humanitarian one. It is the last hope of many innocent people.
Should President Mbeki, and others, claim that the world is setting aside the mandate of the people at the 2002 elections, which his observers pronounced free and fair, perhaps we might remind him of the recent evidence sedulously concealed by Mr Mugabe's

877
registrar-general. It showed that, while the electoral roll contained 5.2 million names, increased before the election to 5.6 million through additional illegal registrations, census data showed that in August 2002 there were only 4.2 million adults in Zimbabwe—very interesting.
What can we do here and now in our country? First, why have we denied asylum to all but a handful of the Zimbabwe citizens—white and black—who are trying to come here to escape torture and persecution? They are citizens of a Commonwealth country. Until recently, Zimbabwean teachers, now under grave threat, taught the British educational curriculum. They speak fluent English and could at once help with our teacher shortage. Zimbabwe nurses and social workers are equally immediately employable. Why could they not come initially for a two-year period, as, it is reported, the Home Secretary has considered offering to encourage workers from Turkey? The danger for the Zimbabweans is far greater than that faced by any Afghan, and they could at once be useful and self-supporting citizens.
What about the 7,000 to 8,000 British pensioners in Zimbabwe, many of them ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen, who receive their pensions through the bank at the official rate—at present 85 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, although the true or parallel rate, constantly rising with inflation, is 2,500 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound? Their pensions are virtually worthless and do not buy even one meal a day, let alone pay their costs in retirement homes or buy the medicine that they need. There is no NHS. Some have killed themselves; all are in dire straits. I can give many more examples of suffering and destitution, but time does not allow.
At the behest of the Treasury, the High Commission charges for passports and visas at the parallel rate. What will Her Majesty's Government do to secure the same rate for pensions? As the Minister knows, I intend to press the issue further in a Question in 10 days' time, so I do not expect an answer now. Nevertheless, it is an urgent issue. Should those UK citizens, by some miracle, find the millions of Zimbabwe dollars needed to come to this country, they must still, although holding UK passports with the right of abode, prove entitlement to habitual residence. If they can do so, it will take them anything from four to six months and sometimes more, spent filling in complicated forms and being interviewed. During that time, their sole entitlement is the right of abode.
There is no provision whatever for any of those UK passport holders to be given even temporary accommodation, let alone money for food, even if they are destitute. Asylum seekers, on the other hand, receive those things at once, without question. The only help that the UK citizens will receive, if they are, for instance, ex-servicemen, will come from the Royal British Legion, if they are in contact with that organisation. If they are, the help is prompt and effective and is funded by service benevolent funds and charities. Why does the state acknowledge no
878
responsibility? Why are such people not provided, on arrival, with guidance on where to go for help, as the state has disowned them? What does being a British citizen mean, if not help in time of trouble?
I urge the Government to act at once to give preference to Zimbabwe citizens seeking asylum. They must find a way to restore the value of pensions for UK citizens in Zimbabwe or to provide immediate financial support, and they should give at least the same support with accommodation and benefits to UK citizens arriving in this country destitute as is given to asylum seekers. Something must be done now, and such things lie within our national power.
No one marches for Zimbabwe in this country: let us begin to do so. Far from allowing Mugabe to warn us off as ex-colonialists, we should remember that we have a particular duty to Africa. That is something that we should neither forget nor allow other people to forget.
I add one postscript: according to The Times today, out of 39 people released after four days in prison for demonstrating against the Government after a cricket match, one woman prisoner was unaccounted for and 26 detainees had been held in a cell meant for six, in which they had been unable to lie down. That is what is happening in Zimbabwe today. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on introducing the debate.
I was brought up on a maize farm in southern Rhodesia. The farmworkers' families, like black Zimbabweans today, cooked maize meal—known as mealie meal or sadza—as their staple food. My eldest sister married a tobacco and maize farmer, and three of their sons followed in his footsteps. Last year, their farms were taken away, and they have scattered to New Zealand, Hungary and Zambia. One of my nephews was a champion maize grower; now he and nearly all his fellow maize-growing commercial farmers have vanished, leaving a vast hole in Zimbabwe's food supply.
The situation last season was made worse by poor rains, particularly in Matabeleland and Masvingo. Thus, although the harvest of May-June 2001 produced nearly 1.5 million metric tonnes of maize, the harvest of May-June last year shrank to only a third of that—just under 500,000 metric tonnes. With an annual requirement of 1.6 million metric tonnes, the government used scarce foreign currency to buy maize abroad. However, not nearly enough was imported, and generous international donors, led by the United States followed by the European Union, especially Britain, stepped in. To prevent starvation among the 7.8 million at risk, the donor countries acted through United Nations programmes and non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe.
As the noble Baroness said, the ghastly situation has been exacerbated by HIV/AIDS, which infects 34 per cent of the population. Without decent nutrition for

879
the people, the disease spreads. Lack of food causes those with HIV to get AIDS. AIDS kills 2,000 to 2,500 Zimbabweans every week.
For this year, the Zimbabwean Government estimate that the maize harvest in May-June will rise slightly, to 550,000 metric tonnes from the abysmal 500,000 tonnes last year. However, informed sources suggest that, with the massive decline in commercial farming and poor rains yet again, the crop will go down by a quarter, to a dreadful 380,000 tonnes. Some 1.6 million tonnes are needed. That is a disaster.
Things are even more catastrophic. Commercial farmers used to grow about 340,000 tonnes of winter wheat annually. This August-September, the wheat harvest will be practically non-existent. Moreover, without the growers, the tobacco crop, which provided much of the foreign exchange to buy maize abroad last year, will collapse. Informed sources in Zimbabwe believe that 10 million people will be at risk of lack of food by Christmas. Only international donors can save them.
Britain has been exemplary in its generosity. In an Answer to a Written Question published in yesterday's Hansard, the Minister tabulated the contribution made by each European Union country to Zimbabwe for 2002 in millions of euros. The European Union as a whole gave 156.4 million euros, of which Britain's share was 68.6 million, Germany's 25.6 million, France's 14.6 million and Portugal's 1.2 million. I look to Britain once more to give a lead to the European Union's donations this year. However, I look to the British Embassy in Paris to talk to the French. If France is going to pursue its interests by entertaining Mr Mugabe and his entourage, it should do not half of what Germany does but more than Germany does to prevent starvation among Mr Mugabe's fellow Zimbabweans. As Portugal tried to invite Mr Mugabe to the now postponed European-African summit in Lisbon next month, the British Embassy should suggest that Portugal provide more than 1.2 million euros to feed Mr Mugabe's fellow Zimbabweans.
In December, the United Slates Administration pledged a further 100 million dollars, over and above its already impressive contribution, for food aid to Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia. That is a useful start to the 2003 campaign to feed Zimbabweans. There is enormous interest in Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans in Britain, in Parliament and in the media. Britain should do all that it can to give aid and should do all that it can diplomatically to spearhead an international campaign, so that Zimbabweans will have enough mealie meal to eat this year.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for bringing Zimbabwe to the attention of your Lordships' House, especially in the prevailing climate. Many noble Lords will have seen the recent Guardian report about the arrest of clergy from different churches. They were demonstrating in Harare against police brutality and, not surprisingly, they were
880
promised some for themselves! More and more Church leaders are joining the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube—a brave man—in resisting the unlawful actions of the Mugabe regime. Many will have been deeply affected by accounts of the service in Bulawayo cathedral where opponents of the regime gave graphic details of the treatment meted out to them by the security services. Such courageous Church and community leaders deserve international support and a platform for their views.
It must be admitted, however, that there is quite another kind of Church leader. There are those who have been placed in leadership by the regime itself and those who are actively collaborating with it. That kind of leadership has forced the diocese of Rochester to suspend our longstanding link with the diocese of Harare. We regret that very much; it has caused us deep grief. Unprincipled collaboration has divided the Church in that diocese, diverted resources from where they are most needed, and dispersed clergy and faithful in a wholly destructive way.
Even in such adverse circumstances we have tried to continue helping those in most need. An order of Anglican nuns runs a centre for orphaned children who are also HIV-positive. Along with Zimbabwean Christians, we continue to support them. Hyper-inflation has already been mentioned; it is a result of what passes for economic policy in Zimbabwe these days. The elderly have seen their life savings melt away. They need support. Happily, it has proved possible for us to support some of them, even if in a small way.
Through the Just Children Foundation, we have been able to continue assisting work with street children and, through the Zimbabwe Development Trust, with displaced farm workers who have suffered a great deal. A feeding programme, involving our mission partners from Crosslinks, was rudely disrupted when they were suddenly expelled from the country, without explanation. That is another sign of the complete unreasonableness of the Mugabe government.
However, the lesson is that effective assistance can still be delivered through non-governmental organisations, especially church-related ones, and through the United Nations. That has already been mentioned. There is evidence that food aid through government channels is being used for political purposes and to starve opponents into submission. Food is, indeed, being used as a weapon.
Our partners in Zimbabwe tell us that the economic situation, with its food and fuel shortages, as well as international pressure, is beginning to have an effect. Senior figures in ZANU-PF, in the military and in commerce are wondering whether it is worth their while to continue supporting President Mugabe. The advice we are getting is that the pressure must be kept up—perhaps increased—if the people of Zimbabwe are to be free. I was disappointed therefore to learn that the Commonwealth is not really taking any constructive initiatives in this area. Perhaps I am wrong; I would be pleased to be told that.

881
When the people of Zimbabwe are free, that will be the time for national reconstruction. No doubt the Churches of Zimbabwe will be in the forefront. As their partners we, too, pledge our support for the rebuilding of their beautiful land. We pray that it will happen soon.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Park both on initiating the debate and on her speech. Zimbabwe was suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth for a year, which expires on 19th March. In that time, matters have worsened in Zimbabwe in just about every field. That has already been made clear in the three excellent speeches so far today.
The gross domestic product has fallen by 27 per cent in the past four years. Yesterday, the Government of Zimbabwe published a proposal for the development of the economy in which they took pride that the economy was expected to contract—I repeat, to contract—by only 7.8 per cent this year. I am pleased to add that the electoral roll used for the last election has recently fallen into the hands of the opposition in Zimbabwe and it indicates that there were 1.8 million phantom voters on the electoral roll.
My noble friend Lady Park said that Mr Mbeki, the President of South Africa and Mr Obasanjo, the President of Nigeria, proposed that Zimbabwe should be reinstated to the Commonwealth. Moreover, they declined to meet the Prime Minister of Australia, who is the chairman of the Troika. I emphasise that there is not a shred of a case for reinstatement of Zimbabwe to the councils of the Commonwealth at present.
Mr Mbeki claims that it should be left to Africans only to deal with the problem of Zimbabwe. There are some organisations—SADC, NePAD, the African Union—of which only Africans are members. I shall return to them, but they are not doing much about the problem of Zimbabwe at present. However, in the Commonwealth, such a matter is for the Commonwealth as a whole. The Commonwealth cannot have one rule for Africa and another for all other continents which contain members of the Commonwealth.
The observance of the principles of the Commonwealth is a matter for the whole Commonwealth. Moreover, if Mr Mbeki thinks about it, his proposal is a bad one for Africa. It would be understood to imply that Africa cannot live up to the standards observed by the rest of the Commonwealth members, and that Africa should be subject to more lenient rules, as a type of second 11. I do not recall Mr Mbeki saying that human rights in Africa should be left to the Africans only when western countries, including ourselves, were helping to eliminate apartheid in his country.
I shall welcome clarification on this point by the Minister in her reply: if no agreement is reached by the Troika regarding Zimbabwe, I understand that suspension will continue until the heads of government
882
meeting in Nigeria in December. If the situation remains as now—or anything like—it is vital for the future of the Commonwealth that the suspension of Zimbabwe continues.
My next point is that the situation in Zimbabwe appears to be damaging the whole of southern Africa. I have a report dated 13th February from Reuters in Johannesburg, which indicates that while foreign direct investment flows into South Africa in 2002 were up a little compared with the preceding year, such flows into the other 14 member countries of SADC in 2002 dropped to 1.09 billion dollars, compared with 6.63 billion dollars in 2001. That is an astonishing figure. I should appreciate clarification on that point from the Minister if she has any knowledge of it. It seems to me amazing but possible, given the lack of confidence which must exist in investors in southern Africa as a result of the situation in Zimbabwe. It is true that the opinion of informed commentators and business people in southern Africa is that the worsening situation in Zimbabwe is harming the economy of SADC as a whole.
SADC, NePAD and the African Union all call for good governance, the rule of law, the observance of human rights—and peer pressure by those organisations to observe those three principles. It is astonishing that the countries of southern Africa do not appear to be exerting that peer pressure. Perhaps something is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that in her reply.
We all know that South Africa could turn Zimbabwe on to a better path in weeks if it wanted and tried to do so. Is it doing anything to that effect? The impression given by the countries of SADC is that they are sleepwalking into poverty.
I have a final question. Do not the G8 governments have a duty if only to their taxpayers to ensure that the economic aid that they give to NePAD countries is not wasted? What is the policy of the G8 countries towards NePAD regarding aid in the face of this critical situation?
7.11 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on introducing the debate. It is important in times of great international crisis that we do not allow Zimbabwe simply to drift from international attention. My noble friend Lord Acton illustrated the gravity of the food situation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and noble Lord, Lord Blaker, also described its seriousness.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for mildly chiding the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but it is "President" Mbeki, and I believe that he should always receive his proper title. The reasons are important. People are most sensitive at present and we do not want suggestions of paternalism. I am sure that that was not his intention when he questioned interpretation.
We know that the situation is difficult and is getting worse. I am worried in particular that opinion in Africa and in the developing world is turning against

883
the position that we in this House and the Government are taking and moving in favour of President Mugabe and ZAN U-PF. That may lead to a severe rift in the Commonwealth.
Two weeks ago in the Jubilee Room in the House of Commons I chaired a meeting at the launch of a pamphlet entitled Zimbabwe on the Brink, written by Glenys Kinnock MEP. Also present was Derek Wyatt, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. In his remarks, Derek Wyatt said:
"Our democratic values are important".
I would have thought that a wholly uncontroversial statement. But someone in the audience, not at all sympathetic to ZANU-PF, said that we should be careful about using the phrase "our democratic values" as it suggested some kind of colonial importance. It suggested that we were trying to force our democratic values on the people of Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa. I reminded the audience, as I remind this House and as I hope those who read the debate will be reminded, that when we marched through the streets of Whitehall in the company of Didymus Mutasa and Edison Zvogbo, both leading members of ZANU at the time, to protest at the activities of the Sealous Scouts in southern Rhodesia; when we campaigned on the slogan "No independence without majority rule"— NIMBAR, for short—it was not on our values and their values. We all shared the same values, especially ZAN U-PF and ZAPU.
When we protested at the murder of Steve Biko and at the secret trials, and at Sharpeville and so forth, it was not our values and their values. When we took deputations to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who I am delighted to see in her place and who was Minister of State at the Foreign Office in the days of a government which I did not support, we received the greatest of support over and above her call of duty. I repeat my congratulations and support for her at that time.
Their values and our values were the same. There was a right of free speech, of democracy and of the freedom of association. The Zimbabweans who marched with us in exile revelled in the opportunity of opposition and free speech. As they said on many occasions, they greatly valued the neutrality which the police showed during the demonstrations. There was no question about it—we all shared these values. We are not now saying that we want to impose our particular parliamentary system and democratic society on them. Heaven knows, as we know from recent debates there is no such thing as a perfect constitution. We are still bitterly arguing about ours, after hundreds of years of democracy. But the fact is that the principles of democracy must prevail and those in Zimbabwe must accept that.
What is happening will affect not only Zimbabwe, which is bad enough, but I fear that it will severely affect the future of the Commonwealth. We know that the non-aligned movement, the SADC, has said that it has given too much support to Zimbabwe. If the troika reports that Zimbabwe should be returned to the Commonwealth, it can do so only on a split decision of
884
two to one. I cannot see Australia supporting that. If it does not report and the matter comes before the Commonwealth in December, we will be faced with the question: what should the Commonwealth do? I fear that the Commonwealth will split along racial lines. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, we must be careful in how we address these issues.
We greatly value the position of South Africa and other countries in trying to resolve the problems in Africa, especially of Zimbabwe. I would be more than happy to stand back and let that be resolved by the South Africans and those around them. We are not interfering because we want to; we are becoming involved because we remember the past of Zimbabwe and we are determined to try to influence its future. Furthermore, we want to see the Commonwealth remain a united organisation.
My noble friend Lady Amos has worked extremely hard within the Commonwealth and elsewhere to push the point of view that what happens in Zimbabwe is wrong and has to be ended. I believe that we should give her every support. We in this House cannot afford to divide on our aims because they are the same, even though we may differ slightly on how we should bring them about.
The Commonwealth is not a cosy club; it is not a case of once every two years or whenever the Commonwealth leaders get together and have nice meals here and there. The Commonwealth is a real, living organisation which is essential for the prosperity and development of the countries in it. We want to see that continue. We live in extremely dangerous times, but above all the danger rests and has been borne by the people of Zimbabwe. We would let them down if we did not support them in every way possible.
7.17 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for again raising this important subject in your Lordships' House. The increasingly dire social, economic, political and environmental crisis in Zimbabwe worsens by the day.
With world attention currently focused on the impending war against Iraq, it is important that the ongoing humanitarian and political atrocities in Zimbabwe are kept constantly in the public spotlight. Sadly, too many people in this country and around the world have shrugged their shoulders over Zimbabwe, believing that nothing can be achieved to resolve the ongoing crisis. Certainly, sanctions have not so far worked.
Yet how in all conscience can anyone do nothing, when more than 14 million people, including more than 7 million children, have been driven almost to starvation? While millions of Zimbabweans continue to yearn for peace, stability and a resumption of years gone by, when the country with its fertile lands was totally self-sufficient, I believe that the situation has in some ways progressed since we last debated the subject in your Lordships' House.

885
Then, we wondered whether President Mugabe would step down and give way to a government of national unity. Now, by general consensus throughout southern Africa, the question is not whether he will go, but when. This has been the common theme for the three recent attempts to mediate a peaceful solution. The focus has shifted from when Mugabe will go to who will replace him and what transitional arrangements need to be put in place before new elections are held.
The first of these mediation efforts was orchestrated by a former colonel in the Zimbabwe Defence Force, Lionel Dyke, who put forward a structure for a new government of national unity which was totally unacceptable to the MDC. The proposal offered two Cabinet seats to the MDC and suggested Emerson Mnangagwa as the new Prime Minister, with Mugabe staying on as the titular president. As Mnangagwa is alleged to have been involved in several dubious activities, including being one of the chief looters of the DRC and one of the chief architects of the massacre of the minority Ndebele tribe in the 1980s, this proposal was a total non-starter. The ANC in South Africa tried to improve the offer, but again it was totally unacceptable.
Of more interest is the second attempt to find a path away from this crisis which has been made by Mjongonkulu Ndungane, the present Archbishop of Cape Town, the successor of Desmond Tutu. Acting in concert with the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, an organisation based in Cape Town, the widely respected archbishop travelled to Zimbabwe four weeks ago and met with President Mugabe. It is understood that at this meeting Mugabe asked the archbishop to approach the British Prime Minister on the subject of land reform and unfulfilled promises from the Lancaster House agreement. I understand that this past weekend the archbishop was due to meet our Prime Minister and that he will again be meeting Mugabe on 12th March. Will the Minister elaborate on these discussions when she responds to the debate?
While I am deeply critical of President Chirac for inviting Mugabe to attend the recent international conference in Paris, he clearly is using his best endeavours to mediate and broker a peaceful hand-over of power in Zimbabwe.
However, an understandable response to these kinds of quiet diplomatic activities might be that, so far as concerns the suffering millions in Zimbabwe, the process seems to be taking a very long time to yield very few results. While the talking continues, Mugabe remains assertively in power. While the talking continues, food shortages across this naturally fertile land become more grave; fuel is now almost impossible to find; life-blood agricultural yields have been dramatically reduced; and the spread of HIV/AIDS, an issue raised by several noble Lords, is destroying many hundreds of thousands of lives.
Despite the recent assurances of President Obasanjo of Nigeria that land seizures have, in his words, "substantially ended", and that law and order are
886
returning to Zimbabwe, this is quite clearly trite nonsense. Zimbabweans are aghast as to how both President Obasanjo and President Mbeki can tolerate the torture and repression of fellow Africans in the name of the spurious concept of "African unity".
However, the time for megaphone diplomacy has passed. The situation will not be resolved by trading insults with the tyrant. As the South African Foreign Minister, Nkosasana Dlamini Zuma, said this week, almost nothing will be achieved by shouting at Mugabe from a safe distance. It has become clear that the country's best hope of redemption lies in a process of quiet but persistent and firm diplomacy, most of which should be launched, driven and pursued from within southern Africa.
I am aware that many people, both within Zimbabwe and outside, have despaired at the apparent reluctance of President Thabo Mbeki and his government to take a firm line towards Mugabe. Yet, in his discussions with our Prime Minister during his recent visit to this country, Mr Mbeki cogently explained the particular difficulty of his position. I believe that South Africa is committed to helping Zimbabwe to overcome the current crisis as calmly as possible and, at all costs, to avoiding the kind of violent insurrection that could destabilise the entire region with disastrous results, not least a flood of refugees crossing the Limpopo.
President Mbeki's government have decided to maintain a policy of constructive engagement with their northern neighbour rather than join the global chorus of outrage and condemnation. My major criticism of, and concern for, the South African Government is that they have tended to try to legitimise ZANU-PF rather than uphold an evenhanded approach to both the ZANU-PF and MDC parties.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government, particularly the Minister, have been playing a pivotal role in supporting the diplomatic initiatives process in a way that seeks to neutralise the "colonial sympathy" button that Mugabe has attempted to push at every opportunity. I warmly and wholeheartedly support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for a strong UN resolution on Zimbabwe.
I believe that Britain's central role in the evolution of Rhodesia to independence and beyond leaves us with certain specific obligations. I again urge Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility of compensating farmers who have been violently thrown off their land, provided this is conditional on an acceptable political solution leading to a transitional authority.
The pace of any progress towards resolution of the crisis will seem too slow to those people who are still being deprived of food and basic human rights, yet I do believe that progress is being made.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth

887
for introducing the debate. I congratulate her on making the House focus once again on Zimbabwe. I hope that she will continue to do so.
I have read, seen and, above all, listened to as many horror stories as anyone about the sad situation in Zimbabwe. I have just returned from southern and west Africa, and while in southern Africa I heard from many people who are able to leave Zimbabwe, and from others who travel in and out of Zimbabwe, of some of the things that are going on. I, too, had the pleasure of speaking with the Archbishop of Cape Town about the efforts that need to be made to find a way forward.
I shall not repeat the horror stories—there are enough in the papers if anyone wants to read about them—but I shall try to analyse what is going on and consider the way forward. However horrific, wrong and terrifying the treatment of those who do not agree with the people doing the bullying in Zimbabwe, we cannot change the past; we have to set a path forward. How we can do that is one of the difficulties that we face.
There are many misconceptions and misunderstandings, and there is a great deal of misinformation going round, so let us look at the basis of the situation. Through my former responsibilities I have known the President of Zimbabwe and many of his Ministers for more than 16 years. In recent months I have often questioned whether those Ministers know about the reality of the frequently brutal treatment being handed out to ordinary Zimbabweans, both black and white; about the denial of food to non-ZANU-PF card-carrying members of the ordinary public.
It is the ordinary Zimbabweans and southern Africans from all walks of life who are repeating the reality of what is happening on the ground, and therefore I cannot believe that those Ministers are unaware. I believe that they have got themselves into a veritable corner and cannot see a way out which allows them to survive. They are therefore resisting all entreaties. The people that I listen to are not politicians but ordinary Zimbabweans who truly know what is happening.
There are groups at work in Zimbabwe—my noble friend Lady Park has mentioned one such—which are completely out of the control of the government. There are elements of lawlessness that are out of any control whatsoever. I refer to the youth leagues, locally known as the "Green Bombers", who are behaving in a way never before experienced, except in the bad old days in Zimbabwe years ago.
These young people go into camps for so-called training but, while in the camps, they develop the most vicious habits against anyone who does not agree with them, even their parents. They behave in a totally unacceptable way against those who are strong enough to remain silent in the face of enormous provocation, as has happened to some members of the clergy in Zimbabwe in recent weeks. I understand that even the elders of ZANU-PF are now worried about what has been let loose with these young people, who are totally out of control. Controlling these young people would be one step forward, which only the Zimbabwean
888
Government can take. They have a well-trained army, in whose formation this country played a large part. They can and should be taking this action. I do not plead with President Mugabe—it is not my way—but I believe that if the Zimbabwean Government want to gain understanding outside, that is one step that they can take.
Ordinary people who express their views are now arrested, such as those at cricket in Bulawayo last Friday. Some have since been released, but many have been detained in prison for more than 48 hours with no food and have not even been taken to court. This is quite outside the rules which existed in Zimbabwe post-independence but which have now been turned on their head. That is another action that the Government of Zimbabwe could take. I know this from the captain of the English Cricket Board, who was speaking on television in South Africa this morning.
The other thing that needs to be done is to correct the appalling restriction on the humanitarian agencies doing their work. They are seeking to alleviate the malnutrition and starvation in the country, particularly in the areas where there is no affiliation to ZANU-PF. That is an action which the whole world is waiting for.
The economy is in a deplorable state. We do not have time tonight to debate what has gone wrong; we have heard it before in this House. Above all, one is concerned about the once-buoyant agricultural sector, where the outlook is now so bleak. The national demand for maize is about 1.8 million tonnes. The disrupted planting in the last planting season plus the drought and the late rains last year mean that, at best, the maize fields will yield about 700,000 tonnes. That is a further depletion in food resources. Only four years ago Zimbabwe was a net exporter of maize and a key supplier for the World Food Programme.
One can go on about all the horrors of Zimbabwe. One of the critical needs is to get information about Zimbabwe to other members of the Commonwealth. In that way, perhaps President Obasanjo, President Mbeki and their Ministers will find out what is really going on. I can say from my experience with Ministers in the South African Government only 10 days ago that they do not know what is going on.
Finally, for the sake of ordinary Zimbabwean people, I believe that we need to have a widely drawn group of Africans and others—perhaps, as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said, under a UN banner—to assist a cross-section of Zimbabwean leaders to guide the restoration of law and order, to make sure there is equitable distribution of food and medicines and, above all, to re-establish sound economics in that country.
7.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in a country which has seen only victims, the dignity of the silent protest of Andy Flower and Henry Olonga on the cricket field has been one of the few encouraging spectacles in recent weeks. Another has been the recent peaceful

889
demonstrations by Christians in Bulawayo and Harare, recalling so many similar events in apartheid South Africa. They show once again that people matter and that even the worst tyrannies are unable to stifle the right of every citizen, of all races and beliefs, to make their views known.
Less edifying, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Acton, and others, has been the government's published scoreboard of Zimbabwe's maize production. This shows the worst total for a decade last year, with large-scale farming having produced its lowest total of 270 kilotonnes, while the figure for small farmers, who are the intended beneficiaries of land redistribution, stands at only 388 metric tonnes, less than one-third of their 2000 total. This convincingly shows the masquerade of President Mugabe's so-called reforms, not to mention his racism, anti-colonialism and disregard for any democratic process.
The figures are becoming all too familiar. With large areas of commercial farming now idle, the Grain Producers Association is predicting 1.6 million tonnes of maize only this year. More than 7 million people—over half the population—are defined as "food insecure" by the World Food Programme, and aid agencies are reaching only about 2.2 million of them. The situation is becoming more and more critical, especially for the poorest rural families.
There is even some concern about the amount of seed being consumed rather than planted. There are worrying signs of malnutrition. The vicious spiral of HIV/AIDS has further weakened the population to a point we can barely imagine.
There is no let-up in illegal farm evictions. Section 8 notices have been served on more than 40 farmers in the Karoi-Tengwe area, requiring farmers to cease operations and vacate the property within 90 days—this in spite of the government's assurance last August that land invasions would cease. The number of remaining commercial farms is now between 600 and 1,000, compared with about 4,400 when the land reform programme started.
One report from the famine early warning systems network says that about 1 million people have been affected by land reform and resettlement, with many farm workers lacking the proper equipment to start farming on resettled land. Increasing cases of destitution among the farm workers and resettled farmers in Mashonaland, Matabeleland and Masvingo are now being assessed by WFP.
It is well known that ZANU-PF is making use of food aid for its own purposes. We received the assurance that none of this diverted food comes from any UK source, since our Government work only through the NGOs and international agencies. However, greater clarification is needed about food coming through the World Food Programme to which the UK is a leading contributor. I understand that even imported food has been put up for sale through the state grain marketing board monopoly, thereby benefiting party funds and bypassing the private sector. Some grain is also apparently being sold in Zambia in return for hard
890
currency. Has the Minister received or will she request any comments from WFP, since presumably this food, which is now monetised, cannot be categorised as humanitarian aid?
Meanwhile, the public order legislation continues to ban almost all political activity. The Access to Information Act gags the press and distorts the media in favour of the regime. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, ZANU-PF youth militia are trained to commit acts of violence. The police are routinely aggressive against members of the public. We know from the press about the arrest of Job Sikhala, the MDC MP for St Mary's and four other men, all of whom were beaten on the soles of their feet and tortured with electricity. Despite investigations ordered by a magistrate and questions asked, the men's statements have been ignored by the police and no action is being taken. In February, High Court judge Benjamin Paradza was goaled overnight without any inquiry being ordered.
The World Cup last Friday saw another example of police brutality. We have heard of the 17 clergymen who were held for eight hours in Harare merely for trying to present a petition complaining about police harassment, which has been a growing concern of the Church, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said. Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo has been joined by several other leaders in speaking out against new outrages committed by the police in the name of public order.
Vote rigging has also been mentioned. Later this month two by-elections are due to take place in the Harare townships of Highfield and Kuwadzana, and already there are reports of intimidation and fraud. One report says that thousands of new voters have been added to the Kuwadzana roll, many of them from outside the constituency or phantom names. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, mentioned that there is new evidence that last year's national elections were rigged. Morgan Tsvangirai was surely right to remind the world recently:
"These pillars of tyranny are a clear violation of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration and they constitute the basis upon which the Commonwealth successfully indicted the Mugabe regime, through the report of the Commonwealth Observer Mission".
That was in his open letter to John Howard on 17th February.
I still believe in the importance of the Commonwealth, devalued as it has been, but I have to admit that the troika has had little impact on President Mugabe, mainly because of his old links with President Mbeki. I accept the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and of my noble friend, but Mbeki's quiet diplomacy has exasperated Zimbabweans by its empty promises.
All Africa knows that the British Government are powerless to influence the course of events in Zimbabwe because of their colonial past and, more pertinently, their failure to deal adequately with the land issue not during, but after, the Lancaster House agreement. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, on that. The US is too obsessed

891
with tyrannies elsewhere in the world to bother with Africa. So we are left with the EU, which is the only viable channel for effective sanctions.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for securing this debate on Zimbabwe and for the many insights that, as always, her expert knowledge brings to bear in this House.
Today, when we might have hoped that the conflicts of the past were an ever more distant memory, instead Zimbabwe is a nation of instability, of land crisis and of violence, with a rampant AIDS problem and a devastated economy. It is difficult to see how the country can resolve the enormous challenges that face it when its fortunes remain tied to those of its leader, Robert Mugabe. We must face the fact that, despite the warmth of President Chirac's handshake, Zimbabwe is slowly bleeding to death as a nation, both politically and economically. It is a country careering towards economic collapse and it is not clear how much more ordinary Zimbabweans can take before the situation implodes in some way, with potentially dire consequences for the stability of southern Africa.
Those in Zimbabwe who believed that things could not get worse at the beginning of 2002 have been proved wrong. There has been a drastic deterioration in the past 12 months in all senses. The economy is unwinding before our eyes and looks set to weaken further this year. Inflation is over 200 per cent. Interest rates are unsustainably low and unemployment is more than 70 per cent. The Zimbabwean dollar is one of the worst performing currencies in the world. A tube of toothpaste in Zimbabwe now costs 1,500 Zimbabwe dollars—27 US dollars at the official exchange rate. Tourism is down by 80 per cent since 1999. Hundreds of businesses have closed. Foreign investment has dried up and aid has been frozen.
The most distressing fact is that it could all have been avoided. The economic decline has largely been caused by year upon year of government corruption and mismanagement, compounded by disruptions to the vital agricultural sector through the Mugabe regime's land redistribution programme. Government-sanctioned invasions of commercial farms by their supporters have resulted in thousands—I repeat, thousands—of normally productive farms lying idle, precipitating a collapse in investor confidence and capital flight. As a direct result, Zimbabwe today is gripped by a preventable humanitarian crisis and a famine, brought about by the policies of one man—Mugabe.
The situation in Zimbabwe is beyond mere international concern and ineffectual hand-wringing. It demands a coherent strategy for action, formulated and agreed by the international community. Yet instead, the international community on occasions appears gripped by a strange combination of paralysis and denial, which is allowing Robert Mugabe a free rein for his megalomania. By putting Morgan Tsvangirai on trial for treason, he has now ensured that his key political opponent is not just fighting for his political existence but literally fighting for his life.
892
It looks increasingly as though the Commonwealth will not renew Zimbabwe's suspension from its councils, which followed Mr Mugabe's controversial re-election last March. Instead, Zimbabwe may be welcomed back into the fold. President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Mbeki of South Africa—both members of the troika in whose hands the decision rests—have indicated that Harare's one-year suspension should not be extended when it ends in two weeks. I am sorry, but I do not support the cautious optimism of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso.
Mr Mugabe's visit to France last month and his red carpet treatment made a mockery of the EU sanctions regime. The logic of allowing Mr Mugabe to travel to Europe to prevent him from travelling to Europe has escaped many people, myself included. The Secretary of State for International Development was right to call it a tacky deal with France. I hope the Minister will endorse that sentiment tonight.
Can the Minister give assurances that the Government have made it clear to the French Government in the strongest possible terms that by allowing Mugabe to visit Paris last month their actions totally undermined the West's condemnation of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe? The actions of the President of France should be held in contempt. It would be an irony indeed, given that human rights abuses are being cited as a justification for military action in Iraq.
President Chirac's invitation to Robert Mugabe demonstrates how risible attempts to formulate a meaningful European common foreign policy have become. I deeply regret that. I hope the Minister will say what implications she believes this episode has for such a policy. When a ruthless torturing dictator and his wife are free to go shopping in Paris, the French Government allow a travesty to be made of the values on which the European Union was founded.
We have had a long and complex historical relationship with Zimbabwe. Many Zimbabweans are of British descent. We cannot afford to be portrayed as the interfering colonial power. We have not been so for many years. Yet nor can we ignore the plight of a country with so many ties to Britain. We should not be afraid to speak out, silenced by a lingering sense of post-colonial guilt, and to allow ourselves to sink into the policy of silence and craven acquiescence as a result. We should lead international opinion and work with Zimbabwe's neighbours. The time to act is now, before ordinary Zimbabweans suffer any further, or else future generations will not judge us kindly. We cannot allow our present preoccupation with I rag to give Mr Mugabe a window of opportunity to outmanoeuvre us and to drive Zimbabwe further into despair. We have a role to play in ending the food shortages, in assisting Zimbabwe's economic recovery, in the restoration of political stability, in the return to respect for the rule of law and in ensuring free and fair future elections, if the Government have the will, the statesmanship, the courage and the judgment to recognise and pursue that role vigorously.
7.48 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Park for giving us the opportunity to think and talk about the Zimbabwe situation. I declare an interest as having been born in Zimbabwe and having left before I was two years old. Other members of my family continued there.
I feel a great sadness that, for all the euphoria that surrounded the Lancaster House agreement 22 years ago, no one since then has been able to build the level of trust that would make it possible for Zimbabweans to come together in a common cause for their country.
To introduce one small cheerful note, I heard from a friend in Zimbabwe that everyone who has the opportunity is following the cricket on television, even if that means that they have to have a new understanding of what is meant by a "duck" or by "bowling a maiden over".
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned that at the start of the cricket competition, two of Zimbabwe's most talented players bravely took the field wearing black armbands. They have since been subjected to threatening phone calls and more. The death that they wished to record was the death of democracy. For democracy to have meaning, one needs food, the rule of law and education. It appears that all those are in increasingly short supply in Zimbabwe.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on 19th February, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised the need for education in Africa and mentioned South Africa as the one country that provides universal primary education. That makes it even sadder to contemplate the fact that, 20 years or so ago, under the Smith regime, whatever one may think of its motives and actions, universal primary education was available in Zimbabwe. I have tried to verify the figures for today. The latest UNESCO figures go up only to 1999–2000 and show the figure of 80 per cent. However, I have seen recent figures that speak of a collapse in the number of those receiving education to less than one-third of the age group.
The attitude of President Mugabe's party to education has a strange consistency. In the days of civil unrest, ZANU did not particularly value those schools; rural primary schools were seen as easy targets for guerrilla fighters, as they represented parts of the structure that they wanted to topple. Now I read that hundreds of teachers in the central high veldt and the eastern highlands have been forced to attend reorientation camps on the suspicion that they might be sympathetic to the opposition party, MDC. One teacher is quoted as saying that for the past three years they had been scared to punish pupils, in case they were reported to the local ZANU-PF.
It appears that, even today, the only education that counts for President Mugabe's government is one that promotes his political agenda. Is the whole apparatus of a 20th century totalitarian state all that the 21st century has been able to offer such a country?
Among the many distortions that seem to be on offer is one that has elevated a concept of land hunger into a more serious condition than starvation and
894
death. I have a friend in Harare who has worked for the past 25 years developing crops to enable small farmers to be self-sufficient. The latest developments mean that, with 365 cassava plants and 1,000 potato vines each, they would be able to feed themselves. The major weakness that he reports, which my noble friend Lady Park emphasised, is that for all the trumpeting of land redistribution in Zimbabwe since 1981, the scheme has not given one small farmer ownership of a single hectare. Each hectare, every blade of grass and every brick on brick is owned by the government. That means that officials can bully any settler or farmer and put a friend or relative in their place at any time.
My friend told the story of a second-form student in the school that his daughter has attended, whose father is a brigadier in the army. She boasted to her friends, "My father has 16 farms, and the next one is for me". Is that not an indication that a power game is going on in the elite simply to see how much each person can grab for himself?
Unfortunately, actions such as these rob ordinary citizens of their dignity and motivation. That seems in stark contrast to the rosy concept of African socialism to which President Mugabe was once said to aspire. If land redistribution is meant to be meaningful, the best way to restore dignity is for people to know that they have the security of owning their own land and that they can grow enough food to feed their families. With proper security of ownership and a harvest, people can begin to form their own opinions. Without that, it is hard to see how democracy can be restored.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is now 12 months since the fraudulent elections were held in Zimbabwe, so it is perhaps a good time for us to take note of the situation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for giving us the opportunity to do so.
In the past 12 months, despite promises to the contrary and undertakings by President Mbeki to the G8 summit and other forums, not only has the political, economic and humanitarian situation worsened, but the wholesale suppression of democratic activity has been intensified.
Let us take the past week in Zimbabwe, which has been a normal week in the lifetime of Zimbabweans. Only 10 per cent of the food supply necessary to feed the country has been imported and an unknown number of adults and children have died of hunger and malnutrition. My noble friend Lord Moynihan referred to the cost of a tube of toothpaste. A mother must pay 5,000 Zimbabwean dollars, which is £59, for a small tin of baby food. In one week, 3,000 people have died of AIDS. The inflation rate, which noble Lords have said is well over 200 per cent, is now running at a yearly total of 450 per cent. Twenty thousand Zimbabweans fled the country as economic refugees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said, some 35 per cent of the adult population are HIV positive; more than 60 per cent of all women having children are HIV positive. That means that some 7,000 Zimbabweans

895
who are HIV positive are fleeing the country per week. Saddam Hussein might have biological and chemical weapons, but Mr Mugabe continues to export contagion on a grand scale to sub-Saharan Africa, where there is no health system to cope with the diseases that accompany AIDS. Ministers' recent comments about the policy towards Iraq exposes the hypocrisy of this Government. If one takes away the arguments that they have used about chemical and biological weapons, everything that has been said about Saddam Hussein—that he has caused rape, murder and genocide—applies equally to Zimbabwe. The only difference is that Mr Mugabe is professional at it, while Saddam Hussein is a novice. Zimbabwe is like a volcano that covers not only its own citizens but the rest of the area in a deadly, pervasive layer of ash.
As many noble Lords—including the right reverend Prelate—pointed out, the number of arrests and beatings continues to rise and the Church has been harassed. My noble friend Lady Chalker referred to the Green Bombers. That genie is out of the bottle and there is not the political will to put it back in. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned the environment, which no one else has picked up on—the decimation of the rhino and other rare species as a result of Mr Mugabe's policy.
It has also been an unusual week in Zimbabwe. Despite the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stating, "We do not arrest diplomats, only politicians", a meeting was held by a local branch of the MDC, which was the first for six months. The agenda was read by streetlight because it was too dangerous to have candlelight where they had their meeting. No one was applauded for what they said or their courage in standing up to intimidation, as that too would have brought the unwanted and unwarranted attention of the police and thugs.
Into this degenerating situation, we should consider the comments of Mr Mbeki, the President of South Africa, and General Obasanjo, the President of Nigeria. They consider that things are looking up in Zimbabwe and there is no reason to continue with Commonwealth sanctions. What planet do they live on? My noble friend Lady Chalker was absolutely right: the two leaders in southern Africa who should know what is going on are those two. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, it is clear that the Commonwealth is deeply divided. I fear that it is holed below the waterline. There is now one policy for Africa and another for the rest of the Commonwealth. As a result of what those leaders have said—and they are senior figures—I fear that NePAD is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The Commonwealth has failed the first crucial test. If it fails the next test at the forthcoming meeting, the repercussions will be felt for a long time.
I have disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on Zimbabwe before. He had the courage and grace to come to me and say, "Yes, I was wrong". I hope to goodness that he is right this time, because I take a different view. For the first time, the reports I am receiving from Zimbabwe indicate that people are almost at the end of their tether and that civil war is not
896
far away. The international community is not being seen to do anything to help the situation. As all noble Lords have said, the situation is being exacerbated. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is right that there is a ray of hope. I fear that it is more likely to be a civil war.
I have not raised any questions for the Minister, simply because she has not answered any of the questions I raised in previous debates and I did not want to bother this time. The Government will wring their hands and tell us how dreadful the situation is, but they will do nothing. We have to find a new path forward. I urge the Government to think again. To those in Zimbabwe who are suffering intimidation and fear which we cannot comprehend, I say only that there are many in Britain who have not turned their back on you. We wish to help, and we long to do more to help if only we were given the chance.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Park is to be congratulated on securing this important debate. It would be so easy for Zimbabwe to fall below our radar screens at this time of heightened international tension concerning Iraq. Now that media attention concerning the elections and Zimbabwe's subsequent suspension from the Commonwealth has passed, it would perhaps be tempting to see the issue as yesterday's story. Indeed, there are some who talk down the situation in Zimbabwe. For example, President Obasanjo of Nigeria has implied that illegal land settlement was last year's issue and that its consequences belong to last year, not this year. However, we know that that is not so. The situation is desperate and urgent.
I know that people in Zimbabwe draw great strength from the fact that people in the UK and around the world care about their fate. It is extraordinary that every speaker has expressed not only outrage about events in Zimbabwe but great affection for that country and its people.
We have heard from very many speakers about the dire economic and agricultural situation in Zimbabwe. The position is not surprising. If productive farmers are chased off their farms and the land is given to Ministers, politicians, generals and the like and left to lie fallow, it is not surprising that, when there is no money to import food, hunger and starvation are the consequence. The tragedy is that the situation is entirely man-made. Zimbabwe was once relatively prosperous for its region and was highly productive. Its agricultural system was the envy of the region. However, the country's well-being has been sold—exchanged for power and wealth for the president and a small clique of ZANU-PF supporters.
When I was living in Zambia in the early 1990s, I used to travel to Zimbabwe. I was impressed with the country. The roads were well kept. The policemen were neat and polite. The shops contained plenty of goods, although some were in short supply. In Zambia, one could buy orange juice, mealie meal and vegetable oil but little else. The difference was

897
profound. Now, Zimbabwean farmers are leaving their productive farms and loyal workers and starting again in Zambia. That highlights the real change in the region. It is due not to natural disaster but to the tyranny of one man and his small group of supporters.
Professor Tony Hawkins, director of the graduate school of management at the University of Zimbabwe, said:
"At independence in 1980, Zimbabwe had a sound physical infrastructure, a skilled, educated population and strong institutions. Many of the skills have since emigrated, the infrastructure is decaying visibly, and its institutions—the public service, parastatals, the judiciary, the health and education delivery systems and the police—are also deteriorating".
That is putting it very mildly indeed. In the 2002 Global Competitiveness Report, Zimbabwe is ranked 79th of 80 countries. It has a ranking of 75th of 80 for judicial independence, 77th for property rights and 75th for government favouritism. I would not be surprised if Zimbabwe has plunged further in those terrible rankings.
The problem is that the crisis is contagious. Zimbabwe represents a key test for the credibility of acceptance in the region that good governance is a prerequisite for economic growth and for support of development policies by western countries. If the test is flunked, the outlook for Africa is poor. Investors are looking south to see whether the rule of law and respect for property rights are considered serious issues. Development aid can be switched at the touch of a ministerial button. Investment capital, however, is extremely flighty and mobile. It will not go into a region where there are those threats. If the issue is shirked by political leaders in the region, the inference must be that rule by political thuggery and theft of assets for redistribution to the party faithful is acceptable or is at least not unacceptable.
The political situation, in terms of the will of the leaders of the surrounding countries to ensure that a solution is found quickly, does not look encouraging. Given that the situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate, the recent moves about which we have heard by President Mbeki and President Obasanjo, calling for the lifting of Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth, have been interpreted as tolerance of the regime's disregard for the rule of law.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I sincerely hope that he is right. I certainly do not know what is going on behind the scenes or what pressure President Mbeki is applying. However, I hope that the Minister does know and that she will be able to tell us whether any progress is being made. If none is being made, not only will investment retreat from the region—a profound and long-lasting consequence—but the country will continue to be very short of food. Its population will continue to be oppressed by force. If a solution is not found urgently, I fear that there will be extreme consequences, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has outlined.
898
We are repeatedly told that this is an African problem which needs African solutions. Quite so. But that does not mean a blank cheque for the United Kingdom to stand by and watch the tragedy unfold. I believe that we owe it to Zimbabweans to take the risk of being branded by some governments as "interfering". Either we believe in the ideals behind the new African partnership and are prepared to demonstrate our seriousness or we do not. The question now is not about wider economic developments in the region. It is about a very urgent situation in Zimbabwe.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on securing this important debate and on her powerful speech.
I am disappointed that the debate takes place against a background of continuing deterioration in Zimbabwe. Despite the excesses of electoral fraud, intimidation of the judiciary and a disastrously handled land reform programme, there are those—including President Mbeki of South Africa—who refuse to acknowledge that things are getting worse there and who will call on us to adopt quiet diplomacy towards the regime. In his 20-odd years of power, I have not noticed Mugabe opting for the quiet approach. The suggestion that, in the midst of a grave famine, we should moderate our condemnation of food aid rationing as a political tool; the suggestion that we should turn a blind eye to torture by his security forces; the suggestion that we should not speak out against murder and rape—all for fear of upsetting Mugabe's sensibilities—are patently inexcusable.
I believe that the people of Zimbabwe, and the citizens of the wider Commonwealth, have been badly let down by Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki. Their position that the Zimbabwean Government have mended their ways and deserve readmission to the councils of the Commonwealth is untenable; I deplore it. While they call for quiet diplomacy, those leading the opposition from within Zimbabwe are calling for loud diplomacy. Brian Kagoro, the national coordinator of Crisis in Zimbabwe, looking for support from some of the newer African governments, said:
"What you need in Africa are voices of dissent. There is a need to find new players on the African continent who are not partisan and want a real solution in Zimbabwe. South Africa's policy is a mixture of quiet diplomacy on human rights issues, when it should be loud, and loud partisanship in support of Zanu-PF, when it should be quiet".
Can I encourage Her Majesty's Government to redouble their efforts to support and bolster those elements that are opposing the tyranny of ZANU-PF rule? In the search for a solution to Zimbabwe's crisis, one of the great missed opportunities has been the failure of the leaders of SADC and NePAD to engage constructively with the opposition. Rather than constructing what appears to be a coalition of complicity with ZANU-PF, those leaders could have helped raise the stature and morale of other democratic elements within Zimbabwe.

899
Sadly, the coalition of complicity is not limited to Africa. Within the past month there has been cynical manoeuvring among our European partners as they have sought to undermine the measures isolating the ZANU-PF regime. Disregard for the spirit, if not the letter, of the EU travel ban discredits the French Government; apparent preparedness to participate in "behind the scenes" collusion with the French gravely discredits Her Majesty's Government. Only after my honourable friend's questions in another place brought the issue into the public domain did there seem to be any attempt to stand up for what ought to have been a matter of principle from the outset.
Ministers tell us that allowing President Chirac to wine and dine Mugabe in Paris—and, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, to allow his wife to go shopping—was a price worth paying for the renewal of EU sanctions. They say that, otherwise, the travel ban would have been fatally undermined. Ministers proudly claim to have achieved a roll-over of the sanctions.
In fact, the EU travel ban has been seriously weakened. Article 3 of the Common Position adopted last year has now been amended; a member state wishing to grant exemptions for banned individuals to attend meetings of international bodies no longer needs to apply for the agreement of other member states.
Furthermore, there is now provision for member states to grant exemptions under a category simply of "attending intergovernmental meetings". Most tellingly, with this new provision as well as for existing provisions, our previous right of veto has been removed. The relevant clause used to read:
"A Member State wishing to grant exemptions … shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption will be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council Members raises an objection in writing within 48 hours of receiving notification of the proposed exemption".
This has now been watered down by the added provision:
"In the event that one or more of the Council members raises an objection, the Council, acting by qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exception".
We can probably all think of at least one member state that might feel moved to exploit those new provisions to the full. I suggest that our response to the independent and often self-serving agendas of some of our EU and Commonwealth partners should be to pursue our own independent and principled stand against tyranny and repression.
Our participation in EU sanctions and the Common Position adopted by the Council of Ministers should not preclude Her Majesty's Government from taking action in concert with those of our Commonwealth partners such as New Zealand and Australia who are adopting an admirably robust and determined stance against Mugabe's human rights abuse.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I deputise for my noble friend Lord Shutt who has unfortunately had an accident. I know that everyone will wish him a safe and speedy recovery.
Like everyone who has spoken, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for once again initiating a moving but deeply depressing debate on the situation in Zimbabwe. It inevitably takes me back to UDI when I was Britain's last Commonwealth Secretary and negotiated with Ian Smith for peaceful progress to majority rule and independence. At that time I shared with Robert Mugabe the humiliating experience of conducting my discussions with him while he was in detention without trial. That left a scar on my memory that I have not forgotten. Stanley Baldwin once complained in a different context of the problems of power without responsibility. I found as Commonwealth Secretary in those far off days that it was a painful experience to have responsibility without power.
Still today we reap a bitter harvest from Ian Smith's UDI. Unlike other African Commonwealth leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta, or, for that matter, Hastings Banda, who repaid imprisonment with magnanimity of spirit towards their former rulers and captors, Robert Mugabe, regrettably, has repaid his experience with tyranny towards his black and white citizens alike. We have heard many noble Lords recite a catalogue of examples of that tyranny, for instance, legislation to clamp down on non-governmental organisations bravely doing a decent job as human rights defenders, fresh legislative curbs on the press, arrests of journalists and expulsions of foreign journalists, gross intimidation and violence towards political opponents in the MDV in the two by-elections that are taking place.
What can we do? My noble friend Lady Williams has asked me to raise one matter where we have both responsibility and the power to fulfil it. I refer to the question of the deportation of asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe. Members of the MDC have in the past gone missing on arrival at. Harare airport and there have been many stories of torture and other forms of harm.
On 25th February, the noble Lord, Lord Elkin, in a Written Answer said:
"The temporary suspension of the removal of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe remains under review".— [Official Report, 25/2/03; col. WA 17.]
When the Minister replies, will she clarify the situation? Will she give a clear commitment that steps will be taken to ensure that Zimbabweans who have campaigned for democracy in their own country at risk to their lives will not be sent back to risk persecution and torture?
Back in November last year the Home Secretary's decision was announced to introduce a visa regime for Zimbabweans coming to the UK. The Home Secretary was quoted in The Times of 8th November 2002 as saying that the visa regime is,
"to deal with what is very significant abuse of our immigration controls by Zimbabwean nationals".

901
We are dealing with a very special situation here, one in which we do have a power to act and a responsibility. I repeat that failed asylum seekers may be in great danger if returned to Zimbabwe. I hope that I can have some reassurance from the Minister on that matter.
What else can we do? There was consensus in the speeches made about the sheer frightening horror of the food situation. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, mentioned that 10 million people would be at risk of starvation by Christmas if something was not done. What is the best framework for dealing with the problem? Some critical remarks have been made about the Commonwealth as a framework. I can say from personal experience that the damage that the Rhodesian UDI did to the potential role of the Commonwealth in international affairs is a regret to me to this day. We still suffer from that damage.
I do not underestimate the risks to the Commonwealth of the present situation, with the split in the troika and the division as to whether sanctions should be maintained. I hope that the Minister will give clear guidance that the sanctions regime will be substantially and vigorously maintained during the coming year. Equally, I do not underestimate the rather mysterious ways in which the Commonwealth can operate, its wonders to perform. For instance, the Commonwealth might well be able to help to bring about the quiet and peaceful retirement of President Mugabe from affairs, which would be a great blessing to us all.
Nevertheless, the wider framework of the United Nations is probably the framework that will be most effective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. That would be especially likely if there could be a useful and constructive alliance between the United States and South Africa. The United States could do itself a bit of good in the United Nations in the months immediately ahead if it were to take a vigorous part in leading a humanitarian campaign of an effective nature on food and health generally in Zimbabwe. From that, other benefits in human rights and political reconciliation might well follow.
We must not despair. I and other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, went to the extraordinary memorial service for Sir Garfield Todd in St Martin-in-the-Fields. There was a huge congregation. That did something to lift up my heart and restore my faith in continuing to fight the good fight in terms of finding solutions for the Zimbabwean problem. Mention has been made of the very brave cricketers. Many good people are trying to deal with the problem. I do not want to discredit the Commonwealth, but I hope that through the United Nations there can be a major effort in the months ahead to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Park opened this short debate with a superb speech. She reminded us not only of her
902
knowledge of the subject, but that she is one of the most redoubtable fighters in either House for all the people of Zimbabwe—not for any group, but for all of them.
If the newspapers are accurate, which they often are not, I gather that the Minister has just returned from Guinea, where I hope that her mission was successful. I cannot imagine why she wished to go there now, but I am sure that she had a very useful and constructive time. She has most certainly done her bit and fought strenuously on the affairs that we are discussing; I do not deny that for a moment. Nevertheless, it would be idle to pretend that people, and indeed the Opposition, are happy with the policy of quiet diplomacy, as it is being called. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, rightly drew attention to that unhappiness.
It may be true, as we have been told all along, that while we make huge efforts on the humanitarian side—we are trying to meet the hideous starvation and other horrors and deprivations of the region—we can be sure that we can do nothing else to change the political context of what is in all essentials a fascist state; nothing can be done about that. However, if, as legal experts in your Lordships' House tell us, genocide is a reason for intervention, Robert Mugabe comes very near the edge with his practices; they are on the verge of being defined as genocide. We are left disappointed; the word "disappointing" has been used again and again by noble Lords this evening about what has and has not been achieved.
Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister, in fine rhetorical flow, said that his foreign policy was,
"a fight for justice, a fight to bring economic and social freedom to the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in wanton squalor, from the deserts of Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan—they are our cause".
While those words may have taken wing and landed somewhere, they certainly overflew Zimbabwe. The cause somehow failed to ignite there and we have not been able to do what many of us feel in our hearts we should have done; we should have done more to prevent the present tragedy—the inevitable, predicted tragedy that is now before us.
Let us assume for a moment that we cannot take any more action in Africa; apparently, we can in other parts of the world but intervention in Zimbabwe is ruled out by law and various other constraints. What, then, can we do here? What, as my noble friend Lady Park, asked, do we have the power to do? How can we be positive and follow the lead given by my noble friend Lady Chalker, whose experience in these matters is unequalled? She said that we must somehow be positive in our approach to this appalling tragedy and this catalogue of horrors.
Back in November—four months ago almost to the day—we had a debate in your Lordships' House about targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe. I offered from this Dispatch Box a "to do" list of seven things that might be done here in London—from behind ministerial desks—which might help to reinforce our efforts to halt the slide to tragedy. I suggested that we should implement the recommendations of the UN panel on

903
illegal activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which raised all sorts of points about the activities of the Zimbabwean armed forces and many prominent Zimbabwean people. I asked why we could not target those individuals.
I suggested in that debate that we should extend sanctions to spouses. I suggested that we should eliminate some of the travel loopholes—this was before Mr Mugabe went to Paris—and that if the criterion was to allow movement only where treaties oblige countries to let people in, we should seek to ensure that those treaties were rigorously adhered to and that there were no wriggles round them. I suggested that we should resist deals such as that which, subsequent to that debate, allowed Mugabe and his wife into Paris, as my noble friend Lord Astor reminded us. That let her go on her spending spree while children were dying of starvation in Zimbabwe. I cannot think of a sicker contrast.
I read in the papers this morning—they are usually inaccurate—that Mr Mugabe has the KCB. Does he in fact have it? International Who's Who makes no mention of it. If he has, could the Minister please urge those who deal with such things that he be stripped of it as soon as possible?
I recommended in that debate that, over and above what we were already doing, we freeze all assets of companies that were bankrolling Mugabe; many of them were mentioned in the UN report. I also said that we should publish a dossier of suspected torturers and that we should extend the embargoed goods list because it appears that Mr Mugabe has an endless supply of black Mercedes cars. Perhaps I have missed something, but in the four months since then, I have heard not a squeak. I am not aware that any of those things have been done. I have heard no subsequent reports from the UN panel with its devastating exposé.
My noble friend Lady Park has added more items to the list. She has urged that, quite rightly, we should protect expatriates' pensions, which are being unfairly decimated by official rates. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have rightly reminded us about asylum seekers. It is appalling that we are sending back people to their death or imprisonment in Zimbabwe.
As I previously suggested, we should insist and ensure that when the year of exclusion from the ministerial councils to the Commonwealth comes to an end, that exclusion continues. I should like very much to know—we all would—what the Government are doing with potential friends in Africa to ensure that.
Since November, we have had good news from Africa. The National Rainbow Coalition has taken over in Kenya. It has a much more democratic approach, like the Government of Senegal. Other countries might be beginning to question the solid front of support for the evils of Zimbabwe and to challenge the bloc view that the African union has decided that nothing should be done.
904
Have we have brought in the Americans, as my noble friend Lady Park suggested? They have been very robust indeed. There are American Congressmen and officials who are extremely eager to work with the British towards a much more forceful policy of putting pressure on Mugabe. We should never underestimate the role of the Americans in southern Africa. It goes right back to the days of Chester Bowles. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will remember that he did much did good work and laid many foundations for a better Africa than the one we see in some areas today.
I add yet another suggestion for a policy improvement. We must vigorously support broadcasting by the BBC and other channels into south and central Africa of the truth about what is really going on, with all the details and the kind of horrors your Lordships have rightly exposed and set out in the debate.
I agree with the hope that Mugabe cannot last much longer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is right about that issue. It is only a hope and nothing more. Nevertheless, if we deploy the kind of policies that we have suggested today and carry forward a more vigorous approach—the kind that my noble friend Lord Moynihan outlined—perhaps we can accelerate the process. I put the situation no higher than that. At least we must make sure that when men and women look back on this very dark and tragic period for Zimbabwe, they are left in no doubt that we did everything within our power to encourage brave Zimbabweans to send Mugabe on his way.
8.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park., for introducing today's debate on Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned that I have just returned from Guinea. I have in fact been in Guinea, Angola and Cameroon. I leave noble Lords to speculate about the reasons for my visits to those three countries.
I start by setting out the Government's policy on Zimbabwe. Our policy objectives focus on the importance of securing the restoration of a stable and prosperous Zimbabwe underpinned by democracy and good governance, including respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Today's debate has focused on three key areas. They are Zimbabwe's economic decline, the political situation, including the increase in human rights abuses and harassment and intimidation of the opposition MDC, and the humanitarian crisis, including the disastrous fast-track land reform programme.
I turn to the economy. Zimbabwe's economy has continued to decline and is now in crisis. It contracted by 12 per cent in 2002, according to the estimates of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. It is now the fastest shrinking economy in the world. Inflation is over 200 per cent, unemployment is over 70 per cent and its currency has continued to plummet in value. There is

905
little food, fuel or foreign exchange. That decline is largely due to poor economic policies, which have undermined macroeconomic stability and destroyed business confidence.
Despite advice from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, ZANU-PF has stuck to a policy of price controls, refusing to raise interest rates to combat inflation. The recent move effectively to devalue the Zimbabwean currency by 93 per cent for those changing foreign currency is too little, too late and is unlikely to make much impact on foreign exchange availability. But it is at least some recognition that the problem is of their own making.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made clear, the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is having an impact on neighbouring economies. Negative perceptions have deterred foreign investment and tourism to the region, which has contributed to currency volatility. Countries such as Zambia have suffered damage to local production and customs revenues from the influx of cheap Zimbabwean goods, mounting bad Zimbabwean debts, and an increase in largely unskilled Zimbabwean migrants, when their own unemployment levels are high.
I turn to the political situation. The country remains polarised. There seems little immediate prospect of dialogue between the ruling ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, despite the efforts of South Africa and Nigeria last year. As has been mentioned, the MDC President, Morgan Tsvangirai, is on trial for treason, along with the party's general secretary and shadow agriculture minister. The very fact of the trial is hardly conducive to political reconciliation.
Political life in Zimbabwe continues to be marred by violence. Much of that is perpetrated by the ruling party and directed against the opposition and civil society. This year alone has seen the arrest of eight MPs and four senior officials, including the MDC Mayor of Harare. Some of those arrested have been tortured while in police custody—including the MDC MP, Job Sikhala; an allegation substantiated by government doctors. There has been a wave of police arrests in Harare and Bulawayo in the last few days.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester mentioned that those arrested included clergymen from all denominations. MDC activists and cricket spectators who dared to unfurl anti-Mugabe posters at Zimbabwe's recent match with the Netherlands in Bulawayo were also arrested. The right reverend Prelate is right; they deserve our support. I agree with him that the role of non-governmental organisations is crucial.
Attacks on the judiciary have also continued unabated. On 17th February a sitting high court judge was arrested in his chambers and charged with corruption and obstructing the course of justice.
I turn to the humanitarian situation. About 7.2 million Zimbabweans—more than half the population—require food aid; and 35 per cent of the
906
adult population is infected with the HIV virus. My noble friend Lord Acton focused on food shortages and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of what he called the "food insecure". The food shortages that we now witness are primarily the result not of bad weather but of bad governance and bad economic policy. Kofi Annan made that clear in his New Year statement on 14th January, when he said that the tragic situation in Zimbabwe has been caused,
"partly by the forces of nature, and partly by mismanagement".
We are well aware that ZANU-PF has been manipulating food distribution. There have been numerous reports of the Grain Marketing Board, the state monopoly, withholding food from those who do not support the ruling party. There were food riots in Harare and Bulawayo in early January. Those were led not by the opposition MDC but by "war veterans" enraged at the Grain Marketing Board's policies.
We have condemned ZANU-PF for its manipulation of food for political advantage. Unfortunately, we have no control over the food that it buys itself. However, I reassure noble Lords, as I have done many times, about UK food aid. That is distributed through the United Nations World Food Programme very differently. The World Food Programme is careful to ensure that international food aid is distributed only through independent NGOs outside the control of the Government of Zimbabwe. The process is carefully monitored to avoid abuse. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we are in touch with the World Food Programme about all allegations of diversion of food aid.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned the land reform process. There is no doubt that the humanitarian crisis has been exacerbated by ZANU-PF's "fast track" programme of land redistribution as much of the requisitioned land lies fallow. James Morris, the head of the World Food Programme and the UN Secretary-General's special envoy on the humanitarian crisis, said after his visit to Zimbabwe in January:
"Zimbabwe is almost beyond comprehension. This scheme (land reform), along with restrictions on private sector food marketing and a monopoly on food imports … is turning a drought that might have been managed into a humanitarian nightmare".
That is leaving aside the impact on the 350,000 farm workers who have now been displaced, with a knock-on impact to their families. We are talking about some 1 million people.
Even within ZANU-PF there has been considerable criticism of how land distribution has been carried out, as shown, for example, in speeches at the party's conference last December. More recently, press reports here and in South Africa state that an audit prepared by members of the Zimbabwe Government alleged that key figures in the leadership have been involved in land seizures that break the regime's limits on the size of farms and its "one man, one farm" policy.
So what action have we taken? I have listened carefully to noble Lords in this and the many other debates on the issue in this House. The issues that they

907
raised and the action that they suggested we take related to work already in hand. We clearly share the same analysis. I share the frustration that I feel around the House by noble Lords that our policies are not delivering a difference more quickly. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke of the process taking a long time to yield results. That is true. Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation. There is a limit to what we can do with a regime that is determined to ruin its own country and its own people.
We have worked with our colleagues in the European Union, the Commonwealth, the US and elsewhere to focus the attention of the world community on what is happening in Zimbabwe. That has resulted in a rollover of EU sanctions—the travel ban, the assets freeze and the arms embargo. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked me how much had so far been frozen. The amount now stands at just over £500,000, which is what I think I reported to the House towards the end of last year. Any future waiver of the EU travel ban will need to be agreed by a qualified majority of EU member states. That is a strengthening, not a weakening as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. I agree with noble Lords that France's invitation to Zimbabwe to attend the France/Africa Summit in Paris was deeply disappointing. It is riot clear to me from the readouts that I have had from the meeting that a clear message was given to Mugabe about the ruinous policies followed by ZANU-PF.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Blaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and other noble Lords raised the question of the Commonwealth and the work that we are doing through it. I remind noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was at the forefront of calls for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year. I remind noble Lords that it was not an easy thing to achieve. The action that we have taken and the work that we have undertaken over many months to secure international agreement to what we wanted to do with respect to Zimbabwe have delivered some results. We will continue to work closely with our Commonwealth partners on Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth Secretary-General is reviewing developments since Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth's councils on 18th March last year. His report is due to be issued shortly.
By every measure—political, humanitarian and economic—the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated this year. I agree with the noble Lord, 'Lord 131aker, that the Harare principles apply to all members of the Commonwealth. We see no grounds for lifting Zimbabwe's suspension from the councils. The noble Lord asked me to confirm that, if no agreement were reached by the troika, the suspension would continue. I cannot confirm that; we must wait for the report from the Commonwealth Secretary-General and for the troika to deliver a verdict. My personal view is that it should.
908
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, that we must share information. It is clear that our colleagues not only in Africa but in other parts of the Commonwealth have little understanding of what goes on in Zimbabwe. On a superficial level, things appear to work and to be much better in Zimbabwe than in some other parts of the world, where the roads are not as good or the telephones do not work. However, such things give a false impression of what goes on. We have shared information on land reform, and we worked with the Commonwealth to share the UN panel report, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. We will continue to share information.
We are in ongoing dialogue with countries in Africa, particularly in southern Africa, about the problems facing Zimbabwe and the region. We have stressed that failure to address Zimbabwe's problems has the potential to undermine NePAD and that it is a brake on much-needed investment in the region. I thank my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside not only for his kind remarks but particularly for his recognition of the need to support our diplomatic and other efforts.
Our political dialogue continues. The Prime Minister met South Africa's President Mbeki at Chequers on 1st February. Zimbabwe was high on their agenda, and the Prime Minister shared our understanding of the considerable problems facing the country. I met Angola's President dos Santos on 27th February. Angola is the current chair of SADC. We had a useful exchange of ideas on Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked whether there was peer pressure behind the scenes. My response is "Yes". Some of our African colleagues are as frustrated as we are, because that pressure is not delivering results.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned the need to bring the UN on hoard. We work with the UN in several ways. We work with the World Food Programme, and noble Lords will recall that we worked with the United Nations Development Programme on land reform. It was the UN DP that said last year that the land reform process was unsustainable. Last year, the UK Government took a resolution on Zimbabwe to the Commission on Human Rights. The noble Baroness also referred to the speech made by the UN Secretary-General, from which I quoted. We will continue to work through the UN machinery.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke about the initiative taken by the Archbishop of Cape Town. The archbishop has seen President Mugabe and is considering an initiative under Church auspices. He is undertaking wider consultations with other stakeholders in civil society in Zimbabwe. Our understanding is that he will begin such consultations when he returns to Zimbabwe on 12th March. It is important that all stakeholder views are considered, as well as the broad scope of the problem, including the humanitarian, political and economic aspects. Of course, there are also the broad problems of

909
governance, not just land. I repeat that they have implications not just for Zimbabwe but for its regional neighbours.
I turn now to human rights. The European Union issued a declaration on Zimbabwe on 19th February. It expressed the EU's concern at the increasing incidence of arrest, inhuman treatment and torture of members of the opposition and of civil society. It called on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect human rights and to end their harassment and violence. Despite the international support for our resolution to the Commission on Human Rights last year, the commission was unable to vote on it due to a blocking campaign by some African states. We think that the deteriorating human rights situation deserves the continued attention of the Commission on Human Rights.
The UK Government have led the international response to the humanitarian crisis. We started feeding programmes in September 2001. That was even before the government of Zimbabwe acknowledged that there was a problem. We are the largest European bilateral aid donor, the second overall after the United States. We have contributed £51 million to the humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe since September 2001. We also have a direct bilateral feeding programme which is providing a meal a day for 1.5 million Zimbabweans. These are mainly children, pregnant mothers, the elderly, unemployed farm workers and their families.
Moreover, the two countries which ZANU-PF consistently single out for criticism—the US and the UK—are leading the way in providing help for the people of Zimbabwe, and in feeding hungry Zimbabweans. The UK has also helped with essential health care and treatment for malnutrition in infants. DfID maintains a substantial programme to tackle HIV/AIDS, an issue raised by some noble Lords. We are spending £26 million on HIV/AIDS prevention programmes over five years.
Perhaps I may now speak briefly about the G8 and NePAD. I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in this House of the nature of the Government's policy with respect to the G8 Africa action plan. The Government have not accepted that the situation in Zimbabwe is an African issue to be settled by Africans. In that, I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, although I agree with much of what she said. We have made absolutely clear that this is an issue for the whole international community. I say that also to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. That is why the European Union, the Commonwealth, the United States and others are engaged and that is why we are talking to leaders in Africa—not just through the NePAD process, but also through our bilateral contacts and through regional institutions, such as SADC.
In respect of NePAD, I repeat what I have said many times in this House. G8 countries were interested in forging a partnership with those African leaders with a commitment to reform. At the heart of the G8 Africa action plan is the notion of enhanced
910
partnership. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, our aid is clearly linked to reform. What African leaders agreed last year was an inclusive process. They hope to persuade countries that are not interested in reform of the benefits through joining NePAD. G8 said that we are interested in working in enhanced partnership with the reformers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, also mentioned the NePAD peer review mechanism. It is due to start in April; 14 countries have volunteered; and it will cover economic and political governance. The papers that I have seen are extremely comprehensive.
My time is up, but if your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to refer to three further issues raised in debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned financial support for those coming to the United Kingdom. UK citizens returning to this country may be eligible for certain benefits, subject to normal conditions of entitlement. Personal circumstances can be taken into consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, raised asylum. On 15th January 2001, the Home Secretary suspended removals of failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe after the March presidential election. Removals are still on hold. We shall continue to keep the policy under review.
I really must take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the comparisons he made between Iraq and Zimbabwe. The noble Earl is ill-informed. Saddam Hussein invaded a neighbouring country. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. For more than 12 years he has flouted the will of the UN and of the UN Security Council. We are all agreed that there are human rights violations in Zimbabwe, but if we are to make a comparison, we need to do so where we are comparing like with like; otherwise the comparisons are meaningless.
I also take issue with the noble Earl's comment that I have failed to answer his questions. I have answered his questions in this Chamber and I have answered Questions for Written Answer. I have also done the noble Earl the courtesy of listening to his concerns about these issues. The noble Earl may not have liked my answers, but I have certainly given them.
In conclusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, says, the situation in Zimbabwe is deeply depressing. We will continue to work for a Zimbabwe which is stable, prosperous and democratic—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her speech and there is still a little time, will she confirm whether, as reported in this morning's newspapers, Robert Mugabe is a Knight Commander of the Order Bath? And is she really going to say nothing about the UN panel and all its revelations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to pick up on those points. Yes, Robert Mugabe does have that honour; he was awarded it in 1994. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a number of questions with respect to issues he says he has raised in this House.

911
The activities of the UN panel have been extended for six months because there was a need for further clarification of the issues in its report. Before we are able to take the allegations further, we need more information.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about extending the sanctions to spouses. The noble Lord will know of the debate and discussion within the EU in terms of the roll-over of our current sanctions. Given his experience, he will understand why it has not been possible to extend the sanctions to spouses. The same applies to travel loopholes and assets. Furthermore, pensions are the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe. I have answered the question on asylum.
In conclusion, links with the people of Zimbabwe remain strong. That is clear from the nature of the debate in the House today. We will continue to do all we can to work with them to produce the kind of Zimbabwe we know that they want.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it would be invidious to single out any of the admirable speeches we have heard throughout the debate. I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have attended. I extend special thanks to my noble friend Lady Chalker. I am particularly pleased that she was able to join the debate. I was also interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I thank everyone most warmly, especially the Minister whose knowledge of the subject I deeply respect. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 2003
8.59 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 4(5) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It raises the statutory ceiling for High Court judges from 106 to 108. This ceiling was last increased from 98 to 106 by the Maximum Number of judges Order 1999 to meet the anticipated increases in workload following the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
I want to stress that the numbers in post will be increased only if and when the need arises. Putting the statutory instrument in place now will enable the Lord Chancellor to respond almost immediately to a sudden influx of work in high priority areas.
Noble Lords will be aware that the High Court handles a broad range of cases in areas such as crime, family, social exclusion and asylum. It is not always possible accurately to predict patterns in workload. The High Court is already at its full complement and so the power to make the two additional appointments
912
is necessary in order for the court to be able to respond quickly to any increases in workload in any of these areas.
This includes work in the Crown Court. In 1998, High Court judges sat for 3,250 days in the Crown Court; in 2001, they sat for 3,486 days. The Government are committed to tackling crime and this may result in an increase in the amount of work on criminal cases in which High Court judges are involved. The involvement of High Court judges is also required for many high profile inquiries and for chairing or participating in tribunals such as the Employment Appeals Tribunal and parole boards. The nature and amount of this work is harder to predict, and the flexibility that the order would create is necessary again to be able to respond to any changes in workload in these areas.
The Lord Chancellor approved the authorisation of three new deputy High Court judges on 31st December 2002. However, part-time appointments will not provide the long-term flexibility afforded by an increase in the complement. The Lord Chancellor believes that increasing the capacity of the court with two further judges will provide the flexibility needed to make additional appointments if they are required.
In view of the facts and circumstances I have outlined, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [10th report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should declare an interest as my brother is a retired High Court judge. I was brought up on the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. If the order helps to alleviate that problem, we should go along with it.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, I am intrigued by the order's financial effect. High Court judges are, quite rightly, highly paid. However, the Explanatory Memorandum states that,
"there are no additional costs to the public or the exchequer arising from the instrument".
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how that is calculated and whether there will be any additional costs in succeeding years.
Secondly, does the Minister expect to come back to the House in the near future with a request for a further increase in the number of judges to reflect the rise in appeals and judicial reviews flowing from the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection whatever to the proposal to increase the number of judges. However, I, too, should like to ask a couple of questions.
First, the previous increase in 1999, from 98 to 106, was made in expectation of a greatly increased workload resulting from the Human Rights Act. In fact, the increase in the workload has been substantially less than expected because the number of

913
cases in which bad human rights points have been taken is very small. Whereas in some other countries, such as Canada, there was a sharp increase following the introduction of equivalent legislation, that has not happened here. So the increase in 1999 should have provided some slack which can be taken up.
Secondly, the Minister referred to criminal cases and high profile inquiries. It is not obvious why more cases in the Crown Court should be tried by High Court judges as opposed to Crown Court judges than has been the case in the past. I wonder whether the Government are being entirely frank. Is it not the case that this increase is being made largely as a result of the increased burden from immigration cases? If so, that is nothing to conceal—indeed, it is welcome. Obviously, there need to be sufficient people on the Bench to deal in good time with cases that arise. If it is the case that there has already been a substantial increase in the amount of work resulting from immigration and asylum seekers, this is not simply, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, a question of looking to the future. It means that the increase is largely caused by those circumstances.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their support for the order and also for their questions. I shall be entirely frank with your Lordships' House. Of course we are increasing the number of judges because of the generalised increase in workload, but I would be disingenuous if I did not make it plain that there has been a large increase of work as a direct result of increases in asylum activity.
To put the matter in context, in 2002 asylum-related judicial review applications amounted to 59 per cent of all civil judicial review applications, making it the single largest category of administrative court work. That makes it plain that there has been a significant increase. Of the 5,578 civil judicial review applications received in 2002, some 3,308 were asylum-related and the administrative court received, on average, 276 such cases per month. That is one of the key pressures which has led to our belief that the flexibility that the order will give us is justified so that we can be ahead of the game in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked about cost. My understanding is that there will be no additional cost to the Exchequer as a consequence of the order. The intention is that the flexibility afforded by the order will be met within budget.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours Bill [H.L.]
9.8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has the support of the ports industry, which has identified an anomaly in the Harbours Act 1964. The Bill is intended to remove that anomaly. It will
914
essentially achieve a much needed degree of deregulation for the ports industry by applying the same rules to the maritime sector as are applied to other transport modes.
The background to the Bill requires some technical explanation. Sections 14 to 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 empower the Secretary of State to make harbour orders. Such orders are required, for example, to establish or reconstitute harbour authorities or to confer on existing harbour authorities additional powers to construct harbour works or to manage their harbours.
The procedure for making harbour orders is set out in Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act. Schedule 3 provides for objections to the making of a proposed harbour order to be sent to the Secretary of State within a six-week period from the time the proposal is advertised. Where such an objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State must—and I emphasise "must—hold a public inquiry to consider the proposal unless he determines that the objection is trivial or frivolous. The result is that a public inquiry must be held even if there is only one outstanding objection, unless the Secretary of State determines that the objection is trivial or frivolous. Secretaries of State rightly rarely categorise objections as such. An objection made by a local resident who expresses a concern is unlikely to be determined to be trivial or frivolous.
In a number of cases, a single outstanding objection to an order has necessitated the holding of a public inquiry, which clearly gave rise to considerable expense and delay. I shall briefly quote two examples. The first is the Felixstowe dock and railway harbour revision order. Noble Lords will know that Felixstowe is the largest container port in the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in Europe. The port applied in October 2000 for a harbour revision order to authorise major new harbour works of considerable local and national significance. By November 2001, all but one of several objections had been withdrawn, following provision of appropriate assurances and undertakings to bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As a result of a single outstanding objection, lodged and maintained by a local resident, a public inquiry took place over seven sitting days, resulting in the making of the order being delayed until October 2002, which was nearly a year later. In his decision, the Secretary of State stated:
"The project should proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest-.
The industry's view is that if the Secretary of State had been able to deal with the objection by written representations, as provided for in the Bill, it is likely that the order could have been made in or around February 2002, avoiding considerable delay and substantial costs.
My second example is the Whitehaven harbour revision order 1996. In 1995, the Whitehaven harbour commissioners applied for a revision order to authorise the construction of a lock and other harbour works as a key part of an urgently needed scheme for the regeneration of Whitehaven town and the area.

915
Objections were made by holders of harbour bonds, which had been issued in the 19th century to finance port expansion. The bonds had virtually no market value. By the time of the order, Whitehaven harbour was very little used and heading towards insolvency. However, the bond holders objected to the order on the ground that the effects of the work would undermine the commercial value of their bonds. Following discussions with the Whitehaven harbour commissioners, three bond holders refused to withdraw their objections, in the knowledge that their action would lead to a public inquiry, therefore resulting in a delay that would have led to the loss of European Community funding.
As a condition of withdrawing their objections, they required that their bonds should be purchased at considerably more than their minimal market value. To resolve the issue, a number of private individuals contributed money to purchase the bonds and the order was eventually made in June 1996.
In that example, the current system was used to hold to ransom a public project of considerable local economic significance. The situation would not have arisen if the Secretary of State had had the power to consider their objections by means of written representations. The port industry feels strongly that the present position is unsatisfactory and that the Harbours Act 1964 requires amendment. I understand that there is no proposal to include in the next parliamentary Session a transport Bill that could be a suitable vehicle for such an amendment. I also understand that officials have given no indication of when parliamentary time could be found for a government Bill to achieve this. Hence this Bill tonight.
The Bill would bring the procedure for the making of harbour orders into line with the procedures for the making of highways or transport and works orders. The Secretary of State would retain a discretion to hold public inquiries in all cases. Where an objection was made by a relevant local authority or by a person whose land was proposed to be compulsorily acquired and who requested a hearing, the Secretary of State would be required to hold either a public inquiry or a public hearing. In other cases, the Secretary of State would have the discretion, instead of holding a public inquiry or public hearing, to deal with the objection by written representations.
Neither the Highways Acts nor the Transport and Works Act 1992 expressly provide that, where objections have been made and sustained and where the Secretary of State has decided to proceed without an inquiry or hearing, he must deal with those objections by means of written representations. However, both- those Acts provide that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State must consider those objections. As a matter of practice, the Secretary of State will consider any further written representations made by the objectors and the applicant to the order when those representations are volunteered or made at his invitation. A similar procedure for written representations would follow on the enactment of the Bill when read with paragraph
916
19(1)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964, which provides that the Secretary of State must consider any objections which are made and not withdrawn.
On the matter of consultation, the RSPB generally supports the Bill, which is most welcome. Its briefing states:
"The RSPB has no objection to mounting strong opposition to port development proposals where we believe that the environmental damage which they will cause cannot be justified, but equally we have no wish to see unnecessary constraints and costs imposed upon the ports industry. That is why we support the Harbours Bill".
The ports authorities welcome that objective view from the RSPB.
Before closing, there are two matters that I should mention. First, the Bill is consistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, because it will apply similar measures to other legislation. In the case of a landowner whose land is to be subject to compulsory acquisition by means of a harbour order, his right to require a public inquiry will be maintained.
Secondly, the Bill would appear to extend to Scotland. However, that cannot be so. After the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, harbour matters in Scotland, such as the subject matter of this Bill, no longer fall within the competence of the Westminster Parliament but must be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, an amendment will be proposed in Committee to make it clear that the Bill does not extend to Scotland.
In conclusion, if the Bill is enacted, it will enable the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in appropriate circumstances to speed up the process for making orders under the Harbours Act. It will reduce red tape and will be welcomed by the ports industry. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Berkeley.)
9.17 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the aims behind this admirably short Bill. I should declare an interest, having worked as a consultant in the ports business for some 12 years, although I have not worked in any UK port in the past two years. As a result of that work, I am fully aware of the frustrations that some ports have had over the years in relation to objections with their harbour revision orders.
The Bill is concise in its aims and will simplify procedures for ports. I hope that its use of alternative ways in which to deal with objections, through public hearings or written representations, will get round the ridiculous situation of having to have enormously costly and lengthy inquiries for even one objector.
I recall that some years ago, with another Bill relating to ports, the objections came more from another place. That Bill was held up for a considerable

917
time by Members filibustering in another place all night and even, at one stage, imitating bird calls to each other.
As the noble Lord said, Felixstowe is a major container port. It has been extremely successful, but it might not have been as successful if your Lordships had not thrown out a Bill in 1979 which would have brought it into the dock labour scheme. It survived without union labour and went from strength to strength. Your Lordships played some part in the success of Felixstowe.
The trade associations in the port industry are very much behind the Bill. I wish it well and sincerely hope that the Government give it a fair wind.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support the Bill. I think that it is a useful and necessary deregulatory move and am pleased to associate these Benches with it. The opportunities available to objectors of a minor nature, or who simply use various ruses to delay very necessary works after exhausting the normal democratic channels, need to be expunged as much as possible from the statute book. Very many schemes, not just in ports, suffer from the problem.
I am pleased to support the Bill and will support other moves to allow the overruling of individuals or small groups of objectors to harbours and other schemes that have clear public benefits and have gone through the normal democratic channels.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for sponsoring the Bill on behalf of the British Ports Authority and the United Kingdom Major Ports Group. As he said, the aim of the Bill is to streamline procedures for handling objections to orders concerning harbour works. It is a technical measure designed to give the Secretary of State more discretion in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry when objections to a particular scheme are made, or whether to allow a hearing or receive written representations instead.
The Bill is designed to bring harbour procedures into line with more recent arrangements under the planning system, namely the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Those allow hearings and written representations as alternatives to a public inquiry. That avoids unnecessary formality and expense, unless of course the Secretary of State feels a public inquiry to be the appropriate way forward. Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether the Government believe that the proposed changes in the Bill are likely to be compatible with the forthcoming planning Bill.
I have a few more questions for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the RSPB is happy with the Bill as it stands. Have any other agencies concerned with the environment expressed views on the Bill? I am
918
thinking of CCW, CADW and English Nature. As I am sure that the Minister is aware, environmental issues affecting estuaries and harbours have been the cause of great concern in the recent past. I would like to be reassured that they will always be taken into account when harbour orders are in contemplation.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, indicate that he is aware of the position with regards to Scotland. As the Scottish Parliament now has responsibility for these matters, is the Scottish Parliament about to introduce a Bill to bring the situation there into line with the one that will prevail in England and Wales when this Bill is passed?
We on these Benches believe that the Bill is sensible and will make procedures for harbour orders more efficient and probably more cost effective. We therefore support it.
9.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on introducing this modest Bill and on the universal approval that he has gained for it. The Government support the Bill's objective. That objective is to streamline the procedure for handling objections to harbour orders. It is a simple technical measure which will bring harbour order procedures into line with more recent arrangements—for example, under the planning system.
Harbours in this country are managed by harbour authorities, which act as statutory undertakers, with powers conferred originally by private Acts of Parliament. The powers have been used to authorise the original construction of the port and to enable the harbour authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of its facilities. Harbour authorities are, of course, subject to a body of general legislation but their local powers remain important to the operation of our ports.
The harbour authorities need to be able to revise their powers from time to time to keep them up to date and to meet new needs. It may be appropriate to change the constitution of a harbour authority, or to move the harbour limit, or to update the powers it has to make by-laws and other local regulations.
New powers are also needed to authorise harbour works—mainly because works in tidal waters interfere with rights of navigation; and because the authority's regulatory powers have to be statutorily extended to any new facilities. A harbour empowerment order is occasionally proposed to create a new harbour authority.
Until 1964, a harbour authority's statutory powers could be revised only by private Act. The Harbours Act 1964 created a procedure to make harbour orders. These are statutory instruments made by the Department for Transport. The 1964 Act may have seemed modern in its day, but it has been overtaken on best procedural practice—notably by the Transport and Works Act 1992. This Bill would bring it up to date.

919
The procedure for making a harbour order begins with an application from the harbour authority, or would-be harbour authority in the case of an empowerment order. Applications are advertised so that people have a chance to object or make representations. That is important, particularly in the light of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, as to who has been consulted. It is entirely right that there should he this opportunity; and that it should be accessible.
The 1964 Act makes provision for a public inquiry. It states that an inquiry has to be held if there is just one outstanding objection, unless that objection is frivolous or trivial.
Inquiries are, however, disproportionate in some cases. Harbour authorities can be deterred from making changes by the delay, uncertainty and cost. It is hard to plan a proposal without knowing whether just one objection might lead to an inquiry.
Inquiries are inaccessible to some objectors—especially ordinary members of t he public, who would often find a hearing or written representations less daunting. Only highly organised and well resourced objectors can afford expert representation—although that is not always a good use of their funds. If the promoter is a large enterprise, there is a risk of lack of balance in the way opposing cases are presented. Even when objectors are well resourced and able to afford representation, it is not necessarily a good use of their money.
The Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act allow hearings and written representations as an alternative to an inquiry. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this does not always work as quickly, efficiently and fairly as it should do. But these procedures give objectors a full right to be properly heard, but without the formality and expense of an inquiry where that is not appropriate. I am pleased to see that the Bill preserves the right to an inquiry where land is compulsorily acquired or when the objector is a relevant local authority. That is what the Transport and Works Act does. It is very important in terms of satisfying the Human Rights Act.
A preliminary regulatory impact assessment shows that the change would cost nothing and would benefit ports (and objectors) of all sizes. We now have to move with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to work up a full regulatory impact assessment and, from that, move on to a wider consultation exercise—not with the objective of delaying matters but because there are other bodies apart from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which may have a general interest in these matters. A wider consultation exercise would include the bodies to which he referred.
920
I can assure the House that the Secretary of State would not use the new discretion to avoid inquiries where they need to be held. There are plenty of precedents from the planning system to guide us on when discretion should be exercised. I see no reason why the proposed planning Bill should make any change to that or cause any difficulty.
So far as concerns Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has made it clear that he will withdraw any potential references to Scotland. I do not know what the Scottish Executive will seek to do and. strictly speaking, it is not for me to answer. But we recognise that the Bill would make a useful contribution to our policy of streamlining planning and related procedures, and we wish the Bill well.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and welcomed the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for his demonstration of government support which is most welcome.
I shall not be drawn into discussing the dock labour scheme at Felixstowe of some 25 years ago. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that people may delay projects. Nevertheless, consultation is still necessary.
I cannot comment on the Transport and Works Act 1992 as regards Scotland, but certainly it does not apply to railways in Scotland, and I do not think that it applies to anything else. If one wants a railway in England, one usually builds it according to the provisions of the Transport and Works Act. However, in Scotland the first private railway Bill has been introduced for the Stirling and Menstrie line. l think I am correct in that regard. However, as I said in my opening speech, I intend to table an amendment to remove any reference to Scotland for the reasons I gave.
I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the regulatory impact assessment and the fact that the Government are moving quickly towards a full assessment. I certainly agree that there needs to be wide consultation with the organisations that will be interested in the matter and will wish to participate, along with the ports bodies, in consultation to ensure that everyone agrees that the Bill is worth pursuing. As I say, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords who have spoken. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia
  Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia
  Criminal Records Bureau: Unpublished Information
  Criminal Records Bureau: Unpublished Information
  Race Equality Strategy
  Race Equality Strategy
  Affordable Housing Schemes
  Affordable Housing Schemes
  Service Personnel: Vaccination
  Service Personnel: Vaccination
  Defence Medical Services: Blood Stocks
  Defence Medical Services: Blood Stocks
  Titan and Trojan
  Titan and Trojan
  Defence Research Programme
  Defence Research Programme
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Mathematics Education
  Mathematics Education
  Learndirect
  Learndirect
  Connexions
  Connexions
  NHS Trusts: Standards
  NHS Trusts: Standards
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Health Protection Agency
  Health Protection Agency
  Ovarian Hyperstimulation
  Ovarian Hyperstimulation
  Mattresses: Medical Devices Regulations 2002
  Mattresses: Medical Devices Regulations 2002
  P C and S v The United Kingdom
  P C and S v The United Kingdom
  Multiple Sclerosis: Beta Interferon
  Multiple Sclerosis: Beta Interferon
  Coronary Heart Disease: Drug Eluting Stents
  Coronary Heart Disease: Drug Eluting Stents
  Crisis: Public Information
  Crisis: Public Information
  Northern Ireland Arts Council Funding
  Northern Ireland Arts Council Funding